Jon Stewart continues to deliver spot-on commentary made more popular through mixing it in with comedy. Special bonus: Steve King rears his xenophobic Golem look-alike head midway through the clip. And I really do get tired of saying this again and again and again, but I can't help feeling a pang of shame when "R-Iowa" shows up after the congressman's name.
(http://www.thedailyshow.com via Ta-Nehisi Coates.)
Showing posts with label steve king. Show all posts
Showing posts with label steve king. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
Steve King's Tired Antics Continue In 2009
It's a new year, and America has a new president, but Iowa is still blessed with the same old Rep. Steve King - a bizarre breed of bigot who besmirches the good name of Iowa further with every day he spends representing the state's 5th District in Washington, D.C.
Last March, King warned that Al Qaeda terrorists would take to the streets and dance in celebration if Barack Obama were elected president. Not long after making this incendiary claim, King appeared on Fox News and reaffirmed it. He even went so far as to suggest he would apologize if Obama won and his prediction didn't come true.
Following up on this story, Politico, an online political- news outlet, contacted King a few days before Obama's inauguration and asked him about his previous statements. Though he offered no apology, King was willing to acknowledge that the terrorists' celebrations that he had prophesied have thus far failed to come to pass.
"They have made statements against Obama," Politico reported he said. "This thing has shifted, and now I think Obama's position of immediate withdrawal [from the war zone] has changed."
However, rather than leaving well enough alone and refraining from offering any new offensive remarks, King went on to suggest to the Politico reporter that Obama's choice to include his middle name, Hussein, in the swearing-in ceremony was "bizarre" and "a double-standard." Apparently, it's King's view that because various right-wing commentators suffered criticism for highlighting the new president's full name, the president himself should also be barred from referencing it publicly.
The disingenuous nature of such a complaint is entirely transparent. Using Obama's full name simply to refer to the president has never been considered offensive. Complaints about highlighting that his middle name is Hussein only arose when it was clear from the context or tone of the usage that the speaker was attempting to draw some sort of connection between the president and former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
Further evidence of King's ongoing hostility toward the president can be found in his refusal to attend a post-inauguration reception that Iowa's congressional delegation held for residents of the state who were in Washington, D.C., at the time. Radio Iowa has reported that a King aide asserted that the congressman's snub was a result of his opinion that his campaign donors wouldn't approve of him contributing the required funds toward refreshments at the reception. However, classy Republicans such as Sen. Charles Grassley and Rep. Tom Latham apparently had no objection to ponying up their $100 contributions.
Regardless of the extent to which King is an embarrassment to Iowa, it's highly unlikely he can be defeated by a Democratic challenger. Even with a spirited candidate such as Rob Hubler under the Obama-Biden ticket, which won the state so commandingly, Iowa's 5th District was simply too conservative to elect anyone who wasn't a Republican.
But there remain two plausible scenarios under which King could be dethroned. First, a challenger who looked more like reasonably rational Iowa Republicans such as Grassley or Latham could go after King in the primary. Second, given demographic trends, Iowa may well lose a U.S. House seat after the next census. Though such a development would unfortunately reduce the state's legislative clout, it seems unlikely that a candidate as far out in the wilderness of right-wing madness as King would be able to survive following any such redistricting.
One way or another, hopefully, a more serious politician who is actually interested in effectively lobbying for the people of Iowa will eventually succeed in sending King back to Kiron, where he belongs.
(Cross-posted from the DI's main site.)
Last March, King warned that Al Qaeda terrorists would take to the streets and dance in celebration if Barack Obama were elected president. Not long after making this incendiary claim, King appeared on Fox News and reaffirmed it. He even went so far as to suggest he would apologize if Obama won and his prediction didn't come true.
Following up on this story, Politico, an online political- news outlet, contacted King a few days before Obama's inauguration and asked him about his previous statements. Though he offered no apology, King was willing to acknowledge that the terrorists' celebrations that he had prophesied have thus far failed to come to pass.
"They have made statements against Obama," Politico reported he said. "This thing has shifted, and now I think Obama's position of immediate withdrawal [from the war zone] has changed."
However, rather than leaving well enough alone and refraining from offering any new offensive remarks, King went on to suggest to the Politico reporter that Obama's choice to include his middle name, Hussein, in the swearing-in ceremony was "bizarre" and "a double-standard." Apparently, it's King's view that because various right-wing commentators suffered criticism for highlighting the new president's full name, the president himself should also be barred from referencing it publicly.
