Saturday, October 30, 2004

Newsday still practicing

October 29, 2004, 3:32 PM EDT^TEST BULLETIN -- The following is a TEST. Peter King, GOP, elected U.S. House, District 3, New York.

October 30, 2004, 4:33 PM EDT^TEST BULLETIN -- The following is a TEST. Peter King, GOP, elected U.S. House, District 3, New York.

Friday, October 29, 2004

And the silence from King is deafening

The question of Bush's Texas Air National Guard service or rather non-service was a cause for disengenuous republicans to attack Kerry and Bush detractors by saying Kerry was denegrating the service of ALL National Guard members. That of course is NOT true. But that doesn't stop Peter King from joining the pile-on.
"Washington – Today, Congressman Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) and fellow Congressmen sent a letter to Senator Kerry demanding he immediately apologize for comments attacking the honorable service of those in the National Guard. All of the Congressmen who signed the letter are veterans or current members of the National Guard or Reserves.
“I am honored to be joined by so many proud Members of Congress in demanding that Senator Kerry stop slandering the men and women who have served in the National Guard and Reserves. When Senator Kerry attacks President Bush’s National Guard record as a refusal to serve in the U.S. Military, he is degrading the commitment of all the proud men and women who have served and are serving today. We demand that Senator Kerry cease his attacks and apologize for his comments.”
“Unfortunately, this is not the first time Democrats have demeaned the service of men and women in the Guard. Earlier this year, Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe said that President Bush had never ‘served in our military’. This was an insult to all those in the Guard and Reserve who are part of the American Military. It’s time for the Democrats to apologize and stop insulting the National Guard and Reserves.”
Joining Congressman Wilson in signing the letter sent to Senator Kerry’s Presidential Campaign were Bill Young (R-Fl.), Dave Weldon (R-Fl.), John Shimkus (R-Il.), Butch Otter (R-Id.), Howard Coble (R-N.C.), John Shadegg (R-), Harold Rogers (R-Ky.), Walter Jones (R-), Steve Buyer (R-In.), Virgil Goode (R-Va.), Tom Osbourne (R-Ne.), Todd Akin (R-Mo.), Henry Brown (R-S.C.), Mike Bilirakis (R-Fl.), Tom Reynolds (R-N.Y.), Spencer Bachus (R-Al.), Mark Kirk (R-Il.), Peter King (R-N.Y.), and Mac Collins (R-Ga.)."


Yesterday, Rudy Giuliani was running cover for Bush because the heat is on about the missing 380 tons of high explosives in Iraq. Those explosives were under seal by the IAEA and the US was told where they were. Kerry and Edwards have been holding Bush as commander-in-chief responsible for the poor planning. Here comes Rudy to Bush's rescue. Well maybe not really. Someone had to be blamed for missing explosives so Rudy put the blame on the soldiers. (via Atrios) "The president was cautious the president was prudent the president did what a commander in chief should do. No matter how you try to blame it on the president the actual responsibility for it really would be for the troops that were there. Did they search carefully enough? Didn't they search carefully enough?"
The buck never stops at Bush.
Where are King and his cohorts blasting Giuliani for blaming the soldiers for not being told to look for weapons Bush knew existed and knew were left unguarded.
Giuliani like King will say and do anything to protect Bush.

Thursday, October 28, 2004

Funny: Newsday getting some practice this week

October 20, 2004, 3:18 PM EDT^TEST BULLETIN -- The following is a TEST. Peter King, GOP, elected U.S. House, District 3, New York.

October 22, 2004, 3:24 PM EDT^TEST BULLETIN -- The following is a TEST. Peter King, GOP, elected U.S. House, District 3, New York

October 23, 2004, 4:34 PM EDT^TEST BULLETIN -- The following is a TEST. Peter King, GOP, elected U.S. House, District 3, New York.

October 25, 2004, 3:29 PM EDT^TEST BULLETIN -- The following is a TEST. Peter King, GOP, elected U.S. House, District 3, New York.

October 27, 2004, 3:33 PM EDT^TEST BULLETIN -- The following is a TEST. Peter King, GOP, elected U.S. House, District 3, New York.


October 28, 2004, 3:45 PM EDT^TEST BULLETIN -- The following is a TEST. Peter King, GOP, elected U.S. House, District 3, New York.

