Monday, June 19, 2006

Why Republicans Are Better Than Democrats, Reason #10,247

A couple months backwhen the site owner of my old group digs started posting some very incendiary columns which I found unreasonable (and said so), I began receiving some interesting mail. Pretty much, the mail was from people who agreed with me, but wondered why I stuck around at that place, since I was clearly at odds with the site owner. When the site owner reached the decision that his group writers would be shown the door, I received more mail to the tone that the site owner of the old place had really blown his situation, and that I would be reasonable in showing him the back of my hand and basically deliverng a broadside. Without divulging the private communications between us, some of the other group writers were unhappy with the way the site owner addressed the situation, especially as statements were made, by him and by the first person he brought on board to replace us, which were distinctly lacking in accuracy and courtesy. These things happen, of course - even when people do not mean to do so, it is all to easy to say the wrong thing. Anyway, it surprises no one to hear, I am sure, that most of the former group writers have moved on to their new locales, and have not paid much, indeed if any, attention to their old group site. I, being weird, have seen things differently, and it seems to me worthwhile to explain.

First off, I am not deaf and dumb and blind to the things said. Without going into details of little interest outside the circle of people involved, I found that I was blamed for things I could literally never have done, and some of the other former group hosts have been badly insulted, and neither the site owner nor his new guest hosts has corrected these slanders. This is unfortunate and dishonorable of them, and I mention it only because it is why some the previous group hosts at are in no mood to promote the site. On the other side, to the best of my knowledge none of the former group hosts have made any false or defamatory statements against the site owner or any of his new guest hosts. One of our former number has criticized the site and its tone, but not beyond reason or merit.

Anyway, you might think that I would be giving the place a miss. Not at all, for a number of reasons. First off, I admit to a certain curiousity; the place was a home of sorts for two years, and one likes to know how family is getting on. Also, Oak Leaf in particular is - on the whole - an honorable and honest man, who has done a lot to keep the place running and post interesting and informative articles. Also, Oak Leaf has been kind enough to link to me and to certain other sites he finds worthwhile, and this in the face of some derision by his readers, showing a character that deserves respect and attention. I find rather a bit like I do Michelle Malkin or La Shawn Barber’s Corner; there are fascinating articles and I respect the individual, but I cannot in good conscience commend their sites, because all three have disrespected the office and the man of our sitting President. No big deal there, I have all the cumulative political influence of a stray dog, but it still matters to me that I am true to myself.

Anyway, finally getting to the point of this piece, I have seen a lot of mail suggesting I should tell off these sites, and it occurs to me that it is important to measure the response. Michelle Malkin, for example, is dead wrong in the way she disrespects George W. Bush on Immigration, just as others are, but she still makes valid points in other areas, and it is also critically important that we Republicans understand the distinctions. That is, Republicans do not and should not respond to challenges the way Democrats do. George W. Bush deserves much better support and respect than he gets from Republicans, but it is still valid to challenge him when you disagree, especially in a way which moves the debate towards a better result. Democrats tend to either fall behind the leader or shout down ideas; it never occurs to them to work through a matter to reach a functional result. Even the staunchest Conservative was willing to reconsider the possibility that the Iraq War was a mistake, but no leading Democrat has ever been willing to publically consider whether Bush’s decision was right - including many Democrats who actually voted for the war. This is actually typical of Democrats; they never consider that a considered evaluation, even of their opponent, could lead to more productive results. Not to be mean, but this is the same think-lock which killed off the Soviet Politburo - when the five-year plans started failing, they never stepped back and reconsidered other, better, options. Every decision, especially after the death of Breshnev, was all-or-nothing, and they ended up with ‘nothing’. So, annoying as it is to read unwarranted insults lobbed at Dubya from self-proclaimed ‘conservatives’, it is actually a healthy sign for the party. We can listen to our wingnuts, chuckle, and make the right decision. The Democrats listen, it seems, only to their wingnuts moonbats.

UPDATE - I have been advised that the correct technical term for the Left is 'moonbat', not 'wingnut'. Thanks Mark!


Mark L said...

You only have one thing wrong in your whole essay.

Wingnuts are *right* wing wackos.

The left wing equivalent is not a wingnut, it is a *moonbat.*

Other than that, preach on brother.

Anonymous said...