The disingenuous nature of such a complaint is entirely transparent. Using Obama's full name simply to refer to the president has never been considered offensive. Complaints about highlighting that his middle name is Hussein only arose when it was clear from the context or tone of the usage that the speaker was attempting to draw some sort of connection between the president and former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
Further evidence of King's ongoing hostility toward the president can be found in his refusal to attend a post-inauguration reception that Iowa's congressional delegation held for residents of the state who were in Washington, D.C., at the time. Radio Iowa has reported that a King aide asserted that the congressman's snub was a result of his opinion that his campaign donors wouldn't approve of him contributing the required funds toward refreshments at the reception. However, classy Republicans such as Sen. Charles Grassley and Rep. Tom Latham apparently had no objection to ponying up their $100 contributions.
Regardless of the extent to which King is an embarrassment to Iowa, it's highly unlikely he can be defeated by a Democratic challenger. Even with a spirited candidate such as Rob Hubler under the Obama-Biden ticket, which won the state so commandingly, Iowa's 5th District was simply too conservative to elect anyone who wasn't a Republican.
But there remain two plausible scenarios under which King could be dethroned. First, a challenger who looked more like reasonably rational Iowa Republicans such as Grassley or Latham could go after King in the primary. Second, given demographic trends, Iowa may well lose a U.S. House seat after the next census. Though such a development would unfortunately reduce the state's legislative clout, it seems unlikely that a candidate as far out in the wilderness of right-wing madness as King would be able to survive following any such redistricting.
One way or another, hopefully, a more serious politician who is actually interested in effectively lobbying for the people of Iowa will eventually succeed in sending King back to Kiron, where he belongs.
(Cross-posted from the DI's main site.)
Friday, January 16, 2009
Steve King Keeps It Classy In 2009
The Iowa Independent reports:
Perhaps King is too busy planning his emergency escape route in case his fears regarding Obama transforming the United States into a totalitarian dictatorship turn out to be justified.
In any case, King's lack of enthusiasm about the inauguration isn't exactly surprising, given this gem of a film clip that I've posted and discussed previously:
Seriously, can't an at least moderately sane Republican be found to challenge King in the 2010 primary? Please?
Six out of the seven members of Iowa’s congressional delegation will jointly host a reception for Iowans in Washington, D.C. following the swearing-in of President-elect Barack Obama. U.S. Rep. Steve King, a Republican representing the state’s 5th District, is the lone holdout.
The official announcement concerning the reception was made jointly Thursday by the offices of U.S. Sens. Tom Harkin (D) and Chuck Grassley (R). A spokeswoman in Harkin’s Washington office said King, like all Iowa members of the U.S. House, was extended an invitation to also host the reception. King declined, she said, without offering an explanation.
Iowa Independent’s request for further information from King’s office has not been answered.
Continue reading.
Perhaps King is too busy planning his emergency escape route in case his fears regarding Obama transforming the United States into a totalitarian dictatorship turn out to be justified.
In any case, King's lack of enthusiasm about the inauguration isn't exactly surprising, given this gem of a film clip that I've posted and discussed previously:
Seriously, can't an at least moderately sane Republican be found to challenge King in the 2010 primary? Please?
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
More Windows Into Steve King's Fetid, Festering Soul
Exactly how despicable and demented is Steve King?
This video gives us a pretty good idea:
And then there's this report from the Audubon County Advocate Journal regarding what King had to say about Obama the day before that clip was filmed:
Seriously, how can anyone feel good about sending this xenophobic Golem look-alike to Washington to represent the state of Iowa?
Though he's something of a long shot, if you can spare the money, donate to Rob Hubler's campaign to help him in his valiant effort to kick King out of Congress.
(Via the Iowa Independent and Think Progress.)
This video gives us a pretty good idea:
And then there's this report from the Audubon County Advocate Journal regarding what King had to say about Obama the day before that clip was filmed:
King said, "We put a lot of energy and resources into our children to raise them in the American way and in our Christian faith and teach them values based on these. Obama's upbringing involves his father returning to his first wife after Barrack's birth and becoming a polygamist. His step-father was also a polygamist. He eventually wound up living with his grandparents in Hawaii who were strong leftists. He also writes about his fondness for his Uncle Frank who is a Marxist intellectual. His mother went to The Little Red Church on the Hill in Seattle, a self-proclaimed atheist church where it was said, 'They raise red-diaper babies,' babies that were raised to be left wing hard core atheists."
