The House Democrats have apparently finalized the text of a resolution opposing hate in all but its politically correct forms. I have embedded the text below via Scribd as reported by Politico. Intended to mitigate the political fallout from Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitic comments, it could now pass as a resolution in her honor. Even she should be able to vote for it with the thought that, with the possible exception of a paragraph or two, she subscribes to its tenets.

Remind me. What were we talking about? It is worse than nothing.

UPDATE: The resolution has passed the House by a vote of 407-23. According to Politico: “Every Democrat voted for the resolution, with all ‘no’ votes coming from Republicans; one lawmaker, Rep. Steve King, (R-Iowa), voted present.”

Aesop, I absolutely agree with you. An excellent job. Thank you!

.

And thanks to Neo for bringing up this example of pillorying, and of considering other interpretations than the Popular one.

He wrote a long piece excoriating Rep. King for his awfulracistwhitesupremacist remark.

Anybody can misjudge, or fail to withhold judgment while considering a whole statement (or) act — or the accuracy of reportage of an incident — before decking the alleged miscreant.

But I am sorely disappointed in Mr. Alexander just the same. I hunted for an e-mail address to which I could send alternative explanations (to be sure, with no hint of that disappointment, o shirley knott), but I couldn’t find one.

I’m bothered so much by this mostly because it speaks to jumping onto the proggie-judgmental bandwagon, and the see-we-can-denounce-our-own-when-they-are-Bad and-no-excuses bandwagon, which has the most unpleasant echoes of the Kavanaugh shafting process. Now I don’t know for sure whether Mr. Alexander swallowed the popular story instead of hearing some recording of Rep. King as he actually made the remarks, but I’m assuming he relied on reports. If we’re not going to parse reports carefully, as Neo did in her posting, then why to we bother to exist.

Just as the attack on Roy Moore was an out-of-town try-out for the attack on Brett Kavanaugh, the attack on Steve King is probably a dry-run for an attack on ANY conservative candidate or nominee who has made ANY kind of remark that can be twisted into the semblance of something that the left considers racist, or sexist, homophobic, anti-Muslim, etc (“binders of women” ring any bells?).

They start with a person they can kinda-credibly accuse of something plausibly improper (even if out of context, never proven, or from so far in the past it has no relevance); if the GOP reacts in the desired fashion (as it usually does), they move on to accusations that are not remotely credible, but have to be treated as such because the GOP has already set a precedent of caving in.

It still astounds me that the Republicans held firm on Justice Kavanaugh; however, without Avenatti’s over-the-top totally implausible accusation, I’m not completely sure they wouldn’t have thrown him under the bus.

The GOP, sadly, can’t bring itself to follow the lead of the Democrats and simply ignore any disgraceful activities of their party members that don’t rise to criminal or objectively immoral behavior.
One, because Republicans really do have ethical principles that are lacking on the left; and two, because they don’t get any cover from the media for ignoring attacks on behavior that really isn’t morally culpable.

/rant off

* * *
Agreed, she definitely should.
Also from your link:
“Yet if Republican leaders are aware of the danger of letting loose cannons like King tatter their reputation with talk about white nationalism, why aren’t Democrats prepared to police their side of the aisle with respect to anti-Semitism?

Unless House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is ready to discipline Michigan’s newly elected Rep. Rashida Tlaib, any talk from Democrats about their opponents tolerating hate from King or President Trump is blatant hypocrisy.
…
It’s doubly urgent for the GOP to distance itself from King now, when Republicans should be making clear that support for the rule of law and border security isn’t about race or racism. Good on McCarthy and other party leaders for making it so.

That disavowal puts the onus on Pelosi to demonstrate that Democrats aren’t prepared to tolerate expressions of anti-Semitism — ”

So, HAS Pelosi acted to punish Tlaib?
No, but she recognizes the reciprocity that could force her to.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/425716-dems-grapple-with-next-steps-against-steve-king

“House Democratic leaders averted a potentially divisive vote to censure embattled Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) despite a push from some rank-and-file members to take further punitive action.
…
One factor that Democrats are likely considering is that Republicans could seek to bring censure resolutions against Democrats.

