Rep. Steve King is a douche bag

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 23, 2010 5:06 PM GMT
    Check this out; keeping in mind that that Republican-controlled Congress impeached Clinton during a lame duck session.

    Associated PressRep. Steve King (R-Iowa) recently expressed disgust with the growing checklist of legislation that has been passed during the current lame duck session of Congress.

    "It's unbelievable. It's unprecedented," King said in an interview with ABC News. "People have been told by the American voters that they've had enough of the 111th Congress, they'd like to have shut it down on November the 2nd. And still Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi march on throwing another pie in the face of the American people -- driving an agenda that's not supported by the American people."

    King continued, saying that the current actions of the expiring Congress, and particularly Democrats, were "characterized by the word spite more than statesmanship" and should be stopped.

    "I just think it's disingenuous, and it's the wrong thing for the American people," King said, before saying that he would urge his own party to "remember this, too" during the next lame duck session.

    Some predict that the 9/11 first responders health care bill and the START nuclear arms treaty, perhaps the must publicized pieces of legislation still left on the table, may be addressed by Congress on Wednesday.

    Rep. King also addressed rumors that he might throw his name in the ring for president in 2012 and laid down some conditions that could prompt a run.

    "I have said that I'm short only two things and that is a calling and groundswell," King explained. "So if those two things emerge, I'll be engaged in it 100 percent."


    The American people certainly supported extension of unemployment benefits, repeal of DADT, certification of the START treaty, and the first responders bill, so what is King blathering about?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 23, 2010 5:11 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidThe American people certainly supported extension of unemployment benefits, repeal of DADT, certification of the START treaty, and the first responders bill, so what is King blathering about?

    He's blathering about his right-wing base, and the Tea Baggers whose influence he hopes will grow even greater before 2012, to Republican political advantage.

    This is why I worry the DADT success (which I greatly applaud) may be precarious during the next Congress, just as health care reform is, and all these measures you mention.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 23, 2010 6:16 PM GMT
    I wish I could point to ANY evidence the GOP was making any effort at all to rid their ranks of Teabaggers like this guy.

    Alas...
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14354

    Dec 23, 2010 9:39 PM GMT
    The GOP is long overdue for a complete takeover by the moderates and progressives. It is time to push the religious right into the marginal fringe where they belong.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 25, 2010 4:13 PM GMT
    jprichva said
    roadbikeRob saidThe GOP is long overdue for a complete takeover by the moderates and progressives. It is time to push the religious right into the marginal fringe where they belong.

    That's not going to happen anytime soon.

    I agree. The trend seems to be in the opposite direction, with the Republican leadership pulling the Party the other way, to increasing right-wing extremism. Only rejection by US voters may pull them back, but after the 2010 elections they see validation for their strategy, and will continue it into 2012.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 25, 2010 4:34 PM GMT
    Just a comment on the START treaty. It is true that a majority favor this treaty. But the question comes up as to why it was necessary to be pushed though in this session. Even if the Secretary of Defense gave it the thumb up, while he has great integrity, he is also a political animal. There are concerns with the preamble, the differences in interpretation between the US and Russia with respect to the linkage of offensive with defensive weapons. Not that the difference in interpretation should preclude ratifying it, but there has been suggestions that in parallel with its ratification, the Administration document to the Russians its position that the preamble is non-binding. I'm sure the Administration feared if they did so, the Russians would reject the treaty. More weakness demonstrated by the White House.

    This Administration has a habit of doing two things: 1) pushing things through without a full assessment of the consequences (health care), and 2) weak and non-existent negotiations with the Russians (unilateral halting of the radar/missile complexes in E. Europe). In the case of the latter, many believe the Russians could have been moved to limit their weapons sales to Iran had the US pressed it. Most people who know the Russians know you don't start a negotiation with concessions, because there will be no need for negotiation.

    And the final ridicule owed to the Administration is the notion that if START were not ratified until January, damage would be done to US-Russia relations. What a ridiculous posture to show internationally, especially with Russia themselves delaying final approval until January. The Government has foreign policy experts, but the clowns in the White House apparently do not listen.

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_RUSSIA_US_NUCLEAR?SITE=IADES&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 25, 2010 4:48 PM GMT
    My point was not against the wording of the treaty, but in favor of additional discussion, with the possibility of a parallel documentation of our position. The fact is when two sides have very different interpretations of a treaty, not a good situation. There is the point that we can go ahead with our defense plans which will cause the Russians to abandon the treaty. My points about the push for December and the Administration's history with the Russians stand.

    My info comes from a variety of sources, not just "right-wing" sources. I regularly watch news and news conferences from Channel 1 / Novosti Moscow, and have a good sense of both sides.