"There's no way any of us can excuse what the president did yesterday," King said on NewsMaxTV on Friday. The interview was flagged by Buzzfeed. "When you have the world watching … a week, two weeks of anticipation of what the United States is gonna do. For him to walk out —I'm not trying to be trivial here— in a light suit, light tan suit, saying that first he wants to talk about what most Americans care about the revision of second quarter numbers on the economy. This is a week after Jim Foley was beheaded and he's trying to act like real Americans care about the economy, not about ISIS and not about terrorism. And then he goes on to say he has no strategy."You're not trying to be trivial? Try harder. Geez.
Showing posts with label Peter King. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peter King. Show all posts
Friday, August 29, 2014
The Tan Man
Let's be real: That was an ugly-ass tan suit. That being said, Rep. Michael Kors Peter King (R-NY) seriously needs to get a grip:
Thursday, December 19, 2013
Off My Game
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Rep. Peter King (R-NY) square off over surveillance programs. That's no surprise.
In any event, I think King is too "iconoclastic" (if you will) to be a likely 2016 standard-bearer. But I have to think that the 2016 GOP primary will be one of the more bizarre in recent memory anyway, so who knows?
Paul, a Kentucky Republican with strong tea party-backing, and King are both considered likely GOP presidential candidates in 2016.Paul I knew about. But King? I hadn't heard anything suggesting King was a presidential candidate. Now, I'm not as plugged into this world as I used to be, but I would have thought I'd hear some rumblings. But no, it turns out I just missed the memo.
In any event, I think King is too "iconoclastic" (if you will) to be a likely 2016 standard-bearer. But I have to think that the 2016 GOP primary will be one of the more bizarre in recent memory anyway, so who knows?
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Caring About Dead Non-White Americans is so PC
Adam Serwer has a good column up about recent House hearings on radicalization occurring in American prisons. The House Republicans who called the hearings wanted to focus on Islamic radicalization in prison. The problem, though, is that the evidence seemed to suggest this wasn't a serious problem at all. Only one terrorism plot since 9/11 has involved individuals who became radicalized Muslims in prison; by and large Islamic radicals tend to be middle-class and relatively educated.
What is a problem is radicalization of White prisoners who fall in with far-right hate groups like the Christian Identity movement. And so, Democrats on the committee wanted to talk about that for awhile. But Republicans were less than cooperative: Committee chair Rep. Peter King (R-NY) dismissed concerns about far-right radicalization because such groups were not "allied with a foreign power", despite the fact that (a) al-Qaeda is, of course, a non-governmental terrorist organization and (b) modern terrorism hardly requires an alliance with a foreign power to wreak massive havoc in America. Like their radical Islamic counterparts, right-wing terrorists in the United States also have an agenda of bringing down our government and instilling a new regime hostile to the very ideas of American liberty and equality. It's unclear why this threat is less serious simply because it's "homegrown". Indeed, it was Rep. King himself who originally launched the highly criticized hearings investigating homegrown Islamic radicalization (despite little evidence here as well that this was a serious problem).
Meanwhile, Rep. Dan Lungdren (R-CA) was even more blunt, deriding the "political correctness" of those who thought that recruitment success by violent White supremacist groups in prison was a valid area of congressional concern. Apparently, it's "politically correct" to think that terrorism targeting Americans who are non-White, or non-Christian, or otherwise don't resemble Dan Lungdren, is something Congress might want to know about. Glad to know Rep. Lungdren has my back on this.
What is a problem is radicalization of White prisoners who fall in with far-right hate groups like the Christian Identity movement. And so, Democrats on the committee wanted to talk about that for awhile. But Republicans were less than cooperative: Committee chair Rep. Peter King (R-NY) dismissed concerns about far-right radicalization because such groups were not "allied with a foreign power", despite the fact that (a) al-Qaeda is, of course, a non-governmental terrorist organization and (b) modern terrorism hardly requires an alliance with a foreign power to wreak massive havoc in America. Like their radical Islamic counterparts, right-wing terrorists in the United States also have an agenda of bringing down our government and instilling a new regime hostile to the very ideas of American liberty and equality. It's unclear why this threat is less serious simply because it's "homegrown". Indeed, it was Rep. King himself who originally launched the highly criticized hearings investigating homegrown Islamic radicalization (despite little evidence here as well that this was a serious problem).
Meanwhile, Rep. Dan Lungdren (R-CA) was even more blunt, deriding the "political correctness" of those who thought that recruitment success by violent White supremacist groups in prison was a valid area of congressional concern. Apparently, it's "politically correct" to think that terrorism targeting Americans who are non-White, or non-Christian, or otherwise don't resemble Dan Lungdren, is something Congress might want to know about. Glad to know Rep. Lungdren has my back on this.
