This guy shows us every day why he should not be in congress. After his immigration bill gets knocked around by Bishops, Cardinals, Ministers, and Rabbis from across the religious spectrum, he lashes out at the catholic church for being "left-wing liberals" and making a phony issue out of a provision in the bill that would make helping an illegal immigrant a felony. The bill as written makes no distinctions about humanitarian aid so religious leaders and social services groups rightly saw the bill passed by the House as a threat to the work they do.
King of course would have none of that and went out of his way to castigate and slander anyone who opposed him particularly the catholic church. King built a straw man saying those opposed to his bill supported illegal immigration and likened his bill to "gods work". Cardinal Mahony made very clear in his NYTimes op-ed piece "That does not mean that the Catholic Church encourages or supports illegal immigration. Every day in our parishes, social service programs, hospitals and schools, we witness the baleful consequences of illegal immigration. Families are separated, workers are exploited and migrants are left by smugglers to die in the desert. Illegal immigration serves neither the migrant nor the common good."
Newsday reports "King said he would fight to soften the provision against those who help illegal immigrants in a final version."
So what's the big deal? King is agreeing with the need to change the bill with an amendment but still goes on the offensive.
But what exactly is the amendment for? King keeps insisting that the attack on the bill is a phony charge.
King says in his best petulant child voice "I support the amendment because it takes away the phony issue the Catholic bishops created... Even without this amendment, no priest or nun would have been prosecuted. But if this makes them happy, fine."
So he is supporting an amendment to fix something he says doesn't need fixing because it is a "phony issue."
Is he supporting the amendment just to get the bishops to shut up? If King had any principles, he would oppose the amendment because he insists there is nothing that needs to be changed.
If it is such a "phony issue" why not continue the fight?
Maybe because King is losing the media battle. His outlandish remarks are getting alot of attention and more and more people are seeing how unstable he really is.
The best is his "But if this makes them happy, fine."
I can see him saying that with a child-like sour puss, arms crossed in defiance. King just doesn't like to be criticized and is very thin-skinned.
Somebody call him a WHAA-mbulance.