Monday, October 25, 2004

Whatever King's drinking, I'll have two.

From Newsday:
"I remember being in downtown Baghdad and thinking that I felt like I was in downtown Manhattan."

Really? There are car bombs in downtown Manhattan? Tanks and personnel carriers patrolling the streets?
King is either lying or just plain ignorant.
If downtown Baghdad is so nice like a stroll around SoHo, we would like to know if King took a stroll without heavily armed guards. Probably not. Wonder why.

Friday, October 22, 2004

Here comes the Freedom Flu

Pete King is against all things French. King has called France a "second rate country" and "yesterday's people." King is dismissive of French accomplishments and contributions to the world. Heck he even said "Anything we can do to hurt them without hurting us, I will support."
At a time when we are in need, who can help us with 2.6million additional doses of the flu vaccine? FRANCE. Specifically Aventis-Pasteur based in Strasbourg.
We guess that when it comes to the flu vaccine shortage King will take one for the team and risk getting the Freedom Flu.

Thursday, October 21, 2004

An embarassment to the nation: Peter King on the BBC

So we were talking about this earlier this year and now here is the audio to the BBC interview with Peter King from 2003. This interview was pre-Bush-Iraq War and had King attacking "Old Europe" France and Germany. Especially France. King had it out for France in a big way. We are working on a transcript but in teh meantime we present the audio in mp3 format in 3 parts.
Laugh along as the clueless King attacks France about not having an aircraft carrier when in fact they did and the aircraft carrier Charles DeGaulle was assisting the US in operations in Afghanistan.
The interviewer from the BBC seemed to be stunned at each crass and uninformed statement King makes.

Enjoy.

King on BBC Part 1

King on BBC Part 2

King on BBC Part 3

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

Oh no they didn't: Newsday endorses King

You have to wonder what is wrong with Newsday. Actually maybe you don't. Newsday endorses King but it was such a tepid endorsement you have to ask why they did it in the first place.
"3rd C.D.: Keep King: Wrong on taxes but he’s his own man
October 20, 2004
Rep. Peter King (R-Seaford) is a unique individual. Newsday has sometimes endorsed him to represent the Third Congressional District despite disagreeing with him on a host of issues. He won that support because of his independence and uncommon strength of character. King, 60, is his own man. He'll buck anybody he thinks is wrong. He was a lonely Republican voice against his party's impeachment of President Bill Clinton. That strength won our respect. But that "Clinton effect" is wearing thin.
Democrat Blair Mathies, 48, of Babylon is trying to end King's 12-year run in Congress. He says President George W. Bush and Republicans like King have misled the country on the war in Iraq, Medicare, tax cuts and many other issues. There's a lot of truth in what he says. Mathies is a lawyer who spent his career investigating unethical and illegal sales practices of securities brokers. He wants Washington to eliminate the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, impose real fiscal discipline and shore up critical entitlement programs.
King does need to get real about taxes. He's a supply-sider who has never met a tax cut he didn't like. That may go down easy with voters, but it's the road to ruin for Social Security and Medicare. His dogged belief that tax cuts stimulate enough economic growth to pay for themselves is delusional.
King can also be intemperate. His comment that 80 to 85 percent of the mosques in this country are controlled by Islamic fundamentalists who constitute an enemy living among us was over the top. The incendiary language overwhelmed any message he may have wanted to deliver.
Still, King is positioned as a member of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security to help deliver anti-terror money to New York. He has been an important voice and fund-raiser for improving security in the underwater LIRR tunnels into Pennsylvania station. And King has an extraordinary knack for remaining friends with people he opposes and forging relationships with people in power, including current and former occupants of the White House. Those are valuable talents in Congress. Newsday endorses King."

Pete King Watch has written to Newsday to express our dismay at the endorsement and point out Kings real record.

To the Editor,
I am perplexed by Newsday once again endorsing Peter King. I am glad to see that Newsday is tiring of the “King voted against Clinton impeachment” reasoning since that was merely a move of political opportunism. Newsday cites King for his “uncommon strength of character.” The fact of the matter is King is willing to do anything to curry favor and switches sides depending which way the winds are blowing. In 2000 King said Bush lacked a “moral compass” yet went on to support Bush after King’s chosen candidate John McCain lost the primaries. King also said Bush “probably thinks New York is another foreign country he needs to learn about."

