Opponents of the Broadwater Liquefied Natural Gas project proposed for the Long Island Sound are urged to attend a news conference demonstration next Wednesday to show their dissatisfaction with Congressman Peter T. King's (R) approval of an addition to an energy bill that would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in Washington sole authority to approve Liquefied Natural Gas facilities.
If approved by the Senate and signed by the President, the House bill will give complete siting authority to FERC without local input. It is important that those of us concerned about this issue express to our elected officials that this is unacceptable. Long Islanders and New York State need their voices heard in the FERC review process.
The demonstration will be hosted by the Anti Broadwater Coaltion:
Date: Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Time: 11:00 AM
Location: In front of Congressman King's office at1003 Park Blvd. Massapequa, NY 11762
Please spread the word! RSVPs can be made to Jennifer Hartnagel at hartnagel@pinebarrens .org or call (631) 369-3300.
You can contact Congressman King's office at (516) 544-4225 to tell him your disappointment with his decision on this crucial issue.
Directions to Congressman King's office
From Southern State Parkway - Traveling East.Take Exit 28A (Seaford/Rt 135 South) Continue South on Rt 135 for approx. 3.5 miles and bear left onto Sunrise Highway (Rt 27) Travel for approx. 3.5 miles on Rt 27 and make a left onto Park Blvd.
From Southern State Parkway - Traveling WestTake Exit Rt 110 South (Amityville) Continue South on Rt110 for approx. 3 miles and bear right onto Sunrise Highway (Rt 27) Travel for approx. 2 miles on Rt 27 and make a right onto Park Blvd
Sunday, June 12, 2005
Monday, June 06, 2005
Readers respond to LI Press Story
I forgot to post this.... go figure.
From the May 12, 2005 Issue
LETTERS TO THE PRESS
Long Island Press political writer Elizabeth Cady Brown's April 28 story, "Kingly Fashion," generated many letters reproaching Rep. Peter King (R-Massapequa) for comments he made on Cablevision's News 12 Long Island. He described In This Together Campaign (ITTC), the new multi-union coalition opposing Social Security overhaul, as "partisan hit men" and "wacko malcontents."
Dear Editor,
In my experience, it's the media, not constituents, who have "respected" King Peter's over-the-top remarks. I was ashamed for all of Long Island when King made disparaging and outright hostile comments last summer regarding the New Jersey women who lost their husbands in the 9/11 attacks. So I'm not surprised that he called those of us who care about preserving Social Security "wacko malcontents." But he is right about one thing -- I'm definitely not content with my representation in Congress!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Editor,
I am a constituent of Peter King's, and I have never been charmed by his rudeness. He says he only responds harshly when someone writes a harsh letter to him, but I haven't found this to be true. Whenever you disagree with his position and I disagree with almost everything he does he tends to be condescending at best. His stand on Social Security is just the latest indication of his contempt for the needs of his constituents. He couldn't be bothered to show up for a Town Hall meeting on the subject, but if he had, he might have learned something about how people in his district rely on Social Security. When I think of the heartrending stories I heard that night, King's dismissive comment that the people at that meeting were "wacko malcontents" makes me absolutely furious.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Editor,
When anti-privatization activists rallied outside the offices of Rep. Vito Fossella (R-Staten Island/Brooklyn), the congressman emerged and engaged his constituents in a constructive dialogue. Compare this to Rep. Peter King, who greets opposing constituents with derision. That's why Peter King needs to be replaced.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Editor,
Not all of King's responses are to "harsh" letters. When he called the police on constituents who wanted to speak to him, not a harsh word precipitated that. King called into question a letter writer's morality and intellectual abilities because the writer was urging King to censure Bush for lies regarding WMDs. No "harsh" words were directed at King. Peter King feels free to insult, belittle and lie because no one has called him on it. It's time someone did. The Social Security Town Hall meeting he was too afraid to attend was set up because King himself will not speak to his constituents on his own. Of course, King showed up at a union meeting, because he needs their money and support. Four hundred constituents don't mean very much when the unions can offer thousands of dollars and an endorsement. At that union meeting, they planned to ask the same questions on Social Security that the Town Hall meeting organizers and participants wanted to ask. Did King call the union members' patriotism into question? Did he call the union members "wacky malcontents?" Of course not. It goes back to endorsements and money. King is afraid of constituents who will question him and take him to task for his actions. He says he is not a "punching bag." Fair enough, but he works for us. He has an obligation to listen to his constituents. If he has to sit and take criticism, then that is what he has to do. That's part of the job. Unfortunately, his thin skin and lack of professionalism makes that difficult. The sad part is that unions still support King. He voted for the Bush budgets that have hurled us into historic deficits that will mean the working person will get the shaft at some point. King supported the Homeland Security Department bill -- which stripped workers in that department of collective bargaining. John Kennedy [head of the Building and Construction Trades Council] ought to look at King's record and see that it is more than one issue that would give the unions a second look at the man they support. King is not their friend.
John Rennhack
the editor of www.kingwatch.blogspot.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Editor,
Re: "Kingly Fashion," I would have to disagree with John Kennedy, head of the Building and Construction Trades Council [of Nassau and Suffolk], when he says, "We probably wouldn't abandon a candidate over just one issue..." First of all, when that one issue is Social Security, that's big enough to warrant a break. Working people bled to earn Social Security for all of us, and we have to make sure we don't lose it. But secondly, Peter King is wrong on so many issues, it's hard to know where to start. He recently supported an extremely harsh bankruptcy law that extracts the last dime from working people who get in trouble when they lose their job or have exorbitant medical bills, but offers cushy exceptions for corporate defaulters. He supported making permanent the repeal of the estate tax which ought by rights to be called the Paris Hilton tax. We are paying for this loss of revenue from the super-rich with an increase in the stealth alternative minimum tax -- which affects more middle-class families every year. And finally, King recently voted for an energy bill that allows petroleum companies to sink MTBEs into our groundwater while exempting them from prosecution. Peter King is no friend to the middle class.
From the May 12, 2005 Issue
LETTERS TO THE PRESS
Long Island Press political writer Elizabeth Cady Brown's April 28 story, "Kingly Fashion," generated many letters reproaching Rep. Peter King (R-Massapequa) for comments he made on Cablevision's News 12 Long Island. He described In This Together Campaign (ITTC), the new multi-union coalition opposing Social Security overhaul, as "partisan hit men" and "wacko malcontents."
Dear Editor,
In my experience, it's the media, not constituents, who have "respected" King Peter's over-the-top remarks. I was ashamed for all of Long Island when King made disparaging and outright hostile comments last summer regarding the New Jersey women who lost their husbands in the 9/11 attacks. So I'm not surprised that he called those of us who care about preserving Social Security "wacko malcontents." But he is right about one thing -- I'm definitely not content with my representation in Congress!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Editor,
I am a constituent of Peter King's, and I have never been charmed by his rudeness. He says he only responds harshly when someone writes a harsh letter to him, but I haven't found this to be true. Whenever you disagree with his position and I disagree with almost everything he does he tends to be condescending at best. His stand on Social Security is just the latest indication of his contempt for the needs of his constituents. He couldn't be bothered to show up for a Town Hall meeting on the subject, but if he had, he might have learned something about how people in his district rely on Social Security. When I think of the heartrending stories I heard that night, King's dismissive comment that the people at that meeting were "wacko malcontents" makes me absolutely furious.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Editor,
When anti-privatization activists rallied outside the offices of Rep. Vito Fossella (R-Staten Island/Brooklyn), the congressman emerged and engaged his constituents in a constructive dialogue. Compare this to Rep. Peter King, who greets opposing constituents with derision. That's why Peter King needs to be replaced.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Editor,
Not all of King's responses are to "harsh" letters. When he called the police on constituents who wanted to speak to him, not a harsh word precipitated that. King called into question a letter writer's morality and intellectual abilities because the writer was urging King to censure Bush for lies regarding WMDs. No "harsh" words were directed at King. Peter King feels free to insult, belittle and lie because no one has called him on it. It's time someone did. The Social Security Town Hall meeting he was too afraid to attend was set up because King himself will not speak to his constituents on his own. Of course, King showed up at a union meeting, because he needs their money and support. Four hundred constituents don't mean very much when the unions can offer thousands of dollars and an endorsement. At that union meeting, they planned to ask the same questions on Social Security that the Town Hall meeting organizers and participants wanted to ask. Did King call the union members' patriotism into question? Did he call the union members "wacky malcontents?" Of course not. It goes back to endorsements and money. King is afraid of constituents who will question him and take him to task for his actions. He says he is not a "punching bag." Fair enough, but he works for us. He has an obligation to listen to his constituents. If he has to sit and take criticism, then that is what he has to do. That's part of the job. Unfortunately, his thin skin and lack of professionalism makes that difficult. The sad part is that unions still support King. He voted for the Bush budgets that have hurled us into historic deficits that will mean the working person will get the shaft at some point. King supported the Homeland Security Department bill -- which stripped workers in that department of collective bargaining. John Kennedy [head of the Building and Construction Trades Council] ought to look at King's record and see that it is more than one issue that would give the unions a second look at the man they support. King is not their friend.