Monday, May 02, 2011
The Great Exhale
Osama bin Laden is dead. Yesterday, I said there was little to say. Today, a few scattered thoughts come below, of varying degrees of seriousness.
* * *
* Last night, everyone was rushing to make grand strategic pronouncements about the implications of killing Bin Laden. Is the War on Terror over? Can we leave Afghanistan (or Iraq) now? Will al-Qaeda strike back stronger than before? I feel like everyone needs to take a deep breath about this, because for most of these questions the only answer is: time will tell.
* Count me in the "pro-celebration" camp. I don't think it is unseemly to celebrate a great American victory, anymore than it was inappropriate to celebrate on V-J Day. Somebody claimed it was "unseemly" for Americans to be acting like we just won the World Cup. I kind of think that killing one of the great terrorist masterminds of the world is a little less frivolous a reason for celebration than winning a soccer match.
* Folks who don't believe Osama is really dead will henceforth be known as "deathers".
* While most folks (across the political spectrum) were on their best behavior last night, there were a few grump-o-sauruses. Spot the differences between the far-right message board nuts, and the Jihadi message board nuts!
* Poll-wise, the CW seems to be "remember George H.W. Bush, who had rocket-high approvals at this point in his presidency due to a major foreign policy victory (winning the Gulf War)." The point is that a bad economy can still take down an incumbent, even one flush with success. Very true, but I want to push back a little. First, I think this is a symbolically bigger deal even than the Gulf War, though maybe that's just a lack of perspective talking. But more importantly, something like this can overcome some polling inertia, starting Obama from a higher base. If the economy tanks, he's still toast. But if the economy is simply "meh", it might not be enough to budge Obama's numbers either way. If, as appears, the trend of the economy is going to be slow improvement going into 2012 -- not enough to set off celebrations, but enough to stem serious electoral bleeding -- this could be a major difference.
* Once I heard Bin Laden wasn't killed by a drone strike but through a human operation resulting in a firefight, I immediately started wondering which video game would make this into a mission first. Seems to fit the Rainbow 6 oeuvre best to me.
* One of the better one-liners I read: "The guy who killed Bin Laden is going to get laid way more than 72 times.
* Another thing folks pointed out -- Obama knew about the operation during the White House Correspondent's Dinner (but obviously didn't know how it would turn out). Cool as the other side of the pillow.
* Meet the guy who accidentally live-tweeted the Bin Laden operation.
* Hamas condemns Bin Laden killing, Palestinian Authority praises it.
* Rep. Peter King (R-NY), whom I typically dislike, was impressively magnanimous -- when being interviewed by CNN, the anchors started talking about how this was a great accomplishment for Robert Gates and Leon Panetta as well as President Obama. Which is true, but Rep. King observed that if this operation went wrong, nobody would be talking about Gates and Panetta, but the Commander in Chief. Which means that since it went right, same rules apply.
* So in the same spirit of bipartisanship, I'll leave you with the words of Mike Huckabee: "Welcome to Hell, Bin Laden."
* * *
* Last night, everyone was rushing to make grand strategic pronouncements about the implications of killing Bin Laden. Is the War on Terror over? Can we leave Afghanistan (or Iraq) now? Will al-Qaeda strike back stronger than before? I feel like everyone needs to take a deep breath about this, because for most of these questions the only answer is: time will tell.
* Count me in the "pro-celebration" camp. I don't think it is unseemly to celebrate a great American victory, anymore than it was inappropriate to celebrate on V-J Day. Somebody claimed it was "unseemly" for Americans to be acting like we just won the World Cup. I kind of think that killing one of the great terrorist masterminds of the world is a little less frivolous a reason for celebration than winning a soccer match.
* Folks who don't believe Osama is really dead will henceforth be known as "deathers".
* While most folks (across the political spectrum) were on their best behavior last night, there were a few grump-o-sauruses. Spot the differences between the far-right message board nuts, and the Jihadi message board nuts!
* Poll-wise, the CW seems to be "remember George H.W. Bush, who had rocket-high approvals at this point in his presidency due to a major foreign policy victory (winning the Gulf War)." The point is that a bad economy can still take down an incumbent, even one flush with success. Very true, but I want to push back a little. First, I think this is a symbolically bigger deal even than the Gulf War, though maybe that's just a lack of perspective talking. But more importantly, something like this can overcome some polling inertia, starting Obama from a higher base. If the economy tanks, he's still toast. But if the economy is simply "meh", it might not be enough to budge Obama's numbers either way. If, as appears, the trend of the economy is going to be slow improvement going into 2012 -- not enough to set off celebrations, but enough to stem serious electoral bleeding -- this could be a major difference.