King boasts that things are going well in Iraq and touts rebuilt schools, hospitals and firehouses as examples. That’s great for Iraq but in NYC, six firehouses have been closed, Long Island could use more school aid and Nassau University Medical Center which is invaluable to county residents is close to collapsing.

This goes to the heart of Newsday’s argument that because King is on the House Select Committee on Homeland Security he is effective. New York has been severely short-changed on anti-terror funding and there doesn’t seem to be a change coming any time soon. How effective is King if he can pose for pictures with Bush, envoking 9/11 but can’t get more money for New York?

Saturday, October 16, 2004

Why does King want to change the constitution?

What is "marriage?" To Peter King and his far-right buddies, marriage is something that deserves a constitutional amendment. H J RES 106 was introduced to change the constitution to say "Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."
The House held a vote but failed to secure the 3/4 required. King of course voted to codify the bigotry.
There are a few issues we can talk about.. the first one being "states rights" which the republicans like to trot out when they don't like the federal government. Now they want the federal government specifically the constitution of the United States to restrict states from making marriage laws.
The second issue is just exactly what is "marriage?" The supporters of the anti-gay marriage amendment talk about "traditional marriage." Thy want to use THEIR bible and THEIR religion to dictate laws. King considers himself a devout catholic so he must agree with his buddies when it comes to the bible.
Let's talk about the "traditional marriage" that they so badly want. It's more than just a man and a woman... there is so much more to the old "traditions." How about going back to the Old Testament and Deuteronomy 22:13-21 which says : "If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and then spurns her, and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings an evil name upon her, saying, 'I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her the tokens of virginity,' then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take and bring out the tokens of her virginity to the elders
of the city in the gate; and the father of the young woman shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man to wife, and he spurns her; and lo, he has made shameful charges against her, saying, 'I did not find in your daughter the tokens of virginity,' And yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity,' And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. Then the elders of that city shall take the man and whip him; and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father
of the young woman, became he has brought an evil name upon a virgin of Israel; and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. But if the thing is true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has wrought folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father's house; so you shall purge the evil from the midst of you."
Wow! Death penalty for a woman who is not a virgin at marriage? How much more "traditional" can you get?

How about other "traditonal" marriages? Not too long ago brides were considered chattel. Then you have the arranged marriages where the bride and groom have never met.

What kind of "traditional" marriage does King support?

We have too long codified bigtry with the miscegenation laws that forbade different "races" to marry. Would Peter King agree with those laws? So why would he seek to change the constitution to create a new bigotry set in law?

Thursday, October 14, 2004

Pete King is just plain lying about John Kerry

A few weeks gow we started talking about the Washington Times having to print a correction after recieving erroneous information from King. It seems Pete has been pushing a story about his appearance with John Kerry on Crossfire. King has been all over saying that in 1997 John Kerry's policy towards Iraq mirrors what Bush is doing now and that Kerry has not been consistant. King has also been providing a quote to prove what he is saying about Kerry. Too bad Kerry didn't say.
The Washington Times retartion went something like this:

"Due to erroneous information from Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican, an item in the Inside the Beltway column in yesterday's editions incorrectly quoted Sen. John Kerry in a 1997 appearance on CNN 's "Crossfire" as arguing for a unilateral, pre-emptive war against Iraq.

In reference to a U.N. Security Council resolution demanding access to Iraqi weapons sites, Mr. Kerry actually said: "I think that's our great concern [-] where's the backbone of Russia, where's the backbone of France, where are they in expressing their condemnation of such clearly illegal activity [-] but in a sense, they're now climbing into a box and they will have enormous difficulty not following up on this if there is not compliance by Iraq."

Later, referring to French and Russian reservations on the use of force, Mr. Kerry said: "There's absolutely no statement that they have made or that they will make that will prevent the United States of America and this president or any president from acting in what they believe are the best interests of our country."

There are two websites that jumped on this when it happend and they have some great coverage over at Talk Left and the right-leaning Just One Minute.

Saturday, October 09, 2004

Delays in posting

We've been caught up with some technical details but we're back and ready to go. There are a few things to catch up on and continue teh saga of Peter King just plain lying.

Remember election day is November 2nd and we can send King back to Seaford.

Check out the website for Blair Mathies. Please contribute and volunteer to electa REAL representative of the 3rd CD.