John Rennhack
the editor of www.kingwatch.blogspot.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Editor,
Re: "Kingly Fashion," I would have to disagree with John Kennedy, head of the Building and Construction Trades Council [of Nassau and Suffolk], when he says, "We probably wouldn't abandon a candidate over just one issue..." First of all, when that one issue is Social Security, that's big enough to warrant a break. Working people bled to earn Social Security for all of us, and we have to make sure we don't lose it. But secondly, Peter King is wrong on so many issues, it's hard to know where to start. He recently supported an extremely harsh bankruptcy law that extracts the last dime from working people who get in trouble when they lose their job or have exorbitant medical bills, but offers cushy exceptions for corporate defaulters. He supported making permanent the repeal of the estate tax which ought by rights to be called the Paris Hilton tax. We are paying for this loss of revenue from the super-rich with an increase in the stealth alternative minimum tax -- which affects more middle-class families every year. And finally, King recently voted for an energy bill that allows petroleum companies to sink MTBEs into our groundwater while exempting them from prosecution. Peter King is no friend to the middle class.
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
King on Stem Cells: Opening one door and trying to slam shut another
The Testaverde Fund for Spinal Cord Injury held thier annual Spinal Victory Golf Challenge on Monday. Before the event a media advisory was sent out that Rep. Peter King would "Introduce Major Federal Stem Cell Research Legislation in Congress" that day.
The legislation is H.R.2541: To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the expansion, intensification, and coordination of the activities of the National Institutes of Health regarding qualifying adult stem cell research, and for other purposes.
It is co-sponsered by two other Long Island reps Steve Israel and Tim Bishop. This is a commendable effort. But it targets ONLY adult stem cells. Dr. Wise Young M.D. Ph.D, a Testverde Fund advisory board member, world-renound leader in Spinal Cord Injury research and stem cell research and also a close friend of actor Christopher Reeve was honored at the event for his work.
In an panel discussion on Stem Cell research interview, Dr. Young said "I do share his [Christopher Reeve] belief that embryonic stem cells will play a major role in the cure of many neurological diseases. I do want to point out that this does not change the balance between adult or embryonic stem cells. What we need to do is to explore both and we need to get away from the future of harvesting these cells from different sources such as embryos or foetuses. The future is going to be very different. We're going to learn enough stem cell biology to be able to make stem cells out of any cell. But we have to be allowed to do the science to reach this stage and holding back science will only mire us in yesterday's science of harvesting cells. We need to go on ahead."
"... Embryonic stem cells are at the very, very earliest stages of an egg developing. It's during the first two weeks after an egg has been fertilised, it is before the egg has shown any shape or form as an embryo, it is just a clump of cells at that point. Now, the issue of whether or not this is life, I think is irrelevant to the discussion here because most of the cells that will be studied will be thrown away anyway. This is the equivalent to taking an organ from an embryo or a baby that will be dead anyway. Adult stem cells are very different in that they are part of adults, they're part of you and me. Adult stem cells will be very useful for certain types of conditions and in fact, as pointed out by several others, adult stem cells are now being used to treat haematapoietic disorders, these are blood problems. But as of yet, these cells - bone marrow or umbilical cord - have not been shown to benefit anybody with neurological conditions such as Joanna's. It's very important that we leave the way open for all the different kinds of cells so we can find out how to benefit these people."
"... I certainly agree that embryonic stem cells is currently not a cure for Alzheimer's disease, but I really take umbrage at the use of the word 'never'. I don't think we have a crystal ball. I certainly don't have a crystal ball. I think that's one of the reasons why we must actually leave this avenue open for research. I think that we must not forget that there are two driving forces behind this debate. One of the driving forces is a fear of the future and the other one is hope for the future, hope for the cure, and we must balance these two. And there have not been many other situations where government has interfered in science in this same way that it has done so for embryonic stem cells. It's very important that the government really try not to step in the way of science. Let science progress, and I believe in 5 or 10 years, we will get beyond having to harvest cells from embryos or foetuses. Let science do its work."
"... we need to be putting all - everything that we can into investing and developing a scalable source of cells that can treat humans."
On Tuesday, the house held a vote on H.R.810: To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research. The bill passed with a vote of 238-194. How did King vote? In Roll Call Vote 204, King voted NO.
Just like Tom Delay.
All other Long Island representatives voted YES.
Bush is threatening to veto the bill.
Will King vote to sustain the veto? Yes he will.
The fact is we cannot have half-measures when it comes to searching for cures that can help millions of people.
More info at the Stem Cell Research Foundation.
Bush put on a little show yesterday with families with children from adopted embryos. This was a "protest" against the embryonic stem cell bill. Too bad they are so naive and just don't get what is at stake. They assume that every frozen embryo not used in IVF (in-vitro fertilization) will be adopted. That doesn't happen. They are either destroyed or stored for future use by the parents. Some parents opt to donate the embryos for research. That research needs federal funding so that we can cure diseases that affect the living.
The legislation is H.R.2541: To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for the expansion, intensification, and coordination of the activities of the National Institutes of Health regarding qualifying adult stem cell research, and for other purposes.
It is co-sponsered by two other Long Island reps Steve Israel and Tim Bishop. This is a commendable effort. But it targets ONLY adult stem cells. Dr. Wise Young M.D. Ph.D, a Testverde Fund advisory board member, world-renound leader in Spinal Cord Injury research and stem cell research and also a close friend of actor Christopher Reeve was honored at the event for his work.
In an panel discussion on Stem Cell research interview, Dr. Young said "I do share his [Christopher Reeve] belief that embryonic stem cells will play a major role in the cure of many neurological diseases. I do want to point out that this does not change the balance between adult or embryonic stem cells. What we need to do is to explore both and we need to get away from the future of harvesting these cells from different sources such as embryos or foetuses. The future is going to be very different. We're going to learn enough stem cell biology to be able to make stem cells out of any cell. But we have to be allowed to do the science to reach this stage and holding back science will only mire us in yesterday's science of harvesting cells. We need to go on ahead."
"... Embryonic stem cells are at the very, very earliest stages of an egg developing. It's during the first two weeks after an egg has been fertilised, it is before the egg has shown any shape or form as an embryo, it is just a clump of cells at that point. Now, the issue of whether or not this is life, I think is irrelevant to the discussion here because most of the cells that will be studied will be thrown away anyway. This is the equivalent to taking an organ from an embryo or a baby that will be dead anyway. Adult stem cells are very different in that they are part of adults, they're part of you and me. Adult stem cells will be very useful for certain types of conditions and in fact, as pointed out by several others, adult stem cells are now being used to treat haematapoietic disorders, these are blood problems. But as of yet, these cells - bone marrow or umbilical cord - have not been shown to benefit anybody with neurological conditions such as Joanna's. It's very important that we leave the way open for all the different kinds of cells so we can find out how to benefit these people."
"... I certainly agree that embryonic stem cells is currently not a cure for Alzheimer's disease, but I really take umbrage at the use of the word 'never'. I don't think we have a crystal ball. I certainly don't have a crystal ball. I think that's one of the reasons why we must actually leave this avenue open for research. I think that we must not forget that there are two driving forces behind this debate. One of the driving forces is a fear of the future and the other one is hope for the future, hope for the cure, and we must balance these two. And there have not been many other situations where government has interfered in science in this same way that it has done so for embryonic stem cells. It's very important that the government really try not to step in the way of science. Let science progress, and I believe in 5 or 10 years, we will get beyond having to harvest cells from embryos or foetuses. Let science do its work."
"... we need to be putting all - everything that we can into investing and developing a scalable source of cells that can treat humans."
On Tuesday, the house held a vote on H.R.810: To amend the Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem cell research. The bill passed with a vote of 238-194. How did King vote? In Roll Call Vote 204, King voted NO.
Just like Tom Delay.
All other Long Island representatives voted YES.
Bush is threatening to veto the bill.
Will King vote to sustain the veto? Yes he will.
The fact is we cannot have half-measures when it comes to searching for cures that can help millions of people.
More info at the Stem Cell Research Foundation.
Bush put on a little show yesterday with families with children from adopted embryos. This was a "protest" against the embryonic stem cell bill. Too bad they are so naive and just don't get what is at stake. They assume that every frozen embryo not used in IVF (in-vitro fertilization) will be adopted. That doesn't happen. They are either destroyed or stored for future use by the parents. Some parents opt to donate the embryos for research. That research needs federal funding so that we can cure diseases that affect the living.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
King raking in Union money
For some odd reason Unions think King is on their side. This is a guy who voted for the Homeland Security Department bill that stripped workers of collective bargaining. King voted for the tax cuts for the wealthy and Bush budgets that have sent us into historic deficits that will cost the working person. King voted for the bankruptcy bill that makes it harder for a regular person but easier for corporations.
Here's a listing of Union contributions to King. If you see your Union here, let them know King isn't their friend.
Union Contributions for 2004 election cycle - 2003-2004
National Assn of Home Builders - $5,000
10/9/2003 - $2,500
10/15/2004 - $2,500
6/25/2003 - $5,000
12/30/2003 - $5,000
9/28/2004 - $5,000
Operating Engineers Local 138 - $4,000
Here's a listing of Union contributions to King. If you see your Union here, let them know King isn't their friend.
