…because I’m not doing another round of the McCain/Johnson fight because although Robert Stacy keeps firing relentlessly, (he has no choice as explained here) Charles has not been letting off a shot in posts (and I’m still not inclined to check all his internal comments, I may be out of work right now but I do have a life). This perfectly illustrates the correctness of the title of my first post on the subject:

Irresistible force vs immovable object: Johnson vs McCain

Meanwhile blog after blog has sided with Robert Stacy McCain very loudly indeed this while the only person who seems to have had a kind word for Charles is of all people Andrew Sullivan.

What do I think of all this? In case I haven’t made it clear I think Charles is wrong, I think he’s wrong about Robert Stacy, Wrong about Dan Riehl and Wrong about Hot Air. (although in fairness hot air should have mentioned that Charles sent them an e-mail stating that the initial actions against them were done without his knowledge or approval.) You might notice if you look at my blog there is a category that wasn’t there last week called:

Worth defending Publicly

all three blogs I just mentioned are listed there.

However if Charles believes he is right he is just not going to change, and he certainly isn’t going to be persuaded by someone who thinks he is wrong, to quote a comment I made elsewhere:

The problem is that it would seem to me it is his nature to go “all out” once he decides something is right, everyone who supports it is right and a friend. Once he thinks something is wrong than everyone who supports them is wrong and his skin isn’t as thick as it once was.

I’ve been hitting Charles a bit, with PUN-isment but there was something else in that comment that is also worth repeating:

Liberals are exactly the people that we NEED to bring over concerning the War on Terror. Johnson for all of his faults recognized the war for what it is right away and even now still links to Michael Yon and strongly supports the War and keeping Gitmo open. You can always change legislation you can’t un-lose a war or un-kill someone.

Personal issues not withstanding he has been a valuable ally in the war on terror and the subject is important enough to matter.

That’s why I’m still a registered user at LGF and still make my cases and arguments in comments and I intend to stay there unless he abandons the war on terror (highly unlikely) or until I’m banned.

Last night when I hit the sack I was contemplating the problem and something I posted in a thread over there hit me:

The problem there is you win elections by getting a majority, it’s hard to win when you exclude people.

For example if I was a GOP candidate and I was approaching a Ron Paul supporter I would emphasize my support for smaller government and opposition to abortion. If he brought up the Crazy uncle isolation/Israel stuff I would disagree with him but If wooing him I wouldn’t bring it up when making my initial point.

As Captain Renault said to Rick

How extravagant you are, throwing away women like that. Someday they may be scarce.

You win elections by finding areas of agreement with as many voters as possible and getting them to vote on you based on those areas.

So if there is going to be a prince Alfonso moment the first thing necessary is a point of agreement among all parties involved.

I intend to put up a post sometime later today titled “A statement of common principles” I intend to inform all the principles in the latest disputes to “sign” it in comments. As comments are approved here that will allow me to preclude a false affirmative. Any blogger who has posted on the subject is welcome to sign it in the name of their blog or themselves.

Now this doesn’t mean it will lead to anything resembling a resolution but ya gotta start somewhere and it’s my time to waste.

Update: One bit of Irony that just hit me. I’ve been thinking about this all night. This morning at Mass. Fr. Bob’s sermon was on reconciling enemies and on the saying “When you seek vengeance be prepared to dig two graves.”

Update 2: Well that didn’t take long to be Proudly Banned, but I had it coming, how dare I defend Rush Limbaugh, Honorary Lizardoid on LGF.

  1. Hey, DTG, stop hitting the snooze alarm and WAKE THE HELL UP.

    Charles never targeted me until AFTER I came to Pamela Geller’s defense. It is CHARLES, and not me, who is seeking vengeance.

    If you’d read some of these threads after they’d been updated — including responses to your comments — you might have learned something by now.

    Neville Chamberlain’s mistake was in thinking he could negotiate with Hitler, as if Hitler were a reasonable statesman who wanted peace. But Hitler was a TOTALITARIAN, and totalitarians are liars, bullies and cowards by nature. They respect only resolute, determined and superior strength.

    Charles Johnson is a malignant narcissist. That is the problem, and has been apparent ever since he started attacking Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and other of his former “friends” whom now viciously libels at every opportunity.

  2. GS says:

    Always nice to get some linky-love from a fellow Dr. Who fan. The Freema Agyeman googlebomb (who knew?) fueled my traffic for a few weeks while I was infrequent. Stop by again sometime.

  3. […] of Common Principles completed and ready for signing By datechguy The promised statement of common principles has been completed and is exists as a permanent page on the […]