MORE LIKE MIGHTY JOE YOUNG
As a supporter of Steve King, I found this piece by Jack Cashill informative, and an accurate characterization of the congressman.
In my opinion, Rep. King has been “Palin-ized” by the Dems and, of course, the media, and, also, of course, his own Republican colleagues and even many ‘bona fide’ conservatives.
I have followed Mr. King, and have read some of the statements attributed to him which have been turned by the media into ‘racist’ or “sexist”, or whatever, terms.
In most every instance, the statements reflected King’s thoughtful analyses, and were not either in fact or intent, as characterized. Unfortunately, King has often expressed his thoughts in unfriendly forums or in terms which the media found easy to distort or mischaracterize…and, even easy to misinterpret for King’s own natural allies (Republicans and conservatives).
That is one thing about Democrats…they don’t turn on their own, even when the individual is and does express flagrantly racist or sexist, or greatly divisive sentiments (ie., the anti-semitic, anti-America Ilhan Omar is a striking example that comes to mind…Steve King lost his committee assignments; Omar was hailed as a Democrat “star”). dlh
At The American Thinker:
The GOP’s Unholy Assault on Iowa’s Steve King
By Jack Cashill
The headline of a recent Baltimore Jewish Times article reads as follows: “Jewish Republicans Tackle a Thorny Question: What To Do About Republicans Like Steve King?”
A saner question might be, “Why should Jewish Republicans — or any Republican, for that matter — have a problem with Iowa congressman Steve King?”
Certain Republican insiders, using The Republican Jewish Coalition as a wedge, are trying their damnedest to defeat King in a June 2 primary. In doing so, they not only threaten to unseat one of Israel’s most solid defenders in Congress, but also risk creating a backlash against Jews.
Reporter Ron Kampeas acknowledges how GOP leadership is using the Republican Jewish Coalition. Writes Kampeas, “The RJC [is] making a case that a Republican trafficking in anti-Semitism or white supremacism carries more weight than when it comes from an outside group.” What makes this strategy all the more odious is that King has trafficked in neither.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I contracted with King in December to help him finish a book project he had been working on. This article is not part of that contract. It comes from the heart.
In the course of the project, I have reviewed every single “controversial” comment that King has made during his eighteen years in Congress. Having reviewed them all in their proper context, I would endorse King in a heartbeat and challenge any Republican who feels otherwise to a public debate on what it means to be a conservative.
In the way of background, I have a Ph.D. from Purdue in American studies. More to the point, I wrote a book five years ago called Scarlet Letters that documented the left’s use of race, sex, and other identifiers to subvert the right.
As I noted in the book, “[a]n awkward phrase, a misunderstood joke, a manufactured quote, a frank look at data, a persistent belief in a revered tradition could earn a sinner any one of many scarlet letters as ablaze with ‘awe and horrible repugnance’ as Hester’s own Scarlet A.”
King was felled by a manufactured quote. The quote was published in a January 2019 New York Times article headlined “Before Trump, Steve King Set the Agenda for the Wall and Anti-Immigrant Politics.” Deep in the article, reporter Trip Gabriel quoted King as saying, “White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization — how did that language become offensive?”
Gabriel did not tape the interview. Neither did King. In a later taped conversation, King’s assistant got Gabriel to admit he was the one who introduced the phrases “white nationalism” and “white supremacism,” but by that time, the tumbrils were rolling, and they have not stopped since.
Five days after the initial article, Gabriel wrote an exhaustive piece headlined, “A Timeline of Steve King’s Racist Remarks and Divisive Actions.” The article deserves an honored spot in a media time capsule showing just how thoroughly the Times had corrupted the language by 2019.
Gabriel documented King’s twenty-year history of alleged racist and divisive acts. These included such offenses as King’s successful introduction of a bill making English Iowa’s official language, his assertion that “preventing babies being born is not medicine,” and his description of multiculturalism as “a tool for the Left to subdivide a culture and civilization into our own little ethnic enclaves and pit us against each other.”