Union Contributions for 2004 election cycle - 2003-2004
National Assn of Home Builders - $5,000
10/9/2003 - $2,500
10/15/2004 - $2,500
Carpenters & Joiners Union - $10,000
6/25/2003 - $5,000
12/30/2003 - $5,000
Ironworkers Union - $2,000
4/3/2003 - $2,000
Laborers Union - $8,000
9/28/2004 - $5,000
Operating Engineers Local 138 - $4,000
3/21/2003 - $500
6/6/2003 - $500
10/7/2003 - $1,000
4/15/2004 - $500
6/11/2004 - $500
9/14/2004 - $1,000
Operating Engineers Union - $3,500
6/2/2003 - $1,000
9/24/2003 - $1,000
5/28/2004 - $500
9/24/2004 - $1,000
Sheet Metal Workers Union - $1,000
10/8/2003 - $1,000
AFL-CIO Transportation Trades Dept - $1,500
4/1/2003 - $500
10/7/2003 - $500
9/7/2004 - $500
Amalgamated Transit Union - $1,000
4/1/2003 - $1,000
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers - $50
10/26/2004 -$50
International Longshoremens Assn - $2,500
10/16/2003 -$2,500
Teamsters Union - $5,000
9/9/2004 - $5,000
Transport Workers Union - $1,000
3/4/2003 ($2,000)
6/17/2003 - $1,000
11/7/2003 - $1,000
8/31/2004 - $1,000
Transportation Communications Union - $1,000
10/16/2003 - $1,000
American Federation of Govt Employees - $1,000
4/2/2003 - $500
10/10/2003 - $500
American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees - $6,000
7/14/2003 - $2,500
8/13/2003 - $2,500
10/5/2004 - $1,000
International Assn of Fire Fighters - $4,500
12/10/2003 - $1,000
4/27/2004 - $1,000
9/17/2004 - $2,500
National Assn of Postmasters - $850
10/30/2003 - $350
5/7/2004 - $500
National Assn Retired Federal Employees - $1,000
9/28/2004 - $1,000
AFL-CIO - $2,500
10/22/2003 - $2,500
Bakery, Confectionary & Tobacco Workers - $500
7/7/2004 - $500
Service Employees International Union - $10,000
6/11/2003 - $5,000
6/17/2003 - $5,000
United Food & Commercial Workers Union - $2,500
9/29/2003 - $1,500
4/14/2004 - $1,000
TOTAL: $74,400
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
The Merry Month of May
Updates and news coming faster now that we have some more time here at KingWatch Central. Bookmark us and keep coming back for more.
If you 've read all the posts on this front page and want more, check out our archives listed on the right-hand side under the links. There's much more reading there.
If you 've read all the posts on this front page and want more, check out our archives listed on the right-hand side under the links. There's much more reading there.
Two sides on the environment
So in 2001, King introduces H.R.2230 Title: To amend section 211 of the Clean Air Act to prohibit the use of the fuel additive MTBE in gasoline. This went nowhere with the republican congress. So on Thursday, April 21st an energy bill that would shield companies from lawsuits stemming from injuries from MTBE. Who voted for the energy bill? Why Peter King of course. He said of his 2001 bill "This substance can no longer endanger the health of our nation's residents. Please be assured I will continue to do all that I can to protect our groundwater from MTBE contamination." So what changed?
According to Newsday, King explained he "based his vote on pledges by GOP energy committee officials to consider an MTBE trust fund. He said such a fund could make immediate payments for MTBE pollution rather than forcing water suppliers to sue." Yup. Because that always works. "Pledge" to "consider" a trust fund doesn't sound like it's gonna happen. Back in 2002 Bush was trying to increase taxpayer liability for the Superfund trust. On the Hudson River, GE is fighting tooth and nail to avoid clean-up of PCB contaminants. And now the Town of Oyster Bay is suing defense contractor Northrop Grumman and the Navy to recover costs of environmental clean-up in Bethpage Community Park which was once part of the contractors property. When will the energy committee create a trust fund and where will the money come from. We shouldn't hold our breath that that will ever happen.
King tells Newsday "Being in the majority party requires judgment calls.... My judgment was to let the process go forward and see if we can come up with a trust fund that works."
And if they don't? Oops, too late.
Paul Granger, Superintendent of the Plainview Water Distict said "This really is disappointing, it's not helping New York, and I hope that our representatives rethink the picture here."
King in his usually prickly attitude replies to his critics "It's unfortunate when people shoot their mouths off and they don't know what they're talking about."
Suffolk County Legislator David Bishop says it best "I don't trust the trust fund... I guarantee you it will be pennies on the dollar as to what we can get in the court."
King vows to vote against the final bill if it does not include an MTBE trust fund, "If the final package is not satisfactory, I will vote against it as I have in the past."
So he voted for it before he's going to vote against it?
We'll see.
According to Newsday, King explained he "based his vote on pledges by GOP energy committee officials to consider an MTBE trust fund. He said such a fund could make immediate payments for MTBE pollution rather than forcing water suppliers to sue." Yup. Because that always works. "Pledge" to "consider" a trust fund doesn't sound like it's gonna happen. Back in 2002 Bush was trying to increase taxpayer liability for the Superfund trust. On the Hudson River, GE is fighting tooth and nail to avoid clean-up of PCB contaminants. And now the Town of Oyster Bay is suing defense contractor Northrop Grumman and the Navy to recover costs of environmental clean-up in Bethpage Community Park which was once part of the contractors property. When will the energy committee create a trust fund and where will the money come from. We shouldn't hold our breath that that will ever happen.
King tells Newsday "Being in the majority party requires judgment calls.... My judgment was to let the process go forward and see if we can come up with a trust fund that works."
And if they don't? Oops, too late.
Paul Granger, Superintendent of the Plainview Water Distict said "This really is disappointing, it's not helping New York, and I hope that our representatives rethink the picture here."
King in his usually prickly attitude replies to his critics "It's unfortunate when people shoot their mouths off and they don't know what they're talking about."
Suffolk County Legislator David Bishop says it best "I don't trust the trust fund... I guarantee you it will be pennies on the dollar as to what we can get in the court."
King vows to vote against the final bill if it does not include an MTBE trust fund, "If the final package is not satisfactory, I will vote against it as I have in the past."
So he voted for it before he's going to vote against it?
We'll see.
Monday, May 09, 2005
Saturday, May 07, 2005
King doesn't like to be questioned Part 2: Update
We covered this letter back in April 2004... See "Arrogance of the King"
King doen't like to be questioned Part 2
Some background..... back in 2003 thanks to some whistle-blowers we found out that WHOOPS! the WMD intel might not have been so good. Actually, it was all BS. We learn from a British paper that there was a 2002 memo that says Bush was manipulating evidence. The Memo charges that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."
Anyway, a constituent called King's office to suggest he vote to censure Bush over the WMD fabrications. The letter King sent is below:
"Dear Mr. *********,
I understand that you recently contacted my office requesting that I vote to censure President Bush. I disagree with you in every respect. You are morally, intellectually and politically wrong. President Bush is an outstanding leader of outstanding integrity. Like Ed Koch I thank God every night that he is our President. You should do the same.
Very truly yours, Pete T King"
So the constituent is "morally wrong?" "Intellectually wrong?" How is he morally wrong? King never says. What does he know about the constituents morals? Absolutley nothing. How is the constituent "intellectually wrong?" Again, King doesn't really say. It's a sure bet the constituent's intellectual abilities far out-strip King's. We've shown that already. King just disagrees with his constituent and punctuates his disagreement with insults. Now, we can see King's choice of "politically wrong" (at least in his head) because King thanks god every night that Bush is president. Every night. And so does Ed Koch. Why Ed Koch? Because Koch is allegedly a Democrat and King likes to invoke Democrats to say "Hey! Look! One of your side said it too!" And for us in the world of adults, that doesn't work.
Koch loves GWBush.
Big deal.
More fun with with King and his constituents coming up.
Anyway, a constituent called King's office to suggest he vote to censure Bush over the WMD fabrications. The letter King sent is below:
"Dear Mr. *********,
I understand that you recently contacted my office requesting that I vote to censure President Bush. I disagree with you in every respect. You are morally, intellectually and politically wrong. President Bush is an outstanding leader of outstanding integrity. Like Ed Koch I thank God every night that he is our President. You should do the same.
Very truly yours, Pete T King"
So the constituent is "morally wrong?" "Intellectually wrong?" How is he morally wrong? King never says. What does he know about the constituents morals? Absolutley nothing. How is the constituent "intellectually wrong?" Again, King doesn't really say. It's a sure bet the constituent's intellectual abilities far out-strip King's. We've shown that already. King just disagrees with his constituent and punctuates his disagreement with insults. Now, we can see King's choice of "politically wrong" (at least in his head) because King thanks god every night that Bush is president. Every night. And so does Ed Koch. Why Ed Koch? Because Koch is allegedly a Democrat and King likes to invoke Democrats to say "Hey! Look! One of your side said it too!" And for us in the world of adults, that doesn't work.
Koch loves GWBush.
Big deal.
More fun with with King and his constituents coming up.
Friday, May 06, 2005
King doesn't like to be questioned Part 1
Here is one of many back and forths between King and a constituent.
The constituent in question recieved one of King's "Special Report's" and it included the incredible statement "The most important unreported fact is that 95% of Iraq is stable and secure." Unreported because it's untrue.
Rep. King-
re: Special Report from Washington, Fall 2003
Think, if you were still in Mosul when the wreakage of those two Black Hawks dropped from of sky.
Think about it.
Think about the reported fact that at the time the war resolution was overwhelmingly passed by Congress last fall, all but of 2 of 535 in that august body had a child serving in the military.
Perhaps, then, if you do some hard thinking, you won't return stateside shooting the messengers.
If the media and those of you in Congress had not abdicated your watchdog role prior to war, and examined Administration representations, this headlong rush to Iraq might have been slowed sufficiently until we were better prepared to consolidate and secure post-conflict.
