Posts Tagged ‘irony’

Robert Stacy McCain’s blog started out in 2007. He was linked by Glenn Reynolds for the first time that I can see on May 23, 2008.

Glenn linked to him 7 times under the name “R.S. McCain” in from that date till june 19th of this year.

He linked to him as “stacy mccain” 21 times between Feb 22nd 2009 and Sept 22nd 2009 (yesterday)

Now lets look at Little Green Footballs:

the first time the Tag Robert Stacy McCain is used was during Charles Attack on Stephen Green on September 12th 2009 (11 days ago).

If you search for the string rather than the tag, the first entry is September 12th 2009.

If you search for the string “The Other McCain” the first entry on LGF is September 12 of this year.

If you search for the string “stacy McCain” The first entry is, you guessed it, September 12th 2009.

The Phrase “R. S. McCain” produces no results, if you search for “Robert McCain” it yields no results.

Yesterday Charles attacked Glenn Reynolds for his link to Robert Stacy Yesterday and made it a point to leave that post up as high as possible today.

Also note that even Glenn Reynolds is now linking with approval to McCain. Here’s Instapundit denouncing neo-Confederates in 2005.

Now he’s praising them.

Apparently the importance to expose that racist, neo confederate and White supremacist Evil that is Robert Stacy McCain was so great that Charles waited until Robert Stacy McCain posted 5,071 entries on his blog on his blog before exposing him.

He was so outraged by Glenn Reynolds linking to him that he waited until his 21st instalance (yes that’s 20 instalances more than me, feel free to suggest to Glenn that I deserve another) to denounce him for it. Apparently he wanted to give Glenn every chance to change his mind.

My questions to Charles are these:

Why is that until Robert Stacy McCain wasn’t worthy of exposure until after September 12th of this year?

Why wasn’t he worthy of a tag until he started fighting back against you?

Did you mean to get to exposing him sooner or later but just didn’t get around to it?

And most important of all: what does Rush Limbaugh Honorary Lizardoid think of it?

I’d ask you in comments but since I’m proudly banned by little green footballs I figured I’d ask it here.

I may not have the experience of a combat veteran like Retired Sgt. Major David C. Carden of The Army Insider fame, but even I’m not enough of a sucker to fall for this.

Credibility is a precious commodity. Charles; I’m afraid you’re overdrawn.

Update: Moved a block quote to not include my introduction, also 21 chances, sounds like the New York Yankees and Steve Howe.

Update 2: Apparently Mr. McCain’s is so notorious a hater that the Wild Irish Rose blog who approvingly links to Charles latest attack on him didn’t find his extreme hated worth a post of denunciation in the entire history of the blog until today. Maybe they just didn’t get around to it till now, life is a busy thing you know..

However they weren’t too busy to turn on registration on comments after putting up the post. Amazing how speech rules tighten when you start to follow Charles.

Me I use moderation rather than registration, I hate giving my info and only have done so very rarely, but their blog not mine.

Update 3:
The man himself puts it better than I have then again he ought to, he writes for money:

Are Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer (Diana West, Richard Miniter, et al.) fascist sympathizers, as Charles Johnson has repeatedly alleged? All four of the individuals named are persons known to me, and I am utterly certain that these allegations against them are false. That Robert Spencer may have an unfortunate habit of sending “seething e-mails” (a temptation to which I have at times yielded myself) is known to me, but does not cause me to suspect him of being a crypto-fascist.

If I know that Charles Johnson has lied about people whom I know, and whose bona fides I have no reason to doubt, the question arises as to Johnson’s motive.

ya want motive just scroll up and hit the “beck” choice in the poll

I was up much too late last night posting over being proudly banned from little green footballs so instead of going upstairs to bed I crashed on the couch since I didn’t want to ruin the wife’s sleep.

So I turn on the TV and what do I see? Richard Hass saying out loud to that the United States isn’t going to be shooting down Israeli Jets. Considering what her father said that had to be one of the most uncomfortable moments for her. She looked like she wanted to be somewhere else very bad.

She certainly isn’t going to disavow her father on national TV and anyone who would ask her to do so would be low. That’s family, you don’t dis the man who raised you. (Then again maybe she agrees with him, who knows?)

Hotair says something that I hate to say I agree with:

As for Brzezinski’s creepy anticipation of a new U.S.S. Liberty incident, whether “in reverse” or not, Goldfarb’s got that right too. Maybe not for ZB but for many others, that’s not a bug in the plan, it’s a feature.

Exit question: Considering that Hotair is also proudly banned from Little Green Footballs these days? Would Zbigniew Brzezinski be? Charles seems to be running out of supporters of Israel to post there.

6:58 Did Mika just say “show me my Willie?” did Barnicle just shout to answer “Do it live!”

…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.

…is apparently a dead conservative. It’s kind of Sheridanesque.

In all seriousness Irving Krystal was an important man who was right on many things and the fact that Charles recognizes that is a good thing. It adds points to the Prince Alphonso index and keeps that slight hope alive that things will change for the better over there. After all if Robert Stacy and Charles can agree on this all is not yet lost.

BTW, once I find the video clip I need in English I will explain exactly what the index means.

Hang on a minute. Sheridanesque… Phil Sheridan. UNION general, BURNED the Shenandoah valley. That’s in the SOUTH. Hmmmm….