Mark Krikorian takes a trip. . .
. . .behind the woodshed today at The Corner. Both Roger Clegg and John J. Miller give him a long overdue spanking for taking liberties with facts and basically being a jerk.
I can only assume that Clegg and Miller probably have a better overall view of Krikorian and his influence on the immigration debate than I do. So, I won't try to make the case that people are finally "catching on" to his noxious presence. As I've said before, conservatives can have good faith disagreements on immigration policy. It is not an issue that is dispositive of one's political leanings depending upon which side you come down.
But, I do have to say it's refreshing to see that I'm not the only one who grown weary of the rhetorical thuggery of Krikorian and his ilk. With help from Michelle Malkin, Michael Savage, and other fire-breathing border hawks, Krikorian and his minions have turned immigration policy into, essentially, the Brown Scare. To my undying delight, Miller and Clegg seem to have decided that the time has finally come for less strident conservatives to push back against the hyper-accusatory tone of those who have dominated the immigration debate on the right for the past few years.
In fact, the most irksome component of the immigration debate, particularly over the past couple of years, hasn't been the government's lack of spinal steel in dealing with the issue, or the fact that the most recent attempt to address the issue crumbled under the weight of the manufactured outrage of groups like NumbersUSA and the Center for Immigration Studies. What rankles is the fact that these monomaniacal howler monkeys have deemed themselves fit to make pronouncements on not just the conservatism of those on the right who counsel a more patient response to the problem, but on their very Americanism.
I truly hope that Miller and Clegg are just the beginning of a wide-ranging phenomenon of committed conservatives in beating back this scurrilous attempt to browbeat people with honest disagreements with the single-issue border fanatics into meekly bowing to their demagoguery and intimidation. The need for this should be plain to all in the wake of Tom Tancredo's disgraceful attack on Pope Benedict XVI for merely reaffirming the Catholic church's long-held position that all people, regardless of immigration status, are entitled to the compassion of their fellow man.
As I was writing this, Kathryn Jean Lopez has interceded to suggest some restraint between the combatants, reminding them that conservatives on both sides of the issues "have a lot more in common than continuing resentments might suggest." She is, of course, right. But, it strikes me that the person most in need of that bit of caution is the person who initiated the turmoil by lashing out at a fellow conservative, Linda Chavez. And that person has been in need of such counsel for some time now.
Oddly enough, this all started with Andy McCarthy's flamboyant displays of grievance over the silly notion that the State Department is trying to silence his (and everyone else's) use of the word "jihad" in discussing islamic terrorism, which caught my eye a couple of weeks ago. How fitting is it that those who are angry at the very idea that someone would suggest a more strategic use of rhetoric would engage in such overheated rhetoric to decry those who make the suggestion?
I can only assume that Clegg and Miller probably have a better overall view of Krikorian and his influence on the immigration debate than I do. So, I won't try to make the case that people are finally "catching on" to his noxious presence. As I've said before, conservatives can have good faith disagreements on immigration policy. It is not an issue that is dispositive of one's political leanings depending upon which side you come down.
But, I do have to say it's refreshing to see that I'm not the only one who grown weary of the rhetorical thuggery of Krikorian and his ilk. With help from Michelle Malkin, Michael Savage, and other fire-breathing border hawks, Krikorian and his minions have turned immigration policy into, essentially, the Brown Scare. To my undying delight, Miller and Clegg seem to have decided that the time has finally come for less strident conservatives to push back against the hyper-accusatory tone of those who have dominated the immigration debate on the right for the past few years.
In fact, the most irksome component of the immigration debate, particularly over the past couple of years, hasn't been the government's lack of spinal steel in dealing with the issue, or the fact that the most recent attempt to address the issue crumbled under the weight of the manufactured outrage of groups like NumbersUSA and the Center for Immigration Studies. What rankles is the fact that these monomaniacal howler monkeys have deemed themselves fit to make pronouncements on not just the conservatism of those on the right who counsel a more patient response to the problem, but on their very Americanism.
I truly hope that Miller and Clegg are just the beginning of a wide-ranging phenomenon of committed conservatives in beating back this scurrilous attempt to browbeat people with honest disagreements with the single-issue border fanatics into meekly bowing to their demagoguery and intimidation. The need for this should be plain to all in the wake of Tom Tancredo's disgraceful attack on Pope Benedict XVI for merely reaffirming the Catholic church's long-held position that all people, regardless of immigration status, are entitled to the compassion of their fellow man.
As I was writing this, Kathryn Jean Lopez has interceded to suggest some restraint between the combatants, reminding them that conservatives on both sides of the issues "have a lot more in common than continuing resentments might suggest." She is, of course, right. But, it strikes me that the person most in need of that bit of caution is the person who initiated the turmoil by lashing out at a fellow conservative, Linda Chavez. And that person has been in need of such counsel for some time now.
Oddly enough, this all started with Andy McCarthy's flamboyant displays of grievance over the silly notion that the State Department is trying to silence his (and everyone else's) use of the word "jihad" in discussing islamic terrorism, which caught my eye a couple of weeks ago. How fitting is it that those who are angry at the very idea that someone would suggest a more strategic use of rhetoric would engage in such overheated rhetoric to decry those who make the suggestion?
posted by MsFalconersCabanaBoy @ 3:15 PM
<< Home