The issue you should be raising now was how we allowed Iraqi munitions depots, most of which we knew about from inspections, to stand unguarded.
That's the question I would want answered if I were Jake Fletcher's dad.
I would have no patience for your Pollyanna finger-pointing.
Very sincerely,
*****************
response from Pete.King@mail.house.gov 11/21/03 4:47pm
Your e-mail is the ultimate non sequitur. It also reeks of self-righteous ignorance.
Unlike you I am capable of hard- thinking and am proud that I voted to authorize the war against Iraq and am proud to support the President and our troops today. No right-thinking person could claim that twelve years is a rush to war; nor could it be disputed that the pre-war intelligence and data were identical to what the Clinton Administration concluded.
As to rocket attacks against helicopters I often thought about that very real possibility during the many hours I was in Black Hawk helicopters flying over Mosul and Baghdad during daylight and at night. What was your point?
As to the munitions sites every effort is being made to secure them and destroy the weapons as quickly as possible. Considering that there are hundreds of these "depots" as you call them and some of them are larger than Manhattan, we are making extraordinary progress.
I think about our troops and our survival as our nation and that's why I will continue to support this President and his policies.
Peter King
The constituent in question recieved one of King's "Special Report's" and it included the incredible statement "The most important unreported fact is that 95% of Iraq is stable and secure." Unreported because it's untrue.
Rep. King-
re: Special Report from Washington, Fall 2003
Think, if you were still in Mosul when the wreakage of those two Black Hawks dropped from of sky.
Think about it.
Think about the reported fact that at the time the war resolution was overwhelmingly passed by Congress last fall, all but of 2 of 535 in that august body had a child serving in the military.
Perhaps, then, if you do some hard thinking, you won't return stateside shooting the messengers.
If the media and those of you in Congress had not abdicated your watchdog role prior to war, and examined Administration representations, this headlong rush to Iraq might have been slowed sufficiently until we were better prepared to consolidate and secure post-conflict.
The issue you should be raising now was how we allowed Iraqi munitions depots, most of which we knew about from inspections, to stand unguarded.
That's the question I would want answered if I were Jake Fletcher's dad.
I would have no patience for your Pollyanna finger-pointing.
Very sincerely,
*****************
response from Pete.King@mail.house.gov 11/21/03 4:47pm
Your e-mail is the ultimate non sequitur. It also reeks of self-righteous ignorance.
Unlike you I am capable of hard- thinking and am proud that I voted to authorize the war against Iraq and am proud to support the President and our troops today. No right-thinking person could claim that twelve years is a rush to war; nor could it be disputed that the pre-war intelligence and data were identical to what the Clinton Administration concluded.
As to rocket attacks against helicopters I often thought about that very real possibility during the many hours I was in Black Hawk helicopters flying over Mosul and Baghdad during daylight and at night. What was your point?
As to the munitions sites every effort is being made to secure them and destroy the weapons as quickly as possible. Considering that there are hundreds of these "depots" as you call them and some of them are larger than Manhattan, we are making extraordinary progress.
I think about our troops and our survival as our nation and that's why I will continue to support this President and his policies.
Peter King
11/22/03
Rep. King-
Setting aside your use of "ultimate" hyperbole, refamiliarizing yourself with the content of your own Special Report from Washington might inform the confusion which led you to cry "non sequitar".
"Their[every soldier I met] concern is that distorted media coverage will encourage the terrorists to fight amd cause America to lose its will and withdraw."
That's a resounding consensus, even for a man given to absolutes. The last time there was such universal agreement was Saddam's final 'plebiscite'. What do you make of uncertain military figures cited by other sources? Further examples of "distorted media coverage"?
You questioned what my "point" was, invoking the mid-air collision of those two Black Hawks over Mosul. Again, allow me to defer to your Special Report. In text alongside the photo of your meeting "with troops in Mosul", you declare that, "The most important unreported fact is that 95% of Iraq is stable and secure." Factoring out recent lethal attacks to the south and north, a geographic measure of the Sunni triangle where, as you state, "virtually all the violence occurs," seemingly constitutes more than 5% of the country. Certainly Bagdad, with its estimated 3.8M people[StateDept'86] plus surrounding area comprise well over 20% of Iraq's population. Doubtless, you, and the National Review which, coincidently, also cited that 95%, are able to call upon some variation of Enron-style accounting to explain your figure.
But lest we nitpick over your penchant for quadrupling numbers, why not simply return to you own words:
"As to rocket attacks against helicopters I often thought about that very real possiblity
during the many hours I was in Black Hawk helicopters flying over Mosul and Bagdad."
You should have "very real" concerns flying over Bagdad, by why the same concern over Mosul, in that area north of the Sunni Triangle you describe as "safe and secure"?
Get the point, now, Congressman?
Relative to the point about unsecured weapons depots, which you goosestepped over with "twelve years is" no "rush to war", be good enough to clarify. How long after the President declared "mission accomplished" last May was "every effort to secure and destroy the weapons as quickly as possible" initiated? Would you insist on characterizing the post-conflict plan as 95% effective? And do you hold to the position that the timing of "Iraqi Freedom" was based on imminent threat and could not possibly have benefitted from more preparation?
Clearly, as you declare, you remain "proud"; your chest-thumping is almost palpable between every stroke of your keyboard. Perhaps our nation, our troops and your district would be better served by less "right thinking" and more objective thought.
Oh, and excuse the odor if I continue to "reek of self-righteous ignorance."
Friday, April 29, 2005
Long Island Press Story
The weekly Long Island Press printed a story about Peter King, Social Security reform, Unions, constituents and King's reaction to them all.
The article "Kingly Fashion" by Elizabeth Cady Brown follows King from the Town Hall meeting sponsored by the In This Together Campaign that King didn't have the guts to show up to, to the Long Island Federation of Labor's annual congressional meeting where he did show up.
"Republican Peter King, the six-term U.S. congressman from Massapequa, is blunt-spoken, even rude, in a profession where taffy-sweet platitudes are the norm. He has gone so far as to call various voters "self-righteous," "ignorant," "wacko" and "morally wrong."
...
"I regret you don't know as much about Social Security as you pretend," he wrote to one business owner who has lived in the third district for 22 years. "Many thanks for your March 15th letter," he wrote to another constituent. "It is very reassuring to know that I am opposed by the likes of you."
...
"Groups such as [ITTC] have no regard for senior citizens or for their country," King said on March 24. "They are strictly partisan hit men and I don't want to have anything to do with them." On March 31, he called them "wacko malcontents."
...
"This muddled approach is risky. Bob Master, the legislative director for CWA District 1, calls Social Security a litmus-test issue for the union. "I think this will call into question our support for Congressman King," he says."
...
"We do take a little offense to being called liberal wackos," says Bonanza. "We aren't some left-wing conspiracy folks out to get Peter King. We are conservative trade unionists who have been supportive of him in all his elections."
The article "Kingly Fashion" by Elizabeth Cady Brown follows King from the Town Hall meeting sponsored by the In This Together Campaign that King didn't have the guts to show up to, to the Long Island Federation of Labor's annual congressional meeting where he did show up.
"Republican Peter King, the six-term U.S. congressman from Massapequa, is blunt-spoken, even rude, in a profession where taffy-sweet platitudes are the norm. He has gone so far as to call various voters "self-righteous," "ignorant," "wacko" and "morally wrong."
...
"I regret you don't know as much about Social Security as you pretend," he wrote to one business owner who has lived in the third district for 22 years. "Many thanks for your March 15th letter," he wrote to another constituent. "It is very reassuring to know that I am opposed by the likes of you."
...
"Groups such as [ITTC] have no regard for senior citizens or for their country," King said on March 24. "They are strictly partisan hit men and I don't want to have anything to do with them." On March 31, he called them "wacko malcontents."
...
"This muddled approach is risky. Bob Master, the legislative director for CWA District 1, calls Social Security a litmus-test issue for the union. "I think this will call into question our support for Congressman King," he says."
...
"We do take a little offense to being called liberal wackos," says Bonanza. "We aren't some left-wing conspiracy folks out to get Peter King. We are conservative trade unionists who have been supportive of him in all his elections."
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Foreign lobbyist pays for King trip to Ireland?
From April 15-19, 1999 King and his wife went to Dublin and it seems this trip may have been paid for paid for by "Friends of Sinn Fein." This group and it's agents in the US are registered with the USDOJ in relation to FARA (Foreign Agents Registration Act.)
The Times of London has an interesting story on this groups finances: "How murky finances keep Sinn Fein afloat."
Trips paid for by lobbyists are an ethical no-no.
The Times of London has an interesting story on this groups finances: "How murky finances keep Sinn Fein afloat."
Trips paid for by lobbyists are an ethical no-no.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
On Veterans: Presented without Comment
Bill Number: HR 2116
Date: 09/21/1999
Sponsor: Motion to suspend the Rules introduced by Stump, R-AZ, Bill introduced by Stearns, R-FL
Roll Call Number: 0427
Motion to suspend the rules agreed to Full Member List
Representative Peter T. King voted NO.
