Posts Tagged ‘profiles in cowardice’

…you are doing yourself and your country a real service.

Dennis Kucinich has stood fast and strong for the public option. He maintained on TV just one week ago that this bill was a giveaway to the insurance companies and that he would fight for a robust public option.

There is nothing like a pol willing to defy party and president in order to stand up for what he knows is right

oh nevermind.

“I know I have to make a decision, not on the bill as I would like to see, it but on the bill as it is,” the longtime congressman said in a 30-minute press conference on Capitol Hill where he detailed his vote change. “I have doubts about this bill,” he said. “…This is not the bill I wanted to support.”

“However, after careful discussions with President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, my wife Elizabeth and close friends, I have decided to cast a vote in favor of the legislation,” he said.

How about that? From Hotair:

Blue Dog moderates who already don’t want to be linked to Nancy Pelosi in upcoming midterms may find being linked to Kucinich even less palatable. We’ll see. In this case, the real test may not be Kucinich’s switch but who will be the first to follow him.

Michelle Malkin:

Selling out his progressive principles is worth the 15 minutes of fame.

Plus, ooh, la, lah, President Obama showered with him attention. Kucinich revealed that he met four times(!) with the cajoler-in-chief — the last time on Air Force One.

Contest time: What else did Congress’s favorite UFO/alien-spotter get in return for his vote?

The Other McCain keeps his eyes on the…prize?

This just in – Dennis Kucinich’s wife is still hot. You got to give the guy credit for that, eh?

Meanwhile, CNN reports “no” votes from five other Democrats whose wives aren’t nearly as hot as Elizabeth Kucinich.

Liberal Vales asks a relevant question:

One question is whether Kucinich is changing his votes due to receiving major concessions, or if this is an example of the type of pressure being placed on Democratic Congressmen to support passage of the bill.

Has everybody forgotten that the bill in question is the senate bill? There ARE no concessions to offer yet. The bill being offered is the unamended senate bill and a vote for that bill means neither the White House nor the Democratic Leadership have to deliver on any concession. And if reconciliation on this matter loses in the court and the president ends up with the senate bill. Oh Well!

Finally Firedoglake gives the bottom line:

If on the other hand he settles for some worthless reassurances that “Obama will work toward it in the future” (which nobody but Lynn Woolsey is dumb enough to actually believe), or a meaningless symbolic vote that achieves little more than 15 minutes of futile grandstanding, good luck to him. A thousand people have donated over $16,000 to Dennis since yesterday to thank him for standing up for what he believes in. We’ll be asking him to return it.

I still think this is going down.

Update: Forget last week Bill Jacobson reports that Bold Sir Dennis excoriated Obamacare in an op ed just two days ago.

a month ago by me.

And as Robert Stacy noticed Kristoff couldn’t remember her religion, but in my Amazon review I was able to identify it.

Of course being more informative than the NYT isn’t much of an accomplishment these days…

Q: Why is George Monbiot spending his time trying to “apprehend” people like Tony Blair and John Bolton instead of people like say Lloyd Woodson or Mohammed Bouyeri?

It’s the same reason why human shields always deploy against the US and Israel but never against the people they fight and the same reason why people who are fearless about outraging Christian sensibilities shrink from tweaking Islam.

I popped over to Pam Geller’s site today and noticed an interesting post concerning Google search. She references this post at the next web:

When you search for the major religions of the world, the monotheistic faiths for example, Google serves up suggestions for the search “Christianity is” such as, “a lie,” or false.” Try it on a a number of faiths, and then Islam.

Notice any difference?

Google is systematically blocking, it seems, all search suggestions for Islam. Why? To remove the chance of an adherent of the faith from being offended by a perhaps severe search suggestion? Why not treat all search terms equally?

Given the complete lack of suggestions, not just terms that could be perceived as negative, it seems that Google is covering its, well, behind.

Take a look at the graphics, they are rather damning and cowardly. I tried the “is” combinations myself and got the same results as the screen shots. Remember Glenn’s oft repeated warning:

MY ADVICE TO CHRISTIANS, JEWS, HINDUS, ETC: Start blowing things up and beheading people. This will gain you enormous solicitude from the powers-that-be…

…No, I’m not serious about the advice. But they need to think about the incentive that’s being created here, or I fear that others will take the lesson. When you reward behavior, you tend to get more of it.

For the fun of it I tried the same thing with yahoo. The results for “Christianity is”, “Judaism is” are comparable with the Google results, but take a look at “Islam is”:

When you use google as your only search engine, you are behaving no differently than if you used only ABC, CBS and NBC as your only networks.