Meltdown in Progress
Some of you guys, and I thank you for it, have offered to pitch in and help me out by guestblogging. I have decided against it for now (at this blog – though I have a second project in the works, and it may be more open to multiple authors). PoliPundit’s meltdown in progress is a good example of why – the best of friends can become enemies over stupid political issues.
Now to be clear, I like everyone at PoliPundit – they’ve all been kind to this blog and all (well, almost all) have linked to me at one time or another. A few highlights will show how badly things have gotten out of perspective:
…[B]y taking his policy directly to the people, El Presidente is about to learn just how unpopular it is. Putting the face of George Bush on his suicidal immigration “reform” plan will galvanize core Democrat constituencies who’ve been silent thus far – African-Americans, unions, Kossacks. All these people are deeply suspicious of El Presidente and will therefore focus on the ways in which his immigration policy will hurt them…PoliPundit
El Presidente is speaking now, and every word coming out of his mouth is a lie. He is trying to bait-and-switch us yahoos into buying an unprecedented sell-out of America to Mexico….PoliPundit
If you think that is amnesty, then you are either a moron or a liar. If you ar[sic] truly a Republican to begin with, if you are truly a conservative, then you will applaud this speech and support the reforms he has articulated. Otherwise, you are not a Republican. You are not a conservative. You are a LIAR. A LIAR…Alexander McClure
Then, the bombshell from Lorie Byrd:
The fact is that I believe this is the last time I will be blogging at Polipundit.
I received a lengthy email from Polipundit tonight alerting us to an editorial policy change that included the following: “From now on, every blogger at PoliPundit.com will either agree with me completely on the immigration issue, or not blog at PoliPundit.com.” I would provide additional context, but Polipundit has asked that the contents of our emails not be disclosed publicly and I think that is a fair request. There has been plenty written in the posts over the past week alone to let readers figure out what happened. Polipundit ended a later email with this: “It’s over. The group-blogging experiment was nice while it lasted, but we have different priorities now. It’s time to go our own separate ways.”
Then, PoliPundit, with the last word for now:
The blog has focused on various issues, but one issue on which I cannot give in to the elites is illegal immigration. On that, this blog’s position must be clear, not ambivalent. As a legal immigrant, I feel very, very, strongly about this. Back in 2004, I nearly withdrew my support for Bush’s re-election when he came out with his suicidal immigration “reform” plan.
So far, I’ve allowed the guest bloggers here to write pretty much what they pleased about all issues, including illegal immigration.
But on the illegal immigration issue, I now find myself having to contend with at least three out of four guest bloggers who will reflexively try to poke holes in any argument I make.
Suppose three out of four columnists at the Old York Times were pro-Republican. You can bet publisher “Pinch” Sulzberger would do something about that right quick.
Suppose a Bush administration official came out openly against amnesty. The Bushies would show him the door.
Similarly, the writers at PoliPundit.com need to respect the editorial position of PoliPundit.com on the most important issue to this blog, as the “publisher” sees it – illegal immigration.
I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions…more later, perhaps…
The difference to keep in mind, Mark, is you don’t seem to have the megalomaniacal attitude that seems to have infected Polipundit.
He’s certainly within his rights, but it doesn’t make the temper tantrum any more attractive. I dropped Polipundit from my favorites list a while ago when the El Presidente rhetoric became indistinguishable from the more fevered bleatings at Kos.
Well, thanks, Dennis, and I’d like to thank I could avoid ‘my way or the highway’ rhetoric. I hope I can get my other project up and going quickly, so maybe I can open it up to others…though maybe not with direct posting privileges at first, but rather through submissions that I would review, edit (without changing meaning – just for grammar and such), and post under the author’s name…first things, first, though, I’m a ways away – more if and when I get it off the ground…
I don’t see you going down that particular road, Mark. You’re have too much integrity – and self – awareness.
Many thanks…it helps that I have such intelligent readers!…
I’m really very shocked by Polipundit’s move since I take it as an article of faith that good speech drives out bad. If he’s so sure of his position, he should debate it.
This is why I’ll never take on a partner. Polipundit’s (the blog) popularity grew because guest bloggers kept the site continuously fresh. Watch for the steady decline now.
This is a comment I posted elsewhere, but it sums up the situation as I see it.
I think it is more accurate to say that it is the tone of the disagreement more than the issue of immigration that has caused the problems at Polipundit. It is ironic that I agree with Polipundit on the issue, yet it is HIS tone that has made me uncomfortable. I have always argued that conservatives were more willing than liberals to discuss an issue based on facts rather than emotion because we felt comfortable we had the facts on our side. As Polipundit has resorted more and more to inflated rhetoric, my respect for him, and my interest in his opinion, has waned. I understand feeling passionate about certain political issues. In my experience, however, the more emotional and heated one becomes in a political discussion, the less persuasive the argument. If Polipundit is so confident in the ultimate truth of his take on immigration, then he should stop calling the President “El Presidente”(among other things), encourage dissent on his site, and convince others of his view through sober, rational debate. That he seems incapable of this approach undermines his arguments, and I think will result in a smaller audience for his side of the debate. For one, he has lost this regular reader.
Mark, our discussion from last night is more clear to me know after this post. Like Dennis, I can’t stand the “El Presidente” name-calling regardless of whether I agree with the actual position taken or not. Personally, though I’m not happy with a number of his policy choices, after all this president has done and accomplished fighting terrorism and keeping the economy strong, calling him “El Presidente” is flat-out ridiculous and accomplishes nothing except earn you comparisons to Kos.
As I made clear last night, I’m not with the President on this issue and I hope those on the right who likewise disagree with him keep screaming about it. However, what they scream should be based in sound reasoning and wisdom rather than childish name-calling.
There are many choices in the blogosphere, but I keep coming back here precisely because I don’t have to sift through name-calling.
Thanks, Evan, and I hope you keep coming back, we’re glad to have you…
I almost feel sorry for George Bush, as one would think that the fact that both extremes are apoplectic indicates that he is probably doing the right thing. However, I can’t see how you can build a fence along the entirety of two borders, or how it will be paid for. I also wonder how many in the National Guard are available for service, or how they will feel about being in the Arizona desert this summer. The Senate compromise seems to me to be a reasonable compromise, and it’s regrettable that he didn’t simply endorse it.
I don’t know, Peter – given how much we spend each day conducting the governmental side of the country, it just doesn’t strike me as being unrealistic, at least monetarily. If anyone has an actual estimate on the costs involved, I’d be glad to review it (can’t find anything on the web to this effect). Maybe we can ask the Chinese for advice – or the Mongolians.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect a soverign country to be able to protect it’s own borders. Clearly, we have failed enormously in this regard.
Maybe ask the Isrealis? They’re in the fence-building business these days…
Building a wall is a band-aid for the problem. A band-aid without neosporin.
Fix the root problem, people hiring the illegals. Enforce the laws and problem solved. If the illegals have no work, they will not come over as frequently. This, too, requires money, but it’s nothing more than was expected when the laws were passed in the first place…