Vote on motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill allowing the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] to expand long-term care for veterans.HR 2116: A bill to amend title 38, U.S. Code, to establish a program of extended care services for veterans and to make other improvements in health care programs of the Department of Veterans Affairs.Vote on motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill allowing the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] to expand long-term care services for veterans and also allow the VA to try and generate increased revenue to assist in paying for health care costs. Among other provisions the bill would also the time to be extended that the VA could lease facilities, space, or land to private companies from 35 to 75 years. [A motion to suspend the rules requires a 2/3rds majority of those present and voting [277 in this instance] for passage of the measure.]Motion to suspend the Rules introduced by Stump, R-AZ, Bill introduced by Stearns, R-FL(Motion to suspend the rules agreed to 369-46 on 9/21/99)
Bill Status: Bill Number: HR 2116 - 106th Congress (1999-2000)
House Passage Vote: 09/21/1999 - Outcome: Passed
Senate Passage Vote: 11/05/1999 - Outcome: Passed
House Conference Report Vote: 11/16/1999 - Outcome: Passed Senate Conference Report Vote: 11/19/1999 - Outcome: Passed
Presidential Action: Signed on 11/30/1999
Public Law Number: 106-117
Date: 09/21/1999
Sponsor: Motion to suspend the Rules introduced by Stump, R-AZ, Bill introduced by Stearns, R-FL
Roll Call Number: 0427
Motion to suspend the rules agreed to Full Member List
Representative Peter T. King voted NO.
Vote on motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill allowing the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] to expand long-term care for veterans.HR 2116: A bill to amend title 38, U.S. Code, to establish a program of extended care services for veterans and to make other improvements in health care programs of the Department of Veterans Affairs.Vote on motion to suspend the rules and pass a bill allowing the Department of Veterans Affairs [VA] to expand long-term care services for veterans and also allow the VA to try and generate increased revenue to assist in paying for health care costs. Among other provisions the bill would also the time to be extended that the VA could lease facilities, space, or land to private companies from 35 to 75 years. [A motion to suspend the rules requires a 2/3rds majority of those present and voting [277 in this instance] for passage of the measure.]Motion to suspend the Rules introduced by Stump, R-AZ, Bill introduced by Stearns, R-FL(Motion to suspend the rules agreed to 369-46 on 9/21/99)
Bill Status: Bill Number: HR 2116 - 106th Congress (1999-2000)
House Passage Vote: 09/21/1999 - Outcome: Passed
Senate Passage Vote: 11/05/1999 - Outcome: Passed
House Conference Report Vote: 11/16/1999 - Outcome: Passed Senate Conference Report Vote: 11/19/1999 - Outcome: Passed
Presidential Action: Signed on 11/30/1999
Public Law Number: 106-117
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
King gets called out
FDR's grandson James Roosevelt jr. recorded a message for King's district.
"Hello, this is James Roosevelt, Jr. My grandfather, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, created Social Security because he believed that every American deserves a secure and dignified retirement.
I'm shocked that Congressman Peter King is questioning the patriotism of those who are trying to protect Social Security. The truth: Nothing could be more American than protecting Social Security.
Congressman King, stand up for Social Security. Privatization isn't worth the gamble.
This is James Roosevelt, Jr.."
How did this happen? King doesn't like to be questioned and opposed (MUCH more on this coming up) and he said of those concerned about Social Security "groups such as this have no regard for senior citizens or for their country."
Hmm... So I don't have any regard for this country? How despicable can King get? Well he can get much more despicable. More to come later duirg the week of April 18th. MUCh more.
"Hello, this is James Roosevelt, Jr. My grandfather, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, created Social Security because he believed that every American deserves a secure and dignified retirement.
I'm shocked that Congressman Peter King is questioning the patriotism of those who are trying to protect Social Security. The truth: Nothing could be more American than protecting Social Security.
Congressman King, stand up for Social Security. Privatization isn't worth the gamble.
This is James Roosevelt, Jr.."
How did this happen? King doesn't like to be questioned and opposed (MUCH more on this coming up) and he said of those concerned about Social Security "groups such as this have no regard for senior citizens or for their country."
Hmm... So I don't have any regard for this country? How despicable can King get? Well he can get much more despicable. More to come later duirg the week of April 18th. MUCh more.
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
Peter gets his marching orders
King and a dozen or so other representatives met with Bush and Cheney for a closed-door Social Security pep talk. One other attendee, Rep. Vito Fossella from Staten Island reacted the same way that King did when asked to attend a townhall meeting on Social Security in his district... RUN AND HIDE!
Tuesday, March 29, 2005
Schiavo
What happened to King? He co-sponsored the original legislation for the US Congress to step in and take away spousal rights from Michael Schiavo. King said on the House floor:
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 686, to provide for the relief of Terri Schiavo's family. In 1990, Terri Schiavo suffered a heart attack and subsequent brain damage due to lack of oxygen. She is not in a coma, and with the exception of the feeding tube, requires no artificial life support to keep her alive. Removal of the feeding tube, as was done this past Friday, will result in Terri's death by starvation and dehydration. By some estimates, she could be left to suffer for up to a month. This is a drawn out and painful process and Terri can feel pain. In a case like this one, where there is a clear dispute between Terri's parents and husband as to her wishes, the presumption should always be on the side of life. Every effort should be made to ensure that no mistakes have been made in this case. I urge support of this important legislation.”
(FOR THE RELIEF OF THE PARENTS OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO -- House of Representatives - March 20, 2005 http://thomas.loc.gov)
So where was King for the crucial vote? He had a “previously scheduled medical exam.” Doctor’s have office hours at midnight on Sunday? 'Cause that’s when the House vote was getting under way. Roll call was at 12:45 on March 21st. King is listed as “Not Voting.”
For such an important issue which King believed deserved special legislation, he couldn't be bothered to show up for the vote?
He was HIDING from getting more involved in bad legislation.
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 686, to provide for the relief of Terri Schiavo's family. In 1990, Terri Schiavo suffered a heart attack and subsequent brain damage due to lack of oxygen. She is not in a coma, and with the exception of the feeding tube, requires no artificial life support to keep her alive. Removal of the feeding tube, as was done this past Friday, will result in Terri's death by starvation and dehydration. By some estimates, she could be left to suffer for up to a month. This is a drawn out and painful process and Terri can feel pain. In a case like this one, where there is a clear dispute between Terri's parents and husband as to her wishes, the presumption should always be on the side of life. Every effort should be made to ensure that no mistakes have been made in this case. I urge support of this important legislation.”
(FOR THE RELIEF OF THE PARENTS OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO -- House of Representatives - March 20, 2005 http://thomas.loc.gov)
So where was King for the crucial vote? He had a “previously scheduled medical exam.” Doctor’s have office hours at midnight on Sunday? 'Cause that’s when the House vote was getting under way. Roll call was at 12:45 on March 21st. King is listed as “Not Voting.”
For such an important issue which King believed deserved special legislation, he couldn't be bothered to show up for the vote?
He was HIDING from getting more involved in bad legislation.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Happy St. Patricks Day: IRA supporter King makes more excuses
From the NYPost 3/16/05
"And while there were murders, atrocities and human-rights violations on all sides, the security forces and the loyalist paramilitaries caused more civilian casualties than did the IRA."
No matter what King says now like the IRA should be disbanded, King will still make excuses for the terrorism of the IRA. They ain't so bad, King says cause those bruuddish soldiers did worse.
Make no mistake, for years King was a supporter of the IRA, calling them "freedom fighters." What freedom fighters kill civilians?
King wants the IRA to disband now because they are seemingly mucking up the progress made in the peace process. That is is ONLY reason. King has never called on the IRA to disband when they were murdering British soldiers and Loyalists.
King says now the IRA has "outlived it's usefullness" and "made a series of poor decisions." Gee, murder isn't a "poor decision?" That's what IRA thugs have been doing for years while King cheered them on.
A VERY personal note: I was in London when on November 14th, 1992 the police stopped the IRA from planting a 1000 pound bomb at Canary Wharf. A police officer was shot and wounded during the arrest. How usefull is a 1000 pound bomb ready to kill civilians?
"And while there were murders, atrocities and human-rights violations on all sides, the security forces and the loyalist paramilitaries caused more civilian casualties than did the IRA."
No matter what King says now like the IRA should be disbanded, King will still make excuses for the terrorism of the IRA. They ain't so bad, King says cause those bruuddish soldiers did worse.
Make no mistake, for years King was a supporter of the IRA, calling them "freedom fighters." What freedom fighters kill civilians?
King wants the IRA to disband now because they are seemingly mucking up the progress made in the peace process. That is is ONLY reason. King has never called on the IRA to disband when they were murdering British soldiers and Loyalists.
King says now the IRA has "outlived it's usefullness" and "made a series of poor decisions." Gee, murder isn't a "poor decision?" That's what IRA thugs have been doing for years while King cheered them on.
A VERY personal note: I was in London when on November 14th, 1992 the police stopped the IRA from planting a 1000 pound bomb at Canary Wharf. A police officer was shot and wounded during the arrest. How usefull is a 1000 pound bomb ready to kill civilians?
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
Long time, no see
Many things have conspired to keep me from updating regularly. Here's something to chew on while this site gets revving again.....
Bush's plan for Social Security is to give enrollees the ability to play the stock market with their future safety net. Everyone knows that bad investments happen and the market is not guaranteed in any way.
King is straddling the fence here but he really comes across as supporting this incredibly bad idea.
Now who will really profit from the influx of money into the investment market? Investment bankers and brokerages.
Follow the money:
2003-2004 PAC Contributions
Finance/Insur/RealEst $57,676:
Securities & Investment $14,000
Accountants $8,676
Commercial Banks $7,500
2001-2002 PAC Contributions:
Finance/Insur/RealEst $265,700
Securities & Investment $18,000
Accountants $3,500
Commercial Banks $29,000
1999-2000 PAC Contributions:
Finance/Insur/RealEst $111,281
Securities & Investment $20,500
Commercial Banks $32,000
Accountants $2,000
1997-1998 PAC Contributions:
Securities & Investment $20,000
Accountants $5,500
Commercial Banks $51,495
Developing......