The left’s strategy works only when Republicans join the witch hunt. In King’s case, the witch-hunters know who they are. I will mention only one by name: House Leader Kevin McCarthy. Joe McCarthy never deserved the designation “McCarthyism.” Kevin McCarthy does.
Curiously, in the lengthy Jewish Times article about King’s racism, reporter Kampeas does not attribute to King a single racist quote. The best he can do is quote McCarthy saying, “Congressman King’s comments cannot be exonerated.” This raises the question, “which comments?”
In his outspoken 18 years in Congress, King has never said anything as quotable as “If you have a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.” He never said about Jews, “It’s all about the Benjamins.” He did not even say, “Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came?”
The last of those quotes came from a tweet by President Trump. It was far more provocative than anything King has ever said. To his credit, McCarthy refused to denounce Trump when asked to do so at a press conference.
As a result, the hashtag “KevinMcCarthyIsARacist” promptly trended on Twitter. Weak-kneed Republicans like McCarthy live in fear of such labels. To appease the left, they routinely serve up the occasional sacrificial lamb — a Todd Akin, a Richard Mourdock, a Steve King — forgetting that the left is never appeased.
Despite the lack of quotes in the Jewish Times article, King is entirely quotable. I have found King to be more thoughtful in his defense of Western civilization than most Republicans and more candid than just about all of them. Some relevant quotes:
On Israel
CNN, November 2018: “I am a person who has stood with Israel from the beginning, and the length of that nation is the length of my life. And I’ve been with them all along.”
On White Supremacy and White Nationalism
House Floor, January 2019: “I reject those labels and the evil ideology that they define. Further, I condemn anyone that supports this evil and bigoted ideology which saw in its ultimate expression the systematic murder of 6 million innocent Jewish lives.”
On Judeo-Christianity:
House Floor, February 2012: “We derive our strength from free enterprise capitalism, Judeo-Christianity, Western civilization. That is the core of America, the vigor of America, and that is what we must continue to protect, regrow, and refurbish.”
In the wake of Gabriel’s article, Mark Steyn took up King’s cause while hosting the Rush Limbaugh show. “He’s not a white supremacist. He’s not a white nationalist. It’s all stupid talk,” said Steyn. “So you’ve just surrendered the phrase ‘Western civilization.’ I don’t get that. I don’t see what’s in it for conservatism in surrendering that phrase, in accepting the leftist’s view that the term ‘Western civilization’ is beyond the pale.”
I don’t get it, either.
Jack Cashill’s newest book, Unmasking Obama, is available for pre-order at Amazon.
To recall and paraphrase President Abraham Lincoln’s ‘request’ of General McClellan: President Trump of Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey: “If Mayor Frey is not using his police department, I should like to borrow it for a while.” dlh
In the 1980s economist Arthur Laffer popularized the notion of an ideal, lower tax rate. If you tax something too much, the Laffer curve posits, you get less of it. In the government’s recent fiscal and monetary response to the pandemic, we have the inverse corollary, the Sloth curve. If you create incentives for unemployment, you get more of it.
Here are a couple of commentaries about the dominant liberal media in general and two named individuals featured by Fox (Chris Wallace and Jonah Goldberg) . The first by the estimable Victor Davis Hanson writing at American Greatness and the latter by Jon Dougherty writing at Bizpac Review:
ROME — The director general of the Vatican bank, Gian Franco Mammì, confirmed this week that the institution holds no investments in the fossil fuel industry, apparently in response to challenges from climate change activists.
The ‘Liberal Leaning’ Media Has Passed Its Tipping Point
A return to balance would be commercially unviable. The best solution may be an honest embrace of bias.
By Van Gordon Sauter May 25, 2020
About 35 years ago I was sitting at lunch next to Jeane Kirkpatrick, a onetime Democrat who became a foreign-policy adviser to President Reagan and later U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. She was lamenting what she called the “liberal leaning” media. As the president of CBS News, I assured her it was only a “liberal tilt” and could be corrected.
“You don’t understand,“ she scolded. “It’s too late.”