It is disheartening to hear our fellow Conservatives bash the President on a daily basis. We are supposed to be the "adults" in the room. President Bush has offered a lot of positive changes and has always stayed true to himself. I do feel that his own party owes him more support - it's ok to disagree and its ok to write about things the way you want to see them. But,I am offended to see Conservative Pundits call the President names and insinuate that he does not have the best interest of the United States in his heart. This is not working together to influence the way things are going.. this is working to become the conservative "mouth" most critical of the President. It gets you air time - but readers can't be as proud of the comments as they once were. Anne Coulter and Michelle Malkin have great thoughts - it's the vicious delivery that kills the message and prevents it from taking hold. Conservatives don't need Howard Dean wannabees... and that's what many look and sound like to me.

smh10 said...


Good piece but could you please explain one thing if you are so inclined?

How can Oak Leaf be "an honorable
and honest man" when he like Poli allowed the personal attacks against you four to go unanswered. To me this just confirms that site hits are more important than integrity.

I admit I have not and will not return to Polipundit so I am speaking only from what you have posted, but someone who will not challenge others for insulting and slandering innocents will never have my respect.

DJ Drummond said...

It's about emotion.

When I worked as an umpire/referee, I sometimes heard some really nasty stuff directed at me, my partner, or our officiating crew. Some of the people spewing that stuff did so out of the heat of the moment, and would be the first to deny they said what they did, or if it was too obvious that they were the speaker, they quickly tried to move on and ignore the offense.

No, it's not right to do that, but it is a common human failing, and also, it is important to respect what a person does well, especially when we are comparing actions against words. Oak said some things which were frankly dishonorable to him, and how he deals with them is his responsibility and consequence. But that does not mean that someone who has known him for any length of time should throw out the good because of the bad.

smh10 said...


Thanks for the clarification.

I understand that anger is a powerful emotion and one which usually leads to a level of destruction. If Oak Leaf on some level is a friend or acquaintance then I can well understand your inclination to forgive.

I suppose leaving Polipundit for good is easier for those of us who did not have an emotional connection to the owner or many of the commentors.

My only problem with a situation like this is that while there might be a past filled with good, honest and noble, why is it that when the time comes "Sorry seems to be the hardest word." We have all made mistakes and that one simple word makes all the difference in the world. Done privately or publicly it can change the face of just about any situation.

the macker said...

You are setting the right tone. Healthy debate amongst conservatives can indeed advance good ideas, but mindlessly insulting our standardbearer is self defeating and tiresome.

Keep up your thoughtful analyses and you will have more influence for good than the purveyors of vitriol.


Anna said...

Great post, DJ. Even if I disagree with Bush on some of his policies, I don't bash him over it. We are all human after all. Thanks for the insightful post!

obp said...

DJ: I read Polipundit because I liked your analysis of issues. I know that you were teased about being long winded from time to time, but that was what I liked. To read something thoughtful not a sound bite. Thank you.

Mr. Right said...

Classy as always, sir!

Hope you are keeping your feet dry down there in Houston!

Pawnking said...

DJ, I know you are a student of history. I am interested in your perspectives on W.'s second term. As many in America, I am currently reading quite a bit about the 1790s, and Washinton's politics in his first and second term, as well as Jefferson's second term. There seems to be a common theme that in the second term, presidents seem to have a split in their own party.

I believe that if a party is successful enough to rule for 8 years, differing factions in the party will feel secure enough to challenge the leadership of the party. I believe this is what is happening here. W. is trying to lead the party in one direction, and there are two distinctive camps wanting to dictate the direction on these issues. Both camps are confident that their own ideological view of conservatism is the one most appropriate to embrace in the given climate. Both are basically opposed to each other. The democrats have been to incompetent both have felt secure enough to engage each other.

What are your thoughts on this?

Anonymous said...


agree again...

i like Ms. Malkin, and support her expression, but i have searched for her expression from years ago, that was equally involved regarding immigration.

i cannot find it...

if Ms. Malkin would have made immigration as important an issue prior to 2000 or at least 2004, as she does today, than it would have more influence in my opinion.

it doesn't mean this is not a serious issue, nor does it indicate i oppose the much of the policy she and others promote. i strongly support and push for serious border control and immigration reform.

it is the manner in which it is conducted. it is almost to the point, in which the inflammatory rhetoric isn't designed to address the immigration problem, but to simply gain attention, or sustain one's ego. (or insecurity).

to suggest no reform is better, than a new attempt with stronger border control, is a hard sell.

it seems entirely counter productive.

almost as irrational as saying this Administration is 'doing nothing' in regards to the issue...