WSJ'S Effete Editorialists

I had been wondering if the Wall Street Journal could be any more out of touch with rank and file Republicans than they have been over the current amnesty bill. No sense in wondering. The answer is clear. No:

That's true most immediately for Presidential hopefuls like Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson, who continue to assail the bill as "amnesty." No doubt this gets applause in some Republican precincts. But in the near term, meaning through 2008, Republicans would be far better off helping President Bush and John McCain pass something that takes immigration off the table. If the issue remains central to the 2008 debate, it will divide the GOP and the media will play up the split. Given the passions that immigration evokes on the right in particular, the issue could easily drown out other domestic policy messages the candidates would prefer to run on.

*********

Notwithstanding the small but loud segment of the GOP base preoccupied with the issue, hostility to immigration has never been a political winner. Like trade protection, people protectionism always polls better in telephone surveys than on Election Day. For a Presidential candidate especially, it sends a negative message rather than one of optimistic leadership. If GOP candidates can't support Mr. Bush and Senator Jon Kyl on immigration, they should at least avoid the kind of demagoguery that will hurt their party for years to come.

Their editorial is entitled Immigration and the GOP - How to make Republicans a minority party once again. Allow me to retort.

Question: How to make Republicans a minority party once again?
Answer: The President and the Kennedy Republicans just did.

Mark Levin won't let them off the hook:

What drives the editorial writers at the Journal is their insatiable demand, on behalf of their advertisers, for sweat-shop conditions and slave wages. For they know that the Department of Homeland Security and ICE, and the INS before them, are incapable of enforcing the vast array of new provisions in the proposed comprehensive amnesty bill. Indeed, they’re counting on it. Since 1965, the government has promised the public border security in exchange for amnesty.

Today’s Journal writers aren’t as honest as their predecessors. They deny this bill provides for amnesty. In the past, they would have proudly proclaimed it. Today’s Journal writers take refuge in the anonymity of the editorial page as they assassinate the character of those with whom they disagree. Apparently, those who insist on enforcing the law are racists. Those who insist that the government fulfill its obligation to secure the border and punish businesses that hire illegal aliens are anti-Hispanic.

What causes a usually intelligent collection of writers to become so emotionally untethered? They refuse to debate National Review editors. They reject the late Dr. Milton Friedman’s opposition to open-borders in an entitlement society. Friedman was our nation’s foremost libertarian economist. They denigrate the positions held by William F. Buckley, a founder of modern conservatism, and Ed Meese, one of conservatism’s leading constitutional scholars and originalists. They distort statistics in a vain attempt to counter the Heritage Foundation’s research — the premiere conservative think tank.