Bush's plan for Social Security is to give enrollees the ability to play the stock market with their future safety net. Everyone knows that bad investments happen and the market is not guaranteed in any way.
King is straddling the fence here but he really comes across as supporting this incredibly bad idea.
Now who will really profit from the influx of money into the investment market? Investment bankers and brokerages.
Follow the money:
2003-2004 PAC Contributions
Finance/Insur/RealEst $57,676:
Securities & Investment $14,000
Accountants $8,676
Commercial Banks $7,500
2001-2002 PAC Contributions:
Finance/Insur/RealEst $265,700
Securities & Investment $18,000
Accountants $3,500
Commercial Banks $29,000
1999-2000 PAC Contributions:
Finance/Insur/RealEst $111,281
Securities & Investment $20,500
Commercial Banks $32,000
Accountants $2,000
1997-1998 PAC Contributions:
Securities & Investment $20,000
Accountants $5,500
Commercial Banks $51,495
Developing......
Thursday, March 03, 2005
The Get Up and Go that Got Up and Went
MEET THE PRESS
May 14, 2000, Sunday
MR. RUSSERT: Peter King, if Rudy Giuliani does not run for the Senate, will you?
REP. KING: Yeah, I certainly intend to. If he drops out of the race, I certainly intend to pursue the nomination, yes.
MR. RUSSERT: Well, you give up your House seat?
REP. KING: Well, if that's what it takes, I would, sure. I mean, the convention's only in two weeks, but I would do all I could to get the nomination. And I wouldn't have to give up the House seat to get the nomination in May, or if I got the nomination, yes, then I would give up the House seat.
Racing for the Senate
May 30, 2000
Rep. Rick Lazio accepts the Republican nomination to run for Senator of New York after campaigning for a week and a half, and prepares to face Hillary Clinton this fall.
May 14, 2000, Sunday
MR. RUSSERT: Peter King, if Rudy Giuliani does not run for the Senate, will you?
REP. KING: Yeah, I certainly intend to. If he drops out of the race, I certainly intend to pursue the nomination, yes.
MR. RUSSERT: Well, you give up your House seat?
REP. KING: Well, if that's what it takes, I would, sure. I mean, the convention's only in two weeks, but I would do all I could to get the nomination. And I wouldn't have to give up the House seat to get the nomination in May, or if I got the nomination, yes, then I would give up the House seat.
Racing for the Senate
May 30, 2000
Rep. Rick Lazio accepts the Republican nomination to run for Senator of New York after campaigning for a week and a half, and prepares to face Hillary Clinton this fall.
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
The Apple Doesn't Fall Far from the Tree
We had heard about this but held off until there was confirmation. Seems on the local politics scene, Erin King Sweeney daughter of Rep. Peter King is being implicated in a petition signature scandal. Word is she signed other peoples signatures on a nominating petition. Someone will be doing a perp-walk soon.
More to come......
More to come......
Monday, January 10, 2005
Many Apologies
Boy, talk about not getting our act together. Literally MONTHS worth of stuff and we don't bother to post. What's wrong with us?
New Years Resolution: The updates start January 11th.
On Deck:
Congressional Ethics
Tom Delay
Blast from the Past: 1% Kickbacks
More Bush-Iraq War
New Years Resolution: The updates start January 11th.
On Deck:
Congressional Ethics
Tom Delay
Blast from the Past: 1% Kickbacks
More Bush-Iraq War
Sunday, November 14, 2004
More Draft
On CNN King said
"But, again, I say, if the military shows they cannot get what they need, then we should certainly consider the draft, absolutely. I just don't see it happening right now.
I guess King is either not paying attention or not counting former military members who served their time being forced to return.
Frederick Pistorius got a grand suprise when he was informed that not only was he being ordered back to duty but he has been considered a deserter since July. Mr. Pistorius recieved a letter from the army that said "On 12 July 2004 you were involuntarily mobilized to active duty in the United States Army... To date you have not reported to your mobilization station as required by your orders."
What is this all about? The Individual Ready Reserve which are former military members are being used to fill in where the various branches find themselves short of troops.
For more read this story (via DailyKos) from the Pittburgh Post-GazetteThe Army's long arm.
"But, again, I say, if the military shows they cannot get what they need, then we should certainly consider the draft, absolutely. I just don't see it happening right now.
I guess King is either not paying attention or not counting former military members who served their time being forced to return.
Frederick Pistorius got a grand suprise when he was informed that not only was he being ordered back to duty but he has been considered a deserter since July. Mr. Pistorius recieved a letter from the army that said "On 12 July 2004 you were involuntarily mobilized to active duty in the United States Army... To date you have not reported to your mobilization station as required by your orders."
What is this all about? The Individual Ready Reserve which are former military members are being used to fill in where the various branches find themselves short of troops.
For more read this story (via DailyKos) from the Pittburgh Post-GazetteThe Army's long arm.
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
King by the Numbers
So King is back for another two years unless the rumors (probably false) of him running against Tom Suozzi for Nassau County Executive. King has floated other trial baloons for other runs against Schumer and those baloons popped pretty quickly.
The 3rd CD is a republican-heavy district if all you go by is party registration. Clinton and Gore did very well in the 3rd CD and so did Kerry. Voter registration is slowly tilting towards Democrats but King is safe with just the Republican party-line voters.
King has been scoring above 60% for the past elections even garnering 72% in 2002 against Stu Finz.
Where does Kings future lie? Possible re-election in 2006 unless his
opponent can
In an off-year election (meaning non-presidential) King does better with 65% in 1998 and 2002 with 72%. When there is a president on the ballot, King's numbers are lower... 60% in 2000 and 63% in 2004.
This year while King got 3% more and added to his total vote total by , his opponent got 7000 more voters than 2000.
The numbers are really all over the place for both King and his Democratic opponents....
From Presidential years 2000 to 2004 King gained 31,680 votes while his opponent gained 7244. This is only for 2000 and 2004 changes.
From year to year 2000 to 2002 King lost 18,397 and his opponent lost 46,001
From 2000-2004 King gained 50,077 votes but his opponent gained 53,245 votes.
In all, King has gained less since 2000 than his Democratic opponent.
What does this all mean? The Democrats are making strong gains and if they can make gains in voter registration in the next two years, raise the candidates profile and expose King's dismal record King can lose. Incumbents always have a huge advantage and as long as they haven't been caught with a dead hooker, they start with 60% and the numbers go up or down from there.
The 3rd CD is a republican-heavy district if all you go by is party registration. Clinton and Gore did very well in the 3rd CD and so did Kerry. Voter registration is slowly tilting towards Democrats but King is safe with just the Republican party-line voters.
King has been scoring above 60% for the past elections even garnering 72% in 2002 against Stu Finz.
Where does Kings future lie? Possible re-election in 2006 unless his
opponent can
In an off-year election (meaning non-presidential) King does better with 65% in 1998 and 2002 with 72%. When there is a president on the ballot, King's numbers are lower... 60% in 2000 and 63% in 2004.
This year while King got 3% more and added to his total vote total by , his opponent got 7000 more voters than 2000.
The numbers are really all over the place for both King and his Democratic opponents....
From Presidential years 2000 to 2004 King gained 31,680 votes while his opponent gained 7244. This is only for 2000 and 2004 changes.
From year to year 2000 to 2002 King lost 18,397 and his opponent lost 46,001
From 2000-2004 King gained 50,077 votes but his opponent gained 53,245 votes.
In all, King has gained less since 2000 than his Democratic opponent.
What does this all mean? The Democrats are making strong gains and if they can make gains in voter registration in the next two years, raise the candidates profile and expose King's dismal record King can lose. Incumbents always have a huge advantage and as long as they haven't been caught with a dead hooker, they start with 60% and the numbers go up or down from there.
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
Great stuff from the Mailbag!
Big thanks to the reader who sent along a clip from the Alexandra Pelosi HBO documentary "Diary of a Political Tourist."
Here is the transcript...... (Note: I don't know the date this was filmed but it seems to be early fall.)
The set-up: Bush and King hanging around the White House lawn being interviewed by Pelosi
Bush: The panhandle.....
(unintelligible)
Bush: She's a panhandler
King: It's over..... The election's over. We won.
Pelsosi: How do you know that?
King: It's all over but the counting. And we'll take care of the counting.
What was that? Oh, "... we'll take care of the counting."
Yes, it does look like someone "took care" of the counting.
Here is a little from Keith Olberman on MSNBC who seems to be the only journalist interested.
From today: "There, 52 counties tallied their votes using paper ballots that were then optically scanned by machines produced by Diebold, Sequoia, or Election Systems and Software. 29 of those Florida counties had large Democratic majorities among registered voters (as high a ratio as Liberty County— Bristol, Florida and environs— where it’s 88 percent Democrats, 8 percent Republicans) but produced landslides for President Bush. On Countdown, we cited the five biggest surprises (Liberty ended Bush: 1,927; Kerry: 1,070), but did not mention the other 24."
In Ohio, Cuyahoga County has 93,000 MORE votes than registered voters. In Gahana, Ohio one district registered Bush getting 4,258 out of 638 cast. That is 667% of the vote. What an incredible Get Out the Vote effort! And that is only one district that was scrutinized. How many more are there?