Kirkpatrick was prophetic. The highly influential daily newspapers in New York, Washington, Los Angeles and Boston are now decidedly liberal. On the home screen, the three broadcast network divisions still have their liberal tilt. Two of the three leading cable news sources are unrelentingly liberal in their fear and loathing of President Trump.
News organizations that claim to be neutral have long been creeping leftward, and their loathing of Mr. Trump has accelerated the pace. The news media is catching up with the liberalism of the professoriate, the entertainment industry, upscale magazines and the literary world. Recent arrivals are the late-night TV hosts who have broken the boundaries of what was considered acceptable political humor for networks.
This is what conservatism is up against, and the professoriate of course translates into what is taught children in grade-school and beyond
To many journalists, objectivity, balance and fairness—once the gold standard of reporting—are not mandatory in a divided political era and in a country they believe to be severely flawed. That assumption folds neatly into their assessment of the president. To the journalists, including more than a few Republicans, he is a blatant vulgarian, an incessant prevaricator, and a dangerous leader who should be ousted next January, if not sooner. Much of journalism has become the clarion voice of the “resistance,” dedicated to ousting the president, even though he was legally elected and, according to the polls, enjoys the support of about 44% of likely 2020 voters.
They are on a mission, however lazy in fact finding they feed each other ad nauseam
This poses significant problems not only for Mr. Trump but for the media’s own standing. If Mr. Trump prevails in November, what’s the next act, if any, for journalists and the resistance? They will likely find Mr. Trump more dangerous and offensive in a second term than in the first.
More important, how will a large segment of the public ever put stock in journalism it considers hostile to the country’s best interests? Unfortunately, dominant media organizations have bonded with another large segment of the public—one that embraces its new approach. Pulling back from anti-Trump activism could prove commercially harmful.
Hmmm — if so is it not limited however comfortable to them and then does that not imply a market for other outlets. And what of reports that news functions of the networks are money losers for those networks — what are the implications for profitable competitors?
On the other hand, how would the media respond to a Joe Biden victory (beyond exhilaration)? Will Mr. Biden be subjected to the rigor and skepticism imposed on Mr. Trump? Will he get a pass because he is a liberal and “not Trump”? The media’s protective coverage of the sexual-assault allegation against Mr. Biden is perhaps a clear and concerning preview to how his presidency would be covered.
The media seems uninterested in these issues of bias. But wouldn’t a softening of its editorial orientation bring new readers or viewers? Probably not. The growth of new customers would be more than offset by the defection of outraged members of the current audience. The news media seems very comfortable with its product and ability to sell it.
Keep in mind their supposed satisfaction with the size of their pie or market, their view is not one of a growth industry
There’s probably no way to seal the gap between the media and a large segment of the public. The media likes what it is doing. Admires it. Celebrates it. There is no personal, professional or financial reason to change. If anything, the gap will expand. Ultimately, the media finds the “deplorables” deplorable.
Yes there is if others are shown to be profitable (unless the concern is not with profitability which may be the case now but is that an obliviousness that is sustainable?
Dan Abrams, ABC’s chief legal-affairs anchor and founder of the website Mediaite, has a novel but valuable idea for the media—candor. Speaking to the matter at February’s Rancho Mirage Writers Festival, Mr. Abrams said “I think the first thing that would help . . . is to admit . . . that the people in the media are left of center.”
It would be delightful if a publisher, an editor, a reporter, would just say: Yes, I am left of center! I’m proud of it. I think our reporting is accurate. It best serves the public. And the credibility of the media. So there!
Publications open about their bias might feel freer to focus on the specifics: story selection, presentation, facts, fairness, balance. Not devoid of subtlety for sure, but manageable.
Journalism affects social cohesion. Convinced of its role and its legitimacy, however, the media doesn’t seem to much care. And the other side can certainly enjoy throwing rotten tomatoes at distant targets.
The “other side” can proceed to challenge and succeed at it
But America won’t reunite until far more people can look at a news story in print or on the screen and, of all things, believe it.
Mr. Sauter was president of CBS News, 1982-83 and 1986.