The GOP is the party of individual liberty, or so it has been. Harris County is the biggest electoral district dominated by GOP interests in Texas and the nation, more broadly. Therefore, the tone of political dialogue in Harris County matters as an indicator of the political fitness of the GOP and as a bellwether for the rest of the country. If Republicans pursue personal objectives, in the current election, over comprehensive party victory, the enemies of freedom will win not just an election, but will claim a mandate to put together what the framers of the Constitution have put asunder, in essence, centralized American government beyond any recognition. As such, Republicans must present a united front against the open and transparent assault on freedom that constitutes the political left (elitists, not ignorant lay persons.) No room exists for political bloodlust. At the same time, the freedom to endorse, support, and work to elect men and women who will champion majority values and advance the cause of liberty must be preserved as an indispensable value and plank within the party infrastructure. The moment that individual choice is suppressed in order to promote the “golden child,” defined as a candidate endorsed by media brass and local heavyweights but not a majority of voters, individual choice is minimized, and the chance of the GOP winning and holding major posts is reduced. Individual choice is an essential element of guaranteeing election victory for Republicans. Those who strive against individual choice are not helping the GOP win, but instead are hurting the GOP and the cause of conservatism.
In this way, the mounting and intensely personal attacks on Richard Dillon for utilizing classic political satire and humor to defend the candidate of his choice smack more of the coerced “unity” of the Democratic Party and less the individual choice traditionally supported and nurtured by the GOP. Accusations that Dillon acted inappropriately in defending the candidate he supports, and furthermore that his use of innocuous and easily-relatable humor amounted to unacceptable conduct, represent attempts to reverse roles and assign labels to those revealing inconvenient factual information about candidates that may or may not be suited for office. Why not address Dillon’s implied assertions? If no response can be given, it would be logically safe to assume that no factual error can indeed be found, and that Dillon’s humorous anecdotes were fairly accurate. No one is acting out of public interest when using personal slurs and when viciously tarring a vaunted and established Republican stalwart. Everyone supports someone. Similarly, when nations insist that American tax breaks or tariffs are “unfair,” these nations are not failing to pursue their own national interest.
The key is for personal interest to be pursued in a way that benefits public interest. If a Democrat retains office in place of a qualified Republican, no one benefits. And if those seeking to tarnish Dillon at the expense of election victory have no problem losing to a Democrat, it might be reasonable to question their allegiance.
Besides, anyone who reads Dillon’s actual piece and not Alvin Walker’s less than personally motivated hatchet job will observe the serene prose exercised by Dillon and the restraint when much more derisive statements could have been justified, especially in the case of a certain perpetrator of numerous illicit offense while working for the Harris County Sheriff’s department as well as the law enforcement arms of other neighboring counties.
Dillon merely defended a candidate he supports for public office. Is this now no longer permitted in the new GOP? Are we to be regimented with the same brownshirt apparatus governing the DNC? Clearly I’m missing something.
Dillon has not been paid by the candidate in question to write positive press. Dillon, of his own free will and conscience, chose to defend a candidate whom he feels has been maligned unfairly by cackling gossips.
Whatever the factual accuracy of Dillon’s defense, Dillon merely exercised his prerogative to request civility in the political dialogue surrounding the HC Sheriff’s race. He has a legal and a moral right to do so, and the sanguine response from supposed Republicans calling for Dillon to resign from a formal post that doesn’t actually exist displays a stunning level of ignorance.
Furthermore, it is clear that those making such calls and clamoring for the figurative lynching of Dillon have ulterior motives for these disproportionate responses. Could perhaps it be that the author of the letter so helpfully printed in Alvin Walker’s rag is a Louis Guthrie supporter? Actually, PS has confirmed that he is. Wouldn’t this tend to compromise the alleged unbiased nature of this letter?
Could it be that those who do not support Jared Woodfill and know of the successful track record of Dillon in assisting Woodfill’s office would like to remove his most staunch defender from the equation?
Whatever the reason for the extreme proclamations of Alvin and the Guthrie gang, the current bloodlust and the humorous, passive tone of Dillon’s article do not match up. What happens if I say Alvin is akin to Donald Duck? Am I to be lampooned as well? Do I get threatened?
Let’s take a quick line-by-line look at the frantic and desperate response of Alvin Walker as compared to Dillon’s original statements. Then let’s allow voters to decide who is actually “mean-spirited” and/or “demeaning”:
I hope that you take my following comments about various TV sitcom characters with a touch of humor, as they are meant to be given. From amongst the lot, we find a dentist, who very well may be a great dentist, but having never been a professional, paid, law enforcement officer, one wonders just how he has the professional experience and knowledge to direct one of the largest law enforcement offices in the country. While I do commend him for his volunteer service, I liken him to Barney Fife, from the “Andy Griffith show”, a nice guy, but rather bumbling, less than competent individual.