* Once I heard Bin Laden wasn't killed by a drone strike but through a human operation resulting in a firefight, I immediately started wondering which video game would make this into a mission first. Seems to fit the Rainbow 6 oeuvre best to me.
* One of the better one-liners I read: "The guy who killed Bin Laden is going to get laid way more than 72 times.
* Another thing folks pointed out -- Obama knew about the operation during the White House Correspondent's Dinner (but obviously didn't know how it would turn out). Cool as the other side of the pillow.
* Meet the guy who accidentally live-tweeted the Bin Laden operation.
* Hamas condemns Bin Laden killing, Palestinian Authority praises it.
* Rep. Peter King (R-NY), whom I typically dislike, was impressively magnanimous -- when being interviewed by CNN, the anchors started talking about how this was a great accomplishment for Robert Gates and Leon Panetta as well as President Obama. Which is true, but Rep. King observed that if this operation went wrong, nobody would be talking about Gates and Panetta, but the Commander in Chief. Which means that since it went right, same rules apply.
* So in the same spirit of bipartisanship, I'll leave you with the words of Mike Huckabee: "Welcome to Hell, Bin Laden."
Friday, March 11, 2011
Clearing the Box Roundup
Another day, another day I should have spent taking (or least studying for) finals.
* * *
Marc Lynch gives a good rundown of how the terrain has changed with respect to the Arab revolutions.
I meant to post this in the last roundup, but it slipped through -- Latoya Peterson on being the token Black woman in feminist circles.
Conservatives mock Keith Ellison for his heartfelt testimony about a Muslim first-responder who died on 9/11.
Most late-term abortions are the result either of late-appearing health problems, or lack of access to abortion services earlier during the pregnancy.
Jewish groups split on the Peter King Muslim radicalization hearings: The AJC lauded them, while they were subjected to harsh criticism by the ADL and the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.
Dana Milbank calls the King hearings a "red scare".
* * *
Marc Lynch gives a good rundown of how the terrain has changed with respect to the Arab revolutions.
I meant to post this in the last roundup, but it slipped through -- Latoya Peterson on being the token Black woman in feminist circles.
Conservatives mock Keith Ellison for his heartfelt testimony about a Muslim first-responder who died on 9/11.
Most late-term abortions are the result either of late-appearing health problems, or lack of access to abortion services earlier during the pregnancy.
Jewish groups split on the Peter King Muslim radicalization hearings: The AJC lauded them, while they were subjected to harsh criticism by the ADL and the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.
Dana Milbank calls the King hearings a "red scare".
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Not Finals Roundup
Jill's on vacation, and I'm not studying. Or blogging. Or doing anything remotely productive. I did walk to Chipotle.
* * *
Four soldiers who died while the media was drooling over Charlie Sheen.
The Islamic radicalization hearings that could have been held, if the committee was chaired by someone serious about Homeland Security, rather than a terrorist sympathizer looking to project.
T-Paw plays footsie with birthers. It's becoming a necessity in the GOP primary -- a majority of likely Republican primary voters don't believe Obama was born in the USA (and another 21% aren't sure).
T.A. Frank on Zuhdi Jasser.
That the New York Times won't call waterboarding torture -- at least, when the US is the one doing it -- is nothing more than cowardice in the face of ginned-up controversy.
* * *
Four soldiers who died while the media was drooling over Charlie Sheen.
The Islamic radicalization hearings that could have been held, if the committee was chaired by someone serious about Homeland Security, rather than a terrorist sympathizer looking to project.
T-Paw plays footsie with birthers. It's becoming a necessity in the GOP primary -- a majority of likely Republican primary voters don't believe Obama was born in the USA (and another 21% aren't sure).
T.A. Frank on Zuhdi Jasser.
That the New York Times won't call waterboarding torture -- at least, when the US is the one doing it -- is nothing more than cowardice in the face of ginned-up controversy.
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
The GOPs Anti-Muslim Turn
A CNN article begins with a Muslim Republican wondering how his Party went from the one gaining a majority of Muslims votes to one falling over itself to attack Muslims of all stripes. Rep. Peter King (R-NY), ironically perhaps the only member of Congress to have openly declared his support for a terrorist organization, is leading a federal witch hunt of supposed domestic Islamic radicalization -- despite the fact that his core argument (that Muslims haven't been cooperating with American law enforcement) is disputed by, well, all major branches of American law enforcement. And Tennessee is considering a law that more or less criminalizes being Muslim (reading the bill text, incidentally, it is clear that it criminalizes both belief and conduct).
It's sickening. It's the sort of thing that humiliates me as an American.