So when Warren O'Dell the CEO of Diebold the company that makes most of the electronic voting machines says he is "...committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year, " King says non-chalantly "It's all over but the counting. And we'll take care of the counting" and this really huge number of irregularities pop up, it looks like there is a there there.
As John Edwards said "John Kerry and I made a promise to the American people that, with this election, every vote would count and every vote would be counted,"... "Tonight, we are keeping our word and we will fight for every vote. You deserve no less."
Here is the link to the video clip again. Click Here.
Here is the transcript...... (Note: I don't know the date this was filmed but it seems to be early fall.)
The set-up: Bush and King hanging around the White House lawn being interviewed by Pelosi
Bush: The panhandle.....
(unintelligible)
Bush: She's a panhandler
King: It's over..... The election's over. We won.
Pelsosi: How do you know that?
King: It's all over but the counting. And we'll take care of the counting.
What was that? Oh, "... we'll take care of the counting."
Yes, it does look like someone "took care" of the counting.
Here is a little from Keith Olberman on MSNBC who seems to be the only journalist interested.
From today: "There, 52 counties tallied their votes using paper ballots that were then optically scanned by machines produced by Diebold, Sequoia, or Election Systems and Software. 29 of those Florida counties had large Democratic majorities among registered voters (as high a ratio as Liberty County— Bristol, Florida and environs— where it’s 88 percent Democrats, 8 percent Republicans) but produced landslides for President Bush. On Countdown, we cited the five biggest surprises (Liberty ended Bush: 1,927; Kerry: 1,070), but did not mention the other 24."
In Ohio, Cuyahoga County has 93,000 MORE votes than registered voters. In Gahana, Ohio one district registered Bush getting 4,258 out of 638 cast. That is 667% of the vote. What an incredible Get Out the Vote effort! And that is only one district that was scrutinized. How many more are there?
So when Warren O'Dell the CEO of Diebold the company that makes most of the electronic voting machines says he is "...committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year, " King says non-chalantly "It's all over but the counting. And we'll take care of the counting" and this really huge number of irregularities pop up, it looks like there is a there there.
As John Edwards said "John Kerry and I made a promise to the American people that, with this election, every vote would count and every vote would be counted,"... "Tonight, we are keeping our word and we will fight for every vote. You deserve no less."
Here is the link to the video clip again. Click Here.
Sunday, November 07, 2004
Saturday, November 06, 2004
It's getting Drafty
King had this to say about Rep. Charlie Rangels military draft bill "I think it should be a military decision, not just -- not the philosophical decision Charlie wants it to make. If it's in the best interests of our armed force to have a volunteer Army, we should keep a volunteer Army. If we need a draft to have sufficient forces, then we should certainly consider a draft. I think it should be on the table.But I'm just saying I think Charlie is bringing it up in the context of Iraq. We could have brought it up in the context of Haiti or Bosnia or Kosovo. And we didn't."
"I think we should put more incentives in to get voluntary Army -- more volunteers. But, again, I say, if the military shows they cannot get what they need, then we should certainly consider the draft, absolutely. I just don't see it happening right now."
Here is a great incentive for an all-volunteer army; take a vet who left the service after the Gulf War in 1991 after over 10 years in, did his reserve time and is now being ordered to report for duty. That's a back-door draft of vets. But this brave vet isn't taking this sitting down. David Miyasato is suing.
From The Honolulu Advertiser
"David M. Miyasato enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve in 1987, served three years of active duty during the first Gulf War and received an honorable discharge in 1991. He remained on inactive status for five more years, until 1996. Since then, the Kaua'i resident has married, started an auto window tinting business and this year, he and his wife had their first child.
But in September, Miyasato received a letter from the Army recalling him to active duty and directing him to report to a military facility in South Carolina on Tuesday."
"I fulfilled my contract," he said. "I just want to move on from this, and I'm optimistic that I'll be successful."
Hmmm.... wasn't King in the National Guard during the Vietnam War? MAybe King would like to "volunteer" his services. The Penatgon is calling up all ages for the Bush-Iraq War. 4,119 soldiers called up for Iraq and Afghanistan are 50 or older. King says Iraq is doing great so maybe he'd like to serve there.
"I think we should put more incentives in to get voluntary Army -- more volunteers. But, again, I say, if the military shows they cannot get what they need, then we should certainly consider the draft, absolutely. I just don't see it happening right now."
Here is a great incentive for an all-volunteer army; take a vet who left the service after the Gulf War in 1991 after over 10 years in, did his reserve time and is now being ordered to report for duty. That's a back-door draft of vets. But this brave vet isn't taking this sitting down. David Miyasato is suing.
From The Honolulu Advertiser
"David M. Miyasato enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve in 1987, served three years of active duty during the first Gulf War and received an honorable discharge in 1991. He remained on inactive status for five more years, until 1996. Since then, the Kaua'i resident has married, started an auto window tinting business and this year, he and his wife had their first child.
But in September, Miyasato received a letter from the Army recalling him to active duty and directing him to report to a military facility in South Carolina on Tuesday."
"I fulfilled my contract," he said. "I just want to move on from this, and I'm optimistic that I'll be successful."
Hmmm.... wasn't King in the National Guard during the Vietnam War? MAybe King would like to "volunteer" his services. The Penatgon is calling up all ages for the Bush-Iraq War. 4,119 soldiers called up for Iraq and Afghanistan are 50 or older. King says Iraq is doing great so maybe he'd like to serve there.
Friday, November 05, 2004
Dear Peter, Up Yours
On October 28th, King expanded his "New Axis of Evil." Before it was the UN, the NYTimes and Dan Rather. On Hannity and Colmes, King added John Kerry to the list.
"KING: He's not being held accountable because the media is in collusion with him. I mean, this whole idea of it going from the U.N. to "The New York Times" to CBS to John Kerry, this is to me -- this is another axis of evil. It really is."
"COLMES: Congressman Smith -- you want to blame the media. Congressman King here said the media is the axis of evil?
KING: No. Not the media, the media, U.N. and John Kerry. Absolutely"
King will go to any length to lower the discourse in politics. It's just sad. And this man is still our representative in congress.
"KING: He's not being held accountable because the media is in collusion with him. I mean, this whole idea of it going from the U.N. to "The New York Times" to CBS to John Kerry, this is to me -- this is another axis of evil. It really is."
"COLMES: Congressman Smith -- you want to blame the media. Congressman King here said the media is the axis of evil?
KING: No. Not the media, the media, U.N. and John Kerry. Absolutely"
King will go to any length to lower the discourse in politics. It's just sad. And this man is still our representative in congress.
Thursday, November 04, 2004
Election 2004
More news to about election 2004.
Peter King by the numbers:
1998
King ..... 65%
Langberg ..... 35%
2000
King ..... 135,328.... 60%
Lamagna ..... 90,290.... 40%
2002
King..... 116,931....72%
Finz ..... 44,289 .... 27%
2004
King ..... 167,008 .... 63%
Mathies ..... 97,534 .... 37%
A breakdown of the numbers up next.
Nassau County is Kerry Country.
JOHN F KERRY-JOHN EDWARDS........ 312,388
GEORGE W BUSH-DICK CHENEY........ 278,727
And it ain't over till it's over.
Voter irregularities being reported and verified in Ohio and Flordia. An Ohio precinct with 638 people voting showed 260 votes for Kerry and 4258 for Bush!!! How many more precincts did this happen to?
And Warren O'Dell CEO of Diebold the company that built the electronic voting machines said he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.''
Hmmmm......
Peter King by the numbers:
1998
King ..... 65%
Langberg ..... 35%
2000
King ..... 135,328.... 60%
Lamagna ..... 90,290.... 40%
2002
King..... 116,931....72%
Finz ..... 44,289 .... 27%
2004
King ..... 167,008 .... 63%
Mathies ..... 97,534 .... 37%
A breakdown of the numbers up next.
Nassau County is Kerry Country.
JOHN F KERRY-JOHN EDWARDS........ 312,388
GEORGE W BUSH-DICK CHENEY........ 278,727
And it ain't over till it's over.
Voter irregularities being reported and verified in Ohio and Flordia. An Ohio precinct with 638 people voting showed 260 votes for Kerry and 4258 for Bush!!! How many more precincts did this happen to?
And Warren O'Dell CEO of Diebold the company that built the electronic voting machines said he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year.''
Hmmmm......
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
King wins but loses ground
In 2002 King beat Finz with 72% of the vote. This year King won again but he lost 7%. 65-35 isn't great but for an unknown from the sliver of the district in Suffolk he did very well.
Soooo.. King Watch stays alive for two more years.
Regular updates start again tomorrow with some election wrap-up and other items we didn't get to.
Soooo.. King Watch stays alive for two more years.
Regular updates start again tomorrow with some election wrap-up and other items we didn't get to.
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
King margin smaller than 2002
with 20% of precincts:
King....... 26,014....66%
Mathies...13,361....34%
King....... 26,014....66%
Mathies...13,361....34%
Zogby's results
Right-leaning Zogby - the only pollster who did cell phone polling is calling teh election 311-213 EV for Kerry.
It's still early so we have to wait.
Guam goes for Bush.
AZ, VA and AR are in play. All "safe" Bush states that look to be tipping.
It's still early so we have to wait.
Guam goes for Bush.
AZ, VA and AR are in play. All "safe" Bush states that look to be tipping.
