National Review Taunts WSJ Editors - Notes Silence, Renews Challenge

[maxparrish]

I suppose the editors of National Review got tired of the drive by swipes from 'business' Republicans and Bush loyalists.

We hereby challenge the Journal’s editors to debate the immigration bill in a neutral venue with a moderator of their choosing — two or three of us versus any two or three of them. We propose to do it in Washington next week so it will have the maximum impact on the Senate’s consideration of the most sweeping immigration reform in decades (time and place to be worked out in a mutually satisfactory fashion).

It shouldn’t be a problem for the Journal’s editors to take up this challenge, since opponents of the bill aren’t “rational” on the question, have no arguments, and are “foaming at the mouth,” as they explained in a videotaped session of one of their editorial meetings last week. Click here (http://link.brightcove.com/services/link/bcpid86195573/bclid212338097/bctid929885105) to watch — you have to see it to believe it.

Who wants to bet the WSJ will run like a scalded dog...

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmVjZDBiM2MwMTk0MjNlMDdjMDI2ZDM2MzE4ZGViOGU=

[Lazarus]

Well there still are some true Conservative Political thinkers who aren't afraid to speak up... This fight is beginning to look a lot like the political battle between the Founding Fathers and King George... Ironic, isnt it, that we are now in the same fight with another King George...

:claps:

[Timberwolf]

That's what I was thinkin', Laz...King George, indeed.

[maxparrish]

They never call, they never write. So far we’ve heard nothing official from the editors of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page. They haven’t contacted us, nor have they posted another videotape from one of their editorial conferences, nor have they written anything in their pages or on the web about our debate challenge.

It’s funny: You almost get the sense they don’t want to debate immigration with us. This is odd, and a little disappointing. Odd because just the other day our friends at the Journal seemed absolutely certain that they could take all comers on the issue, that opponents of the bill had no real arguments for their position.

Gotta love it. It is astounding how so many people can jettison their integrity and act like emotive and factless liberals whenever they are confronted with unwelcome reality. The WSJ thought they could carp and sniff, tut tutting their way through this issue.

I am sure they will respond with some supercilious reply, sounding like a bunch of "consensus" scientists too lofty to debate the heathens.

[omegatrump]

It sure is a King George thing. The outcome in this conflict to be determined.

[DesertFox]

King George is what the Left been calling Bush for years -- among all the other things they've called him.

[maxparrish]

As reported earlier, National Review's editors did not take kindly to being called "irrational" and "foaming at the mouth" by the WSJ editorial staff simply because they questioned Bush's amnesty of illegals. SO NR called out the WSJ's editorial staff asking for a real debate.

Hugh Hewitt jumped in an offered to moderate with M. Medvid. Steve Moore of the WSJ indicated he would be on the WSJ team, and maybe William Bennett could moderate (as reported my M. Makin).

Paul Gigot ended the rumors. The Wall Street Journal has declined, claiming that the WSJ wanted to use the typical FOX TV entertainment oriented format to 'discuss' the issue, but that NR turned it down (NR wants to really debate, not the wimpy half hour entertainment stuff).

As I predicted, the WSJ ran like a scalded dog.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/