I really like the WSJ’s editorial page — I don’t know what we’d do without them. ~Andy McCarthy
We might have an honest debate about foreign policy in the Near East?
But they have a nasty, condescending streak when they get on their high horse, as they do with their signature position on immigration.
As opposed to the folks at NR when it comes to discussing the war, since they are never nasty or condescending in the least. Of course, the other problem is that the WSJ editorial page is always on its high horse about this or that, which makes it rather rich when contributors to that page claim to be engaged in something like dispassionate, hyperean contemplation and find the “aggressive” methods of bloggers unpleasant. That is an important part of what I was saying in this post, the irony of which was apparently lost on everybody.
Meanwhile, here is Ponnuru channeling Buchanan:
It may also be that the assimilation of those earlier immigrants was aided by the cutoff in immigration from 1924 to 1965. I think that was almost certainly the case.