Early VNS exit polls
From MyDD:
AZ CO LA PA OH FL MI NM MN WI IA NH
Kerry 45 48 42 60 52 51 51 50 58 52 49 57
Bush 55 51 57 40 48 48 47 48 40 43 49 41
Take with a grain of salt but add in the huge early voting turn-out for Kerry and the numbers mean more in FL and OH.
AZ CO LA PA OH FL MI NM MN WI IA NH
Kerry 45 48 42 60 52 51 51 50 58 52 49 57
Bush 55 51 57 40 48 48 47 48 40 43 49 41
Take with a grain of salt but add in the huge early voting turn-out for Kerry and the numbers mean more in FL and OH.
The missing King
Last night there was a rally at Republic Airport in Farmingdale for republican candidates. The event was "hosted" by George Pataki. There was Garner, there was Mills, there was Manger and there WASN'T King.
Where was King?
King was on Crossfire on CNN. King was at the new Time-Warner building at Columbus Circle.
King was in no rush to leave the studios at 5pm when the show was over. He stopped to chat with former Sec. Def. William Cohen's security detail outside on 58th street and then he and his photographer strolled over the the parking garage across the street and took a leisurely drive out of the city.
Time from Midtown Manhattan to Farmingdale without rush-hour traffic? 50minutes. With rush-hour traffic? a couple of hours.
King cares so little about his supporters he chose CNN over a rally.
Where was King?
King was on Crossfire on CNN. King was at the new Time-Warner building at Columbus Circle.
King was in no rush to leave the studios at 5pm when the show was over. He stopped to chat with former Sec. Def. William Cohen's security detail outside on 58th street and then he and his photographer strolled over the the parking garage across the street and took a leisurely drive out of the city.
Time from Midtown Manhattan to Farmingdale without rush-hour traffic? 50minutes. With rush-hour traffic? a couple of hours.
King cares so little about his supporters he chose CNN over a rally.
Election Day
6am polls opened. At 6:20 there was a steady stream at local polling places. No lines out the door like in Florida but it is still early.
People at Massapequa, Mass park and Seaford train stations headed to work and hopefully voting when they get home.
No politicians patrolling stations yet but they will probably be there soon.
People at Massapequa, Mass park and Seaford train stations headed to work and hopefully voting when they get home.
No politicians patrolling stations yet but they will probably be there soon.
Monday, November 01, 2004
VOTE!
Polls open in a few hours. Get out the Vote and get Peter King out of the congress. Vote Blair Mathies.
Vote John Kerry!
Vote Chuck Schumer!
Vote Bill Funk!
Vote John Kerry!
Vote Chuck Schumer!
Vote Bill Funk!
More King on Crossfire Monday Night
A few choice comments:
"KING: ... yes, I believe that we should continue the war against terrorism. And President Bush realizes it is not just a single war or just against bin Laden or just against this group. It's a war against Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. And that is why Iraq is part of the war against terrorism."
The fact is that Iraq was NOT a Isalmic fundamentalist nation. Osama bin Laden was opposed to secular leaders like Saddam Hussein.
"KING: We did win the war. How did we win the war? Because the Taliban has been disposed and bin Laden is running. There's absolutely no real evidence at all that they knew for certain he was in Tora Bora. He won that war in Afghanistan in six weeks. The Russians took 10 years and lost tens of thousands of troops. There was no outsourcing of that."
Yes, the Taliban was defeated but Osama bin Laden did escape and he was at Tora Bora. King wants to deny it but Knight-Ridder has reports from four journalists who were on the ground in Afghanistan who say that Gen. Tommy Franks ignored intelligence reports about bin laden. The Taliban might not be in control anymore but neither is the new Afghan government in Kabul. Local warlords still control most of the country and heroin production is at a record high. Oh and the Taliban is trying a come-back.
The simple fact is Bush's mistakes let the mass-murdered bin laden escape.
"KING: No, 75 percent of the armed forces are supporting President Bush; 75 percent of the American armed forced are supporting President Bush."
We'd LOVE to see the source behind that....
"KING: Charlie, I was in Iraq last week. The armed forces are supporting President Bush."
Oh.. King interviewed all 140,000 soldiers in Iraq. I see.
Wait a minute.. he didn't meet all of teh soldiers in Iraq. Maybe King should visit Operation Truth to find out what the soldiers really think.
"KING: No, we should keep going in the same direction. We have created 1.9 million jobs in the last year. Bill Clinton lost half a million manufacturing jobs in his last year and a half. We've gained more in manufacturing in the last year than in 20 years."
President Clinton left office with a 4.2% unemployment rate. Bush is leaving with a 5.6%. manufacturing jobs are still way down, the deficit is at record levels and is increasing and consumer confidence has tanked. Hurray for the same direction. More of the same direction means DEPRESSION.
"KING: He inherited a recession from Bill Clinton."
Well actually the recession began in March of 2001.. that would be after Clinton left office.
"KING: No. What we're saying is that the Democratic policies are weak. Democratic policies are weak and they would invite attack. But, hopefully -- no one wants us to be attacked."
When did Osama bin Laden attack and who was in charge? That would be republican George W. Bush. The same Bush who ignored repeated warnings and was about to have his attorney general cut FBI anti-terrorism funding.
"KING: ... yes, I believe that we should continue the war against terrorism. And President Bush realizes it is not just a single war or just against bin Laden or just against this group. It's a war against Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. And that is why Iraq is part of the war against terrorism."
The fact is that Iraq was NOT a Isalmic fundamentalist nation. Osama bin Laden was opposed to secular leaders like Saddam Hussein.
"KING: We did win the war. How did we win the war? Because the Taliban has been disposed and bin Laden is running. There's absolutely no real evidence at all that they knew for certain he was in Tora Bora. He won that war in Afghanistan in six weeks. The Russians took 10 years and lost tens of thousands of troops. There was no outsourcing of that."
Yes, the Taliban was defeated but Osama bin Laden did escape and he was at Tora Bora. King wants to deny it but Knight-Ridder has reports from four journalists who were on the ground in Afghanistan who say that Gen. Tommy Franks ignored intelligence reports about bin laden. The Taliban might not be in control anymore but neither is the new Afghan government in Kabul. Local warlords still control most of the country and heroin production is at a record high. Oh and the Taliban is trying a come-back.
The simple fact is Bush's mistakes let the mass-murdered bin laden escape.
"KING: No, 75 percent of the armed forces are supporting President Bush; 75 percent of the American armed forced are supporting President Bush."
We'd LOVE to see the source behind that....
"KING: Charlie, I was in Iraq last week. The armed forces are supporting President Bush."
Oh.. King interviewed all 140,000 soldiers in Iraq. I see.
Wait a minute.. he didn't meet all of teh soldiers in Iraq. Maybe King should visit Operation Truth to find out what the soldiers really think.
"KING: No, we should keep going in the same direction. We have created 1.9 million jobs in the last year. Bill Clinton lost half a million manufacturing jobs in his last year and a half. We've gained more in manufacturing in the last year than in 20 years."
President Clinton left office with a 4.2% unemployment rate. Bush is leaving with a 5.6%. manufacturing jobs are still way down, the deficit is at record levels and is increasing and consumer confidence has tanked. Hurray for the same direction. More of the same direction means DEPRESSION.
"KING: He inherited a recession from Bill Clinton."
Well actually the recession began in March of 2001.. that would be after Clinton left office.
"KING: No. What we're saying is that the Democratic policies are weak. Democratic policies are weak and they would invite attack. But, hopefully -- no one wants us to be attacked."
When did Osama bin Laden attack and who was in charge? That would be republican George W. Bush. The same Bush who ignored repeated warnings and was about to have his attorney general cut FBI anti-terrorism funding.
Blogging the election
Tomorrow night Pete King Watch will be going live with election results and commentary. Stop by all night for updates.
Check out these other blogs for great election news:
Daily Kos
Atrios
Talking Points Memo
America Blog
Oliver Willis
Corrente
MyDD
TAPPED
Check out these other blogs for great election news:
Daily Kos
Atrios
Talking Points Memo
America Blog
Oliver Willis
Corrente
MyDD
TAPPED
King is a reprehensible bastard
Yup. He is. King was on Crossfire tonight and came across as across uninformed SOB... as usual. He takes the cake though with his statement "KING: There's a new axis of evil. There's a new axis of evil, U.N. bureaucrats, "The New York Times" and Dan Rather. That is the axis of evil that we're up against in this country."
So King is saying that an American newspaper the New York Times and an Amercian citizen Dan Rather are "evil." King might not like what the Times and Rather report but to call them evil is just disgusting. But that of course is a very republican thing to do. Bush and his minions do their best to link Kerry and the Democrats to terrorists. A draft-dodger republican Saxby Chambliss compared war hero Max Cleland to Osama bin laden and Saddam Hussein to win the senate seat in Georgia two years ago.
Our local Young Republicans got into the disgusting act on their website
Peter King and his party have done everything they can to lower the discourse in politics.
So King is saying that an American newspaper the New York Times and an Amercian citizen Dan Rather are "evil." King might not like what the Times and Rather report but to call them evil is just disgusting. But that of course is a very republican thing to do. Bush and his minions do their best to link Kerry and the Democrats to terrorists. A draft-dodger republican Saxby Chambliss compared war hero Max Cleland to Osama bin laden and Saddam Hussein to win the senate seat in Georgia two years ago.
Our local Young Republicans got into the disgusting act on their website
Peter King and his party have done everything they can to lower the discourse in politics.
Sunday, October 31, 2004
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.
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.
"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.
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.
"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.
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
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?
"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?
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
