This is why I hate the blogosphere: The Polipundit Purge
I am stunned. Lorie Byrd:
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.”
You know what? I know I’m a control freak about the content at this blog–John, Martin, and Vinnie will be the first to tell you about that, with my 11th Commandment thing–but we’re pretty much on the same page anyway. But if you’ve seen the fever swamp that is Polipundit lately, you probably agree that Lorie has been a desperately needed voice of reason there. I really think that with this whole stupid immigration issue, those who haven’t been harsh in our rhetoric have been mischaracterized as “soft” on the issue, and Lorie is no exception. She actually agrees with Polipundit on the basic points, but she’s not Bush-deranged like he is.
Take heart, Lorie. It’s his loss, and everyone knows it. To be blunt–I don’t see ANYONE asking the nameless Polipundit to write columns for Townhall, fill in for Michelle Malkin, be suggested as the new Washington Post blogger, or any of the other accomplishments you’ve had. There’s not a blogger to be found from right of center–and probably quite a few from the other side, even–who wouldn’t love to have her on board, myself included.
This is exactly the kind of nonsense that makes me hate the blogosphere, though. Once again, extremism dominates. To quote in inimitable Walter Sobchak, “These guys are a bunch of farkin’ amateurs.” You can’t be pragmatic or reasonable without either taking heat for it (about which I couldn’t care less) or being mischaracterized. Color me unsurprised.
I know I’m breaking my own rule about slagging other bloggers (other than D.S.) on the right individually, but this is ridiculous. Lorie Byrd has better things in her future than hanging out with kooks.
F.E.T.E.
Update (already): Well, I just made my last trip to Polipundit. He’s revoked posting privileges from the others too. I’ve got others here too–Martin, John, and Vinnie (as well as others on occasion)–so I do understand the desire for a relatively cohesive message, but DAMN, not bashing the other bloggers and all those with whom they share opinions. What an infant!
Jay Tea pretty much says what I think in this comment.
I don’t think Alexander McClure and Jayson have blogs (yet), but DJ Drummond has Stolen Thunder. Add it to your blogroll too.
Others on this:
- HAHAHAAA!!!
- Consider this my position, word for word. Thanks, Anchoress; you saved me at least an hour of fumbling around looking for the right words.
UPDATE 2:
What’s it say about a blogger when he disallows opposing views, but allows comments saying:
I admire the President on most things but am consumed with rage about this wetback crap.
Comment by mnw | Email | 5/16/2006 - 11:29 am
This isn’t an isolated incident there, either–there have been several other commenters making similar remarks in other threads.
Martin says:
Groupthink!
Our side has LOST. THE. FARKING. PLOT.
Postmodern Pundit says:
DJ has announced in the comment thread of Polipundit’s latest sad explanatory post that he is leaving as well. Posting privileges revoked, he had no other means by which to say good-bye.
This is genuinely pathetic.
beautifulatrocities says:
Gad, it’s Schiavo all over again. I’m definitely taking him off my blogroll. Oh wait - he was never there
chez Diva » Moonbats Can Now Be Relieved… says:
[...] UPDATE on illegal immigration issue - this is not directly related to the speech last night but it’s definately related to the insanity that the illegal immigration “one issue” mentality has become. A blogger, Lorie Byrd, who used to be a prominent voice at polipundit has been given her walking papers because she doesn’t agree with the blog’s owner on the issue of illegal immigration and President Bush’s approach to solving the problem. I can’t fault the blog owner for doing what he wants with is blog, its his property after all but she did agree with him on almost every single issue except this one. Here I thought that the Democratic party was headed for a seismic earth shattering split and sadly it appears that the political earthquake is happening within the Republican party. Permalink TrackBack [...]
Right Wing Nation » Blog Archive » Pathetic says:
[...] Hat tip to Beth. [...]
tommy says:
I looked around Polipundit’s site and looked at several of the recent posts involving immigration. Other than the single comment by this “mnw” and somebody else condemning him for it, I didn’t see any other use of the term “wetback” on the site.
I also want to say that that a few of the complaints about the word “wetback” have come from people like the Anchoress who clearly don’t know what they are talking about. She mentions “Operation Wetback” and is mad people use the term. “Operation Wetback” was the name of a very effective nationwide anti-immigration operation back during the 60s, when this term wasn’t construed as being racist or un-PC. She seems to imply that referring to it is somehow racist. She clearly doesn’t read very carefully for context.
tommy says:
I take that back. It wasn’t the Anchoress who was upset, it was one of her goofball commenters. LoL!
Common Sense Runs Wild » Blogroll Additions says:
[...] Links via Beth at MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. [...]
