Rep. King, Clinging To "Default Mechanism" Comments, Cries Victimhood
Rep. Steve King (R-IA) believes that President Obama has a "default mechanism" that "breaks down on the side of favoring the minority." He has accused the Obama administration of this kind of kneejerk anti-white racism on multiple occasions, and called it a "default mechanism" at least four times - on the June 14 edition of the G. Gordon Liddy Show, as Political Correction reported; in a June 15 floor speech; in a July 7 press release; and again yesterday on the Ben Shapiro Show. Listen:
REP. STEVE KING (R-IA): He did, and he testified that there's a racial bias built within the Department of Justice. Looks to me like the USDA was out recruiting people that might have that built into them when they arrived at the job... And if this was going to be the first post-racial president, uh, this is a president who trades in race issues. And uh, there could be two motives for that. One would be the more obvious one, the other one would be that I think that he has all of his political life been the beneficiary of playing race politics. And that's why the uh, I call it a default mechanism that's built within the Obama administration, breaks down on the side of favoring the minority, uh, because they've been rewarded politically for doing that. They're building coalitions of victim's groups that- it's really anathema to the American dream. We're about equal rights, equal opportunity, equal blessings that come from God, not about special rights nor are we about victimhood, nor should we be identifying ourselves as part of a victims group.
When Political Correction highlighted the initial accusation, Rep. King produced an odd defense. The Iowa Republican simultaneously accused us of taking him out of context while asserting that he does believe exactly what we said he believes. (He paused; we punctuated. I would encourage you to listen here to the relevant section of the Liddy interview, with a completely unpunctuated, verbatim transcript beneath, and decide for yourself. He told Politico in June that we punctuated it incorrectly, but that he stands by his comments and would be "looking for every opportunity I can to embellish the point I made.")
Rep. King is back at it in today's Politico, claiming in one paragraph that "Media Matters cut a sentence in half and put a period where it didn't belong," and then saying less than a hundred words later that Barack Obama's "whole presidency is becoming about race."
Rep. King's accusation against us is irrelevant. He believes Obama favors minorities over whites, and wants to talk about it as much as he can. As he told Radio Iowa:
I actually, when this first popped...I told my people here that handle my media: 'Let's let this cook for a couple of days and see if this pot will come to a boil,'...I don't want to put it away in the first day because I think the American people need to have this debate about what appears to me to be an inclination on the part of the White House and the justice department and perhaps others within the administration to break on the side of favoritism with regard to race.
Worst of all, King wants to have his cake (calling the administration anti-white) and eat it too (crying "context!" and claiming he is the victim of "professional hyperventilators.") He tells Politico that, after reviewing the full tape of Shirley Sherrod's now-famous speech about overcoming her own racism, "I support the full sentiment of her delivery." And on a right-wing radio show, he hyperventilates a bit himself about sensational "new" accusations against Sherrod, and sees her hiring as proof of Obama's "default mechanism."
It makes no sense to say on one hand that you approve of Shirley Sherrod's speech about race and reconciliation, but on the other that the USDA is intentionally hiring racists. Which is it, Rep. King?