LMAO! Lazy, Kool-aid Drinking Press-Corps Member Is Bitten in the Arse By His Own Rhetoric

[NashVegas]

Clinton wanted to make it illegal to burn an American flag! As noted, these life-forms know how to type that one up in any type of weather. As we’ll see, they’ve typed it, and typed it, and typed it again; they know this particular novel so well they could just keep typing it as their owners work on their programming. Indeed, they all seem to know this pleasing tale. Here’s Richard Cohen, two months ago, typing it up for the Post:

COHEN (2/5/08): If were the only example of Clinton's voting suspiciously like a presidential candidate, I would not be troubled. But in 2005, she co-sponsored a bill that would make flag-burning illegal. It just so happened that around that time I heard Justice Antonin Scalia explain why he, a conservative so conservative you cannot be more conservative, considered flag-burning a form of political expression. It was therefore, he said, protected. Precisely so.

I was not alone in suggesting that on the flag issue, Clinton was readying herself for a presidential race and trying to blunt her image as a harridan of the political left. The New York Times reached the same conclusion and accused her of pandering. Again, precisely so.

An anti-harridan had been “pandering” with that flag-burning thing. Cohen knew it; the New York Times knew it–and Collins knew it again this past weekend. And Cohen, just like Lady Collins, knew the rest of this new classic script. You just can’t fool a life-form like Cohen. He drew the invidious distinction about Clinton/Obama just as Collins would:

COHEN (continuing directly): Look, I know what Obama was doing when he refused to confront his minister about the latter's embrace of Louis Farrakhan. He was ducking an issue with no upside for him. He will not get my Profiles in Courage award for this, but the rest of his record overwhelms this one chintzy act.

Not so with Clinton. In the first place, you don't get to pander with the First Amendment. It is just too important, too central, not merely an amendment but a commandment: Thou Shalt Not Abridge Speech. In the second place, this ugly lurch to the political right is not outweighed by a spectacular stand on some other matter of principle.

Cohen will give Obama a pass. But not so with vile Clinton, he says; after all, she supported that flag-burning crap! Like Collins, Cohen could tell: This flag-burning folderol showed the difference between these two candidates’ souls.

And then, one week later: Alas, poor Cohen! Yes, he has had to do this sort of thing in the past–but it’s gruesome every time it happens. Seven days after defining Clinton/Obama, the gentleman typed a minor correction. Good God! He’d done it again! This appeared in his next column:

COHEN (2/12/08): My Feb. 5 column was critical of Hillary Clinton for supporting a bill to make flag burning illegal. I have since learned from a reader that Barack Obama also supported that bill.

That’s right, dumb-ass! Clinton supported the flag-burning bill. And Obama supported it too!


Wakey-wakey.

[zabet]

1. k and r

:kick:

[Vinca]

2. Puts me in the mood to go out and buy a Made In China American flag pin. nt

[rinsd]

3. Talk about stark evidence of a double standard.

[highplainsdem]

4. And that's all Cohen said about this. I just checked the full column.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/11/AR2008021102268.html

Interesting how, once Cohen learned that Obama had supported the same bill, there was no ranting about Obama's supposed "ugly lurch to the political right" which "is not outweighed by a spectacular stand on some other matter of principle."

God forbid Cohen say anything more about an issue that he'd claimed earlier was "just too important, too central, not merely an amendment but a commandment."

When he knew Clinton had supported the bill but didn't know Obama had, it was, "Thou Shalt Not Abridge Speech" and "you don't get to pander with the First Amendment."

When he found out Obama voted for the same bill, probably for the same reasons Clinton did, there was no further comment.

Nope, no hypocrisy there...

[NashVegas]

5. I'm Shocked. Shocked, I Tell You

To find there is a double standard in this house.

[lumpy]

6. Richard Cohen is hardly our idea of a progressive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cohen_
In researching his bio on wikipedia it is interesting to note that he was in concert with the Bush Iraq fiasco and other anti progressive concepts; appears he has his personal political axes to grind.

[NashVegas]

7. DUers Idea Of a Progressive Isn't What It Used to Be

Josh Marshall's anti-Hillary screeds get play all the time - and guess which side of the "I wanna go to Iraq" line he was on?

[lumpy]

8. Oh yes

x

[Texas Hill Country]

9. ROFLCOPTER!!!