Beth says:
Obviously, you don’t understand what’s a racist comment and what isn’t. It’s not just “wetback.”
DO NOT slag the Anchoress or any other of my friends here. She DOES know what the fuck she’s talking about.
Frankly, Tommy, I don’t know why you still hang around here just to comment upon what I say about immigration. You aren’t going to change my mind no matter how many comments you leave here. It takes more than one person’s blog comments to sway me, and more than links to the Heritage Foundation’s position papers. There are plenty of other position papers I could point YOU to, as well. Would that change your mind?
Give it a rest. It’s starting to get irritating. You are just going to have to deal with the fact that I am not as extremist as you are on this issue, and stop farking mischaracterizing everyone you don’t agree with.
Is there ANY other reason why you’re here? You said before you agree with everything ELSE–so can’t you agree to disagree and respect the fact that I have my opinion, and that I’m not so mush-brained that I get my opinions from opinions written on the internet?
Beth says:
And by the way, I’m sure there was a time when the word “nigger” wasn’t considered racist. Does that make it OK?
“Operation Wetback” was the name of a very effective nationwide anti-immigration operation
If it had been PRO-immigration, I might consider it as not being racist. It wasn’t, so I call bullshi’ite on that. It doesn’t matter, anyway, if it was or wasn’t considered a slur then (as far back as I can remember it HAS been, and I remember at least as far back as the very early 70s). Remember, there was a lot of racism back in the 60s; it was commonplace.
* * * * *
Edited to add:
Operation Wetback was in 1954.
Note that also in 1954, school segregation, separate drinking fountains and bathrooms, sitting at the back of the bus, etc. wasn’t considered “racist or un-PC.”
And you say the Anchoress doesn’t know what she’s talking about?
Spare me the “PC” crap. I don’t do “PC” either, but that doesn’t mean I appreciate racism. I don’t even mind off-color jokes, because I can take jokes about women or southerners myself. This shi’ite is NOT a joke.
tommy says:
OK. Mrs. Polipundit. I’m leaving now.
Beth says:
Whatever. I don’t tolerate racism, so I’m Polipundit now.
Nevermind the fact I said “agree to disagree” on this one issue. Whatever. :roll:
Brad S says:
Hey, Beth. Just got back from reading the good Anchoress, as you said.
I wonder if Polipundit, and the rest of the blogosphere, fully understands that the one person who benefits from the blogswarms and the media/blogosphere back-and-forth is…GEORGE W BUSH:mrgreen:
All Dubya has to do, and it sounds like he’s just about there already with this immigration issue, is let everyone burn their voices out. He then takes over from there. You have to admire a politician that is more than willing to run his poll numbers into the ground, so that he can see his policy decisions through.
a4g says:
The very people that excoriate W today over these daily OUTRAGES!® will line up twenty deep just to glance the black flash of the motorcade carrying his body upon the sad day of his passing.
It will be Reagan x 3 when we say goodbye to this man who we may have disagreed with– sometimes vehemently– but who was an extraordinary rock in a sea of roiling foam and froth.
He is a one of a kind President and a one of a kind man.
All this rancor only adds to his greatness.
Rick Moran says:
Bunch of drama queens the lot of them.
Well…not Lorie of course. But I rarely read anything that Polipundit writes anyway - most of the time the good stuff was from Lorie and DJ.
I am amazed at the vitriol hurled against Bush on this issue from the right. It is beyond reason, beyond understanding. I actually thought the speech wasn’t half bad - in a venue that Bush usually doesn’t do well. He hit some nice notes and made some reasonable concessions to the right.
But I think part of this is being driven by Tancredo who really wants to ride this issue to the White House and the in bred mouthbreathers who want to put 11 million people in concentration camps. Because you just can’t load people in a bus and send them back - you have to give them a hearing. We’d be warehousing illegals for years before they could go before a judge.
Time to move on and stop throwing tantrums every time Bush does something we don’t like.
The Random Yak says:
Heh. My code word for posting was “wimp.” Which pretty much derails and sums up my feelings for polipundit all in one.
Beautiful atrocities also echoes my sentiments: “Let’s get him off the…oh, wait…he was never there to begin with.”
I blog with a partner, too - and though we have thus far seen eye to shaggy eye on the issues, I accept the possibility that at some point our views may diverge. But freedom of speech is more important to me than marching in lockstep, and when and if disparities emerge I’ll address them head on (and civilly, thank you). Divergent opinions lead to open discussion and important discourse. If we begin to censor those who disagree with us we are no better than the barking moonbat patrol we so frequently deride.