Republicans have pointed to comments from freshman Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) earlier this month calling to “impeach the motherf—er” in reference to President Trump.

“If you’re going to do that, then let’s talk about it in terms of standards for all members of Congress, which is, we ought to conduct ourselves in a manner that reflects well upon our nation and our constituencies. And I don’t believe that either of them have. And that’s embarrassing,” Rep. Paul Mitchell (R-Mich.) told The Hill last week.

Mitchell said he’d “probably vote in favor” of censuring King if there was also an opportunity to censure Tlaib.”

Meanwhile, back at the bolded part, this looks to be why the GOP took this particular incident as a tipping point.
“It’s doubly urgent for the GOP to distance itself from King now, when Republicans should be making clear that support for the rule of law and border security isn’t about race or racism. Good on McCarthy and other party leaders for making it so.”

PS – the USA list does, in fact, make a lot of King’s statements controversial simply because they disagree with the leftist agenda. There is also the question of (1) cherry-picking and (2) what-about-ism to consider.
In re (1), everyone has said and done things that aren’t conformable to good character, without being dispositive of bad character — disallowing anything that is “bad” simply because the forces of PC/SJW declare them to be so. You could make a similar list for almost any politician (differing in details of the substance), and conservatives entertain themselves regularly doing the same for Democrats.

Which leads to (2).
Today’s counterpoint is Tlaib.
There are plenty of others (Farrakhan et al).
And there is always Robert Byrd, who was not, AFAIK, ever censured, disavowed, or shunned by the the Democrats, much less thrown out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_United_States_politics
”
Senator Robert Byrd was a Kleagle, a Klan recruiter, in his 20s and 30s.
Robert C. Byrd, was a recruiter for the Klan while in his 20s and 30s, rising to the title of Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops of his local chapter. After leaving the group, Byrd spoke in favor of the Klan during his early political career. Though he claimed to have left the organization in 1943, Byrd, wrote a letter in 1946 to the group’s Imperial Wizard stating “The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia.” Byrd attempted to explain or defend his former membership in the Klan in his 1958 U.S. Senate campaign when he was 41 years old.[1] Byrd, a Democrat, eventually became his party leader in the Senate. Byrd later said joining the Klan was his “greatest mistake.”[2] However, in a 2001 incident Byrd repeatedly used the phrase “white niggers” on a national television broadcast.[3]”

LMAO

David Smith on January 16, 2019 at 8:06 am at 8:06 am said:
Never, never fail to have your own recording of any interview by any media or government employees. Any, ever. Ever.

Roy on January 16, 2019 at 10:09 am at 10:09 am said:
It seems to me that his only sin was to give an interview to the NY Times and expecting them to report the interview accurately.

Don’t talk to the Police without your lawyer present.

Don’t talk to the Fed’s at all.

And never, ever, give interviews to the press.

* * *
No Republican who breaks these rules should be considered a serious contender for election.
Unless his name is Donald Trump.

[J.D. Scholten, King’s Democratic challenger in the 2018 race] showed for the first time since King first took office that not only is King potentially beatable but, with the right set of circumstances, he could even be beaten by a Democrat.

Republicans outnumber Democrats 190,000 to 120,000 in the 4th District, and many of those Republicans remain fiercely loyal to King. But Scholten came within 11,000 votes of King in the midterm elections — the closest call of King’s political career.

Put up the right Republican — someone who matches King’s deep-red, conservative bona fides with a base of support in the district and the ability to raise money — and it’s possible King could be defeated in a primary.

State. Sen. Randy Feenstra, R-Hull, announced a primary challenge to King the day before the Times story was published.

Feenstra, who is chairman of the Senate Ways and Means Committee, shepherded one of the most substantial tax cuts in state history through the Iowa Legislature last year.

His primary challenge is seen as credible in ways that many of King’s other previous challengers have not, in part because his candidacy wasn’t dreamed up by a group of Republicans from outside the district who recruited him to the race.

Don’t talk to the Police without your lawyer present.

Don’t talk to the Fed’s at all.

And never, ever, give interviews to the press.