Monday, May 29, 2006

Peter King Writes a Letter

Looks like someone needs a WHAAAAAAAA-mbulance.
From Newsday May 23rd.
Newsday sings a false note
Newsday is becoming less coherent and increasingly vacuous as it careens from issue to issue. A case in point is your editorial "Officially, English" [May 5], regarding singing "The Star-Spangled Banner" in a foreign language.
First you grudgingly acknowledge that I was "at least partly right" in calling for our national anthem to be sung in English. That was nice of you, since my position is entirely in keeping with our traditions and represents the belief of the majority of Americans.
Bowing to shameless political correctness, however, Newsday goes on to question my motives by resorting to shabby ad hominem attacks (jingoistic) and an ultimate non sequitur (a felony provision in the immigration bill).
If Newsday believes it is jingoistic to protect our national anthem, that is your prerogative. I am content to let the people decide who is right on that.
As to Newsday's continued distortion of the immigration bill, let me say it again for the slow learners on your editorial board - 191 Democrats voted to retain the provision making it a felony to stay in the country illegally; 156 Republicans, including myself, voted to make it a misdemeanor. Clearly it is the Democrats and their accomplices on the Newsday editorial board who have the "explaining to do."
Newsday says the nation is "divided" over the immigration issue and that we would "benefit [by] ... more efforts to find common ground." Maybe Newsday could start by telling the truth, at least some of the time.

Rep. Peter King

King tries to take a jab at the Newsday with “slow learners on your editorial board” about the felony amendment that 191 Democrats voted against. Too bad that like so many other issues, King is either ignorant or lying. The fact is that the 191 Democrats who voted against the amendment were quiet clear about their opposition. King says the Democrats have "explaining to do" but Rep. Lofgren of California said on the House floor where presumably King was for the debate “the amendment before us changes the degree of punishment, but it does not alter the underlying issue of criminalizing being alive in the country without documents.”
So what happpend is that the Democrats saw the amendment was an empty gesture and they voted against it.
There it was explained but King is either once again ignorant and lying. Two traits we don't need in a representative. Two traits which King is well known for.
Senator Reid and Congresswoman Pelosi issued a statement that said “The fact is that Congressman Sensenbrenner's amendment, if adopted, would have still criminalized an entire population for the first time in our history, rather than charging presence violations as civil offenses as provided under current law. 11 million men, women, and children, with no exceptions, would still go to jail for up to six months under the revised Sensenbrenner amendment. That is why many Democrats voted against the Sensenbrenner amendment.”
King seems to be the “slow learner” who should heed his own words and “start telling the truth at least some of the time.”
It’s funny that King complains of “shabby ad hominem attacks” using them himself like "less coherent and increasingly vacuous" and "shameless political correctness."
Perhaps King ought to stop throwing those stones because every piece of glass in his house seems to be broken already.

We've already gone over the national anthem issue. There's more to come on Kings english-first rhetoric.


Sid said...

Arrogant blowhard...

... King, that is.

I hope you sent this post to Newsday as a letter to the editor? Please, let the voters of this district have the wisdom to get rid of this windbag.

J said...

This was sent as a letter but not published.

Anonymous said...

Peter Peter Peter - time for you to go. Couldn't help but notice you at the memorial day parade today trying to look important. But I guess you forgot you serve the people of this district given your behavior - they dont serve you. Maybe you have an anger problem? Or cant handle the responsibility of your post anymore? Want to explain how you could come out against the Dubai takeover of ports only to kill legislation to inspect all cargo containers that come into port not too long afterwards with pressure from large corporate interests? Want to explain how that doesnt stink to high hell of hyporcacy? Are you capable of telling the truth, or even getting your lies straight? Just another Bush lackey - time for a change. Cant wait to vote for Dave in November. LOTS of others like me who feel the same way.

Anonymous said...

I love how the "civil liberties for all even terrorists" take part in censorship when it comes to this blog.

Anonymous said...

First, stop with the ridiculous hyperbolic statements like "civil liberties for all even terrorists". That is nothing but rhetorical agit-prop nonsense that offers nothing to the debate.

Second, what exactly has been censored? Are you saying that your comments here are being censored? Well this one got in, so if you were being censored, then why would this one have even been allowed. Or are you suggesting that King is being censored? If that is what you are saying, I don't get that.

Anonymous said...

The blogger specifically censored the results of a Democrat commissioned poll which showed that even when King was linked with Bush, King was still getting 65+% of the respondants. Mejias so far isn't showing that much of an impression.

J said...

What poll was that?

Anonymous said...

A person called with a series of questions re: President Bush, Congress in general, then King v. Mejias, sounded young, maybe 16/17. First question was what you thought of the President, second was how effective has Congress been, and the usual, if the election was held today who would you vote for. After I responded, they did a follow-up question, "Would you vote for Peter King if you knew he was a staunch ally of President Bush, who supported the war in Iraq, supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%?" My guess is that the League of Conservation Voters was responsible for it, but don't know for sure.