Yes, I understand wanting a uniform message on a blog. But the way to deal with that is not laying down an editorial policy (in secret) that says “okay, you must agree with me or shut up on this issue, and while you’re at it don’t tell anyone what was said here.” That’s disingenuous at best. Make a public announcement that editorial policy has changed and we can respect it. Make a public announcement that you’ve decided to end guest blogging and convert back to a one-man blog. I can respect that too - whether or not you make your reasons public. But don’t do this behind-the-back emailing and expect it not to be posted or discussed by the people you’re telling to stop disagreeing with you. That’s not appropriate.
Diva says:
My code was HOPE - I HOPE that what Rick said
“Time to move on and stop throwing tantrums every time Bush does something we don’t like.”
becomes a reality because I am sick to death of hearing normally rational adults getting their undies all twisted up on this one issue. Staying away on election day and threats of impeachment because GWB dares to compromise on a political hot potato issue that landed in his hands - that’s simply insane. Really - NOTHING - I mean NOTHING that GWB does can be worse than the what we as a nation will get if Republicans and conservatives don’t stick together - can you say John Kerry, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy all in postions of power - Can you just imagine what they will try to ram through congress and I shudder at the thought of what would happen to our National Security in their hands.
Martin says:
I was going to mention I thought Slayer are Godawful.
Beth says:
THAT DOES IT, GODDAMMIT! I’m taking away everyone’s keys! Nobody slags Slayer at THIS blog!!!!!
:mrgreen:
/only hippies hate Slayer
Beth says:
But I think part of this is being driven by Tancredo who really wants to ride this issue to the White House and the in bred mouthbreathers who want to put 11 million people in concentration camps.
HA! Isn’t that the truth! He should be ashamed of some of his supporters, but I guess it’s all about numbers.
Janette says:
My code word was “BLOW”. Hm.
Anyway I missed the “wetback crap” thing the first time. Hell if I were Lorie I would have been tempted to burn the place down before I left. Of course that may be why PoliPundit took the keys away. Any assertion that “wetback” isn’t racial slur IS crap.
You were far more gracious about the “history lesson” that you received than I would have been.
Der Tommissar says:
Tommy said:
She seems to imply that referring to it is somehow racist. She clearly doesn’t read very carefully for context.
And then, Tommy said:
I take that back. It wasn’t the Anchoress who was upset, it was one of her goofball commenters. LoL!
Thus sayeth Der Tommissar:
Tommy, you might want to practice reading very carefully for context. I’m just saying.
And for the record, my anti-spam verification work was “goof”. How apt!
Redhead Infidel says:
“in bred mouthbreathers who want to put 11 million people in concentration camps”
Wow, Rick. I hadn’t heard about those concentration camp plans. Can you point me to someone who has called for concentration camps? This could be HUGE. Wow.
Rick Moran says:
Red:
Where are we going to put them? Central Park? What’s left of the Superdome?
Otherwise, we have “catch and release” which I’m sure you agree with, right?
I’ve read blogs that say we could solve the problem in 5 years - yeah sure -with about 10,000 more immigration judges.
Face the practicality of the position that we should kick all illegals out of the country as soon as possible. After we round them up, where do we put them between the time they’re caught and the time they first go before a judge?
Maybe we could hypnotize them all and put them to sleep for 10 years.
Redhead Infidel says:
OK, I’ve lost my damn comment twice now. Must be because I’m a drooling mouthbreather.
Anyways…
I’m about as deep into this issue as anyone out there, and I haven’t heard anyone propose mass deportations. If you have, then you are privy to information I’m not. If you haven’t, Rick, then it’s a straw man.
We have to start somewhere. Close the border first to stop the swelling tsunami of humanity from flowing over the border. Then, enforce the immigration laws without appeal. A funny thing happens when people think they may actually face consequences for a crime - they remove themselves from the risk. Such a strange phenomenon.
After 9/11, we cracked down on illegal Middle Easterners. In one month, we deported 3,000 illegal Pakistanis, and five times that many deported themselves. Enforcement works.
Only after the border is closed, and we negate the possibility of amnesty, and we get serious about enforcement, can we look at follow-on reform measures.
First, deport every last illegal criminal in our prisons back to their country of origin. There’s no reason we should have to pay for their upkeep. They’ve already harmed our society - get rid of ‘em.
Then, remove all entitlements from illegals, crack down on employers to remove the job incentive, reduce legal immigration levels, etc., etc. It can be done - we just have to start somewhere. Bush’s plan for amnesty and a paltry half-measures on the border doesn’t even get close to starting.
On a personal note: I thought you wanted to find middle ground, bridge the gap, per se. You won’t get very far by throwing around emotionally-charged terms like “concentration camps”.
Oh yeah, it probably doesn’t help to call your fellow conservatives names either. For what it’s worth - just two cents from an inbred motuhbreather, pardon my drool…