It's sickening. It's the sort of thing that humiliates me as an American.
Tuesday, December 07, 2010
House Committee Chairs Released
Here's the list of who will be chairing the various House Committees.
Obviously, no Republican whose in a position to become a Committee chair is going to be someone who I'd truly like to see in the position. But there is some silver lining. John Kline on Education and Labor isn't bad -- I saw him at the first congressional hearing on employment discrimination against the transgendered, and he wasn't bad. Fred Upton on Energy and Commerce is notable because it means Rep. Joe "I'd like to apologize to BP" Barton (R-TX) isn't chairing it, which can only be a good thing.
On the other hand, there are, as expected, some catastrophes. All signs point to Darrell Issa leading a 1990s style witch-hunt against the Obama administration -- something all the more dangerous because Issa is a very smart, very effective, and very incisive Congressman. Putting Peter King -- the man who publicly wondered if Eric Holder is on the side of al-Qaeda (rich given that King is one of the few congressman who did, in fact, openly ally with actual terrorists) -- is a joke. In Lamar Smith, we have an extremist who once spoke at a conference where speakers advocating executing American judges who were insufficiently right-wing.
And then there's all the rest. Paul Ryan has a reputation for wonkishness, but it's not one that seems grounded in any actual mastery of economic facts, so much as it's grading on a massive, massive curve accounting for the anti-intellectual bent of the GOP mainstream. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen will insure that our policy towards Cuba will stay on the same failed trajectory it's been on for the past 40 years (and if that means sabotaging Israel, so be it), but other than amount of rhetoric devoted to the issue it's probably no real change. Spencer Bachus at least had the balls to call out Sarah Palin for something.
Agriculture: Frank D. Lucas (Okla.)
Appropriations: Hal Rogers (Ky.)
Armed Services: Howard P. "Buck" McKeon (Calif.)
Budget: Paul Ryan (Wis.)
Education and Labor: John Kline (Minn.)
Energy and Commerce: Fred Upton Mich.)
Financial Services: Spencer Bachus (Ala.)
Foreign Affairs: Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.)
Homeland Security: Peter T. King (N.Y.)
Judiciary: Lamar S. Smith (Texas)
Natural Resources: Doc Hastings (Wash.)
Oversight & Government Reform: Darrell Issa (Calif.)
Science & Technology: Ralph M. Hall (Texas)
Small Business: Sam Graves (Mo.)
Transportation & Infrastructure: John L. Mica (Fla.)
Veterans: Jeff Miller (Fla.)
Ways & Means: Dave Camp (Mich.)
Obviously, no Republican whose in a position to become a Committee chair is going to be someone who I'd truly like to see in the position. But there is some silver lining. John Kline on Education and Labor isn't bad -- I saw him at the first congressional hearing on employment discrimination against the transgendered, and he wasn't bad. Fred Upton on Energy and Commerce is notable because it means Rep. Joe "I'd like to apologize to BP" Barton (R-TX) isn't chairing it, which can only be a good thing.
On the other hand, there are, as expected, some catastrophes. All signs point to Darrell Issa leading a 1990s style witch-hunt against the Obama administration -- something all the more dangerous because Issa is a very smart, very effective, and very incisive Congressman. Putting Peter King -- the man who publicly wondered if Eric Holder is on the side of al-Qaeda (rich given that King is one of the few congressman who did, in fact, openly ally with actual terrorists) -- is a joke. In Lamar Smith, we have an extremist who once spoke at a conference where speakers advocating executing American judges who were insufficiently right-wing.
And then there's all the rest. Paul Ryan has a reputation for wonkishness, but it's not one that seems grounded in any actual mastery of economic facts, so much as it's grading on a massive, massive curve accounting for the anti-intellectual bent of the GOP mainstream. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen will insure that our policy towards Cuba will stay on the same failed trajectory it's been on for the past 40 years (and if that means sabotaging Israel, so be it), but other than amount of rhetoric devoted to the issue it's probably no real change. Spencer Bachus at least had the balls to call out Sarah Palin for something.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Taking Sides
Rep. Peter King (R-NY) is angry at Attorney General Eric Holder for daring to do his job and investigate potential violations of the law:
There are two sides to this conflict. One side is defending democracy, liberty, and rule of law, and the other side is trying to destroy it. And I am quite sure where Attorney General Holder and Rep. King line up, respectively.
"It's bullsh*t. It's disgraceful. You wonder which side they're on," the Long Island Republican told Politico Tuesday.
There are two sides to this conflict. One side is defending democracy, liberty, and rule of law, and the other side is trying to destroy it. And I am quite sure where Attorney General Holder and Rep. King line up, respectively.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
