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."Here's guest blogger Alexander McClure:
And here's guest blogger DJ Drummond:
I believe we have a duty, as the majority party, to act responsibility, to be worthy of the confidence of the American people. The secret of our success has been our openness, our willing to debate, our eagerness to confront issues, and to create solutions. Unlike our adversaries, we do not engage in the venomous politics of division and hate. Therefore, I believe we should not disparage our President nor distort what he says. As I said in one post several weeks ago, a party of freedom cannot be a party of fear.Because of these beliefs, and because of the the immigration issue, I can no longer participate on this site in my former capacity.
The ‘guest writers’ contributed a lot of good work to the Polipundit site. Being angry at us now would only prevent the appreciation of some very good insights. But to those who think that the site owner somehow owes us anything, I would remind you that we were essentially no-name writers when he gave us the offer to write here; he not only has the right to change the make-up of his site, it’s his duty to do so when he sees it as needed. A coach changes his roster when it is necessary, so much more a site owner whose message needs focus. Poli and I differ on this issue of the Illegals, specifically with regard to the President and the tone of the debate, but we have long agreed on many important issues, and we still have great respect for each other. Even if we can no longer post on the same site, we still serve the same greater cause, for the same reason.So what to make of this? Right off the top, let me state the obvious: it's
But here's the thing: the debate on immigration is not really a debate. It's people with differing opinions calling each other names and questioning each other's motives. The fact is, most people who support building a wall along the Amerexico border are not "racists." And by the same token, Senators who don't march in lockstep with
Well, Sulzberger wouldn't have hired three pro-Republican columnists in the first place, so that's a silly analogy. And what, exactly, does
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 guess as an extension of
But here's a quick piece of unsolicited advice for