Puleeze! This is a touch of humor? This is nasty, mean spirited, demeaning and downright repulsive. They found a funny little video about teeth they want to share. Then they link to “Barney Fife” and say it is “humor”? The only Barney Fife I can think of is Bill Kneer, however I have too much respected for Don Knotts to associate him with Kneer [emphasis added]. Harold has more education than Kneer and Dillon combined. He’s a Doctor for goodness sakes and he has donated thousands upon thousands of hours to the taxpayers of Harris County. He’s dived countless time in search of dead bodies, weapons or other evidence needed to bring closure to a family. Harold has gone though the same training as any other officer. Harold has been married once and has owned the same home for twenty-seven years.
I think it’s safe to say that Alvin Walker is less than partial in his overview of Dillon’s probably over-personal but nonetheless apt comparison. No pretense to equal application of standards or intellectual integrity is observed in this case. Walker commits the same philosophical error of which he accuses Dillon. He supports Heuszel, but faults Dillon for supporting Pittman, and apparently sees no hypocrisy in doing so, or more likely embraces hypocrisy as a method of argument.
Campaigns should not only be about winning, but how votes are won. Nastily and shamelessly plugging a personal pick under the guise of stopping “mean-spirited” political dialogue without acknowledging valid points in Dillon’s piece in defense of his pick reveal a deep-seated narrow-mindedness, and total inability to analyze the positive and negative attributes of all candidates, not just those candidates to which someone is predisposed.
Dillon then takes on none other than Louis Guthrie, who is known far and wide for his much publicized abuses of law enforcement resources:
Next, you have the “Roscoe P. Coltrane” (of Dukes of Hazzard fame) of Harris/Liberty County, who would misuse his authority to close down a business because he thought (without checking to be sure)that his wife had $16.00 stolen from her car at a local car wash (“I’ve got you now, you car wash thieves/Duke boys!”)
Instead of bothering to address the documented problems with this individual, Walker quickly resorts to a tactic known as redirection, and applies the same TV character associations to HCRP chairman Jared Woodfill, the only basis for this being the writer’s clear dislike of this public official. No reason is given for this reassignment of the aforementioned moniker. It seems the standards Walker clearly seeks to enforce against Dillon do not apply when he seeks to lazily insult the chairman of the HCRP, who has presided over the greatest sweep of victories in the history of the HCRP:
Do you also remember Boss Hog from the Dukes? I’m thinking that part could be played by Jared Woodfill. Seems like Woodfill Boss Hog always tried to affect politics in Harris County Hazzard County.
What an educated response! But then, as Alvin Walker says, “there’s no point in being stupid if you can’t show it.” True indeed, further confirmed when Walker advocates removal of Dillon from party leadership. To what post does he refer? Private Citizens supporting the work of public candidates and current officeholders are only to be permitted to voice their opinions when Walker approves of who they support, it seems.
With all the cutesy rhetoric procured by Walker, it is interesting that nowhere in his tirade are any of Dillon’s essential remarks about Carl Pittman addressed. Readers and potential voters are encouraged to re-read (or read for the first time) Dillon’s actual piece.
Walker’s rant is akin to something David Jennings (Big Jolly) or Murray Newman (discontented attorney) would write, only with far less tact and far less apologetic.
This latest move on the part of Alvin Walker and the Guthrie gang amount to nothing more than a blatant character assassination of the most crude variety. Where Dillon uses humor to make a valid and logically coherent point, Walker and others use derision and negative labeling to avoid having to acknowledge any of Dillon’s arguments. Who is really being “mean-spirited” in this case?
Those who claim the mantle of “civility” are often the most uncivil. Whatever isolated disagreements we may have, why are Republicans attacking fellow Republicans? When warranted record-based criticism gives way to ad hominem attacks as advanced by Walker and his ilk, the result will likely be failure at the polls. Why should voters trust a party that can’t even operate cohesively? Have we made the tent so big that small minds with a penchant for name-calling are now the standard-bearers? I differentiate here between the use of political humor and direct attacks on important movers and shakers within the party.
Every candidate has flaws, but every candidate should work to support the efforts of the other while still pursuing ballot box victory. This election should entail so much more than a “we won” mentality.
America is facing the most significant election in its history. Every election at every level, local, state, and federal, is absolutely essential if liberty is to endure for another generation.
As a party, it should be our goal to get conservative Republicans into office, period, the end of story. Polls indicate that ad hominem attacks and infighting within the GOP are driving center voters to the Democrats, even though most voters tilt conservative in the upcoming election within specific issue categories. If we do not correct this image, losing an election will be the least of our problems. The would-be despot in DC will claim a popular mandate to ravage what remains of the US Constitution and our liberties. Fault is subjective. Facts are not. It is a fact that those who obscure the facts with childish mudslinging are going to cost the GOP votes.
Going forward, let’s remain controlled, and above-belt!