A quote from one of Obama's books, From Dreams of My Father, was used by King. It said, "The most beautiful sound I've ever heard is the voice in Arabic calling the people to prayer."
King said, "Obama can also quote a lot from the Koran, which tells you a lot about the instruction he received as a youth." King concluded his response to the question by saying, "The information I've just shared with you is to allow you to know what is considered foundational in his life."
...
In concluding his speech and question/answer period, King said, "Obama was not raised with an intentional attitude toward Americanism. Does he have an understanding of American patriotism, respect for our nation and what it's been through, our culture or the Christian religion upon which our nation was founded? The way to look at the reasons Obama doesn't place his hand over his heart when the National Anthem is playing, or wear an American flag pin is primarily because he is not wilful or spiteful, but because it just doesn't occur to him because it's not the way he's been raised. American patriotism is not imprinted on his mind or in his heart, because he wasn't raised as an American. Is this the kind of foundation you want for your next president? The president of the strongest country in the free world. We need to elect a president that is going to protect us under our Bill of Rights."
Seriously, how can anyone feel good about sending this xenophobic Golem look-alike to Washington to represent the state of Iowa?
Though he's something of a long shot, if you can spare the money, donate to Rob Hubler's campaign to help him in his valiant effort to kick King out of Congress.
(Via the Iowa Independent and Think Progress.)
Monday, October 27, 2008
Channeling Orwell, King Claims Only Republicans Champion Freedom
Republican Rep. Steve King, who represents Iowa's 5th District, over the weekend added yet another absurd statement to his long list of ludicrous contentions.
Speaking at a campaign event in Sioux City on Oct. 25, King repeated what has become the Republican mantra in these final, frenzied days before the election: Sen. Barack Obama is a socialist. The Iowa congressman even insisted that many other Republicans aren't going far enough with this line of attack.
"When you take a lurch to the left, you end up in a totalitarian dictatorship," the Iowa Independent reported that King said. "There is no freedom to the left. It's always to our side of the aisle."
Apparently, King would have us believe that electing Obama will represent such an extreme change in American government that we won't merely wind up with a bloated French-style welfare state but rather, a headlong dive into Stalinism. There's nothing new about a politician such as King throwing some red meat to a highly partisan crowd, but the seriousness of his accusations, especially when considered alongside their obvious falsity, makes his remarks truly beyond the pale. Though we have severely criticized King several times in the past, we feel compelled to once again publicly denounce his bizarre extremism.
Ideologues who stray too far into the fringes of the left or right often tend to lose their respect for liberty. To assert that only those on the left are ever guilty of such excesses is to ignore history. For every Mao Zedong or Joseph Stalin, there is an Adolf Hitler or Benito Mussolini. Disregard for human rights and individual freedoms is the problem in such cases, not differences in the details of fiscal policy. Countries such as France, Germany, and even the United Kingdom are far more socialistic than the United States, but none of them are even remotely close to being totalitarian dictatorships. King's pedantic slippery-slope argument cannot survive even superficial scrutiny.
Despite being utterly devoid of truthfulness, King's assertion that electing Democrats could lead to the end of democracy or capitalism in America is actually less insulting to the average voter's intelligence than is his shamelessly Orwellian claim that freedom can only be found on his side of the aisle.
The word "Orwellian" is particularly apt in this case because King, whether he realizes it or not, has shown himself to be a proponent of doublethink. This concept originates from George Orwell's classic novel 1984, which tells the story of a man struggling to find freedom in a world dominated by totalitarian regimes.
In the novel, Orwell defined doublethink as follows: "To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies."
Thus, even though King froths at the mouth about how the Democrats are out to take away Americans' liberties, he himself strongly supported all of George W. Bush's policies that actually had that effect. He faithfully backed the president in both passing and renewing the USA Patriot Act as well as in granting retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that engaged in illegal spying on Americans. On all of the greatest civil-liberties issues of our time, King has been on the wrong side.
Talk in favor of freedom is cheap. And talking about freedom is virtually King's only connection to the concept. Attempting to scare Iowans into believing that a President Obama would obliterate what is left of America's core liberties after having personally voted in favor of the laws that have eroded those liberties is a paradigmatic example of doublethink in action.
We urge Iowans to help end King's tenure as the state's most embarrassing public figure. Support Democrat Rob Hubler's attempt to unseat this despicable, demented demagogue. Go to Hubler's website to learn about what you can do: http://www.hublercongress.com/.
(Cross-posted at the Daily Iowan's main site.)
Speaking at a campaign event in Sioux City on Oct. 25, King repeated what has become the Republican mantra in these final, frenzied days before the election: Sen. Barack Obama is a socialist. The Iowa congressman even insisted that many other Republicans aren't going far enough with this line of attack.
"When you take a lurch to the left, you end up in a totalitarian dictatorship," the Iowa Independent reported that King said. "There is no freedom to the left. It's always to our side of the aisle."
Apparently, King would have us believe that electing Obama will represent such an extreme change in American government that we won't merely wind up with a bloated French-style welfare state but rather, a headlong dive into Stalinism. There's nothing new about a politician such as King throwing some red meat to a highly partisan crowd, but the seriousness of his accusations, especially when considered alongside their obvious falsity, makes his remarks truly beyond the pale. Though we have severely criticized King several times in the past, we feel compelled to once again publicly denounce his bizarre extremism.
Ideologues who stray too far into the fringes of the left or right often tend to lose their respect for liberty. To assert that only those on the left are ever guilty of such excesses is to ignore history. For every Mao Zedong or Joseph Stalin, there is an Adolf Hitler or Benito Mussolini. Disregard for human rights and individual freedoms is the problem in such cases, not differences in the details of fiscal policy. Countries such as France, Germany, and even the United Kingdom are far more socialistic than the United States, but none of them are even remotely close to being totalitarian dictatorships. King's pedantic slippery-slope argument cannot survive even superficial scrutiny.
Despite being utterly devoid of truthfulness, King's assertion that electing Democrats could lead to the end of democracy or capitalism in America is actually less insulting to the average voter's intelligence than is his shamelessly Orwellian claim that freedom can only be found on his side of the aisle.
The word "Orwellian" is particularly apt in this case because King, whether he realizes it or not, has shown himself to be a proponent of doublethink. This concept originates from George Orwell's classic novel 1984, which tells the story of a man struggling to find freedom in a world dominated by totalitarian regimes.
In the novel, Orwell defined doublethink as follows: "To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies."
Thus, even though King froths at the mouth about how the Democrats are out to take away Americans' liberties, he himself strongly supported all of George W. Bush's policies that actually had that effect. He faithfully backed the president in both passing and renewing the USA Patriot Act as well as in granting retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that engaged in illegal spying on Americans. On all of the greatest civil-liberties issues of our time, King has been on the wrong side.
Talk in favor of freedom is cheap. And talking about freedom is virtually King's only connection to the concept. Attempting to scare Iowans into believing that a President Obama would obliterate what is left of America's core liberties after having personally voted in favor of the laws that have eroded those liberties is a paradigmatic example of doublethink in action.
We urge Iowans to help end King's tenure as the state's most embarrassing public figure. Support Democrat Rob Hubler's attempt to unseat this despicable, demented demagogue. Go to Hubler's website to learn about what you can do: http://www.hublercongress.com/.
(Cross-posted at the Daily Iowan's main site.)
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Steve King Watch
The never-boring Iowa representative from my home district made the news again today for his actions during a Congressional hearing.
Do any of my fellow bloggers who don't also write for the metro section care to comment?
Do any of my fellow bloggers who don't also write for the metro section care to comment?
Sunday, March 9, 2008
A kingsized problem
Though he’d surely tell you otherwise, Iowa Congressman Steve King is no stranger to political misstep. His imbecilic legislative proposals are often tarnished by sentiments of racial and religious bigotry and, as his recent comments show, he’s not very good at hiding them.
Bigoted arguments are often marked by a small allotment of evidence and a suspiciously high level of convenience. King is no stranger to this process. His recent attacks on Barack Obama were backed, not by any prevailing evidence, but rather by his own unsupported (and largely nonsensical) impressions of the Islamic people. Citing, among few other things, Obama’s middle name—Hussein—King asserted that an Obama victory would incite “dancing in the streets” among radical Islamists (or, as he eloquently calls them, “is-luh-mists”). King finalized his argument by claiming such a win would allow terrorists to declare their own victory in America’s war on terror.
King’s comments were harshly criticized on national news networks but, true to form, he stands by them. Apparently unfazed by the repudiations being cast at him from all directions, the Iowa Republican seems to be perfectly comfortable in his traditional state of blissful ignorance. Unfortunately, he’s also in the State of Iowa…voting on its behalf.
There will be no dancing in these streets.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)