Martin Longman at The Washington Monthly writes—Cantaloupe King Loses Bid to Block Tubman Twenties:
Based on what I know about Rep. Steve King of Iowa, it would be inexplicable if he didn’t introduce an amendment to block the Treasury Department from putting Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill. That he did so was as predictable as April Showers.
What was also very predictable was that he’d shirk taking ownership of his racist motivation. I don’t quite understand why Rep. King is so willing to be a voice for the most reactionary white supremacists in the country but always claims that he’s not a racist and that it’s his critics who are the racists.
Rep. Steve King (R-IA) proposed an amendment to a spending bill that would [prohibit] the use of funds to redesign any Federal Reserve note or coin. He said that the amendment was not intended as a slight to Tubman, but a symbol of his “conservative” commitment to preserving history.
“It’s not about Harriet Tubman, it’s about keeping the picture on the $20,” King told Politico. “Y’know? Why would you want to change that? I am a conservative, I like to keep what we have.”
The Iowa Republican went on to say that it was “racist” and “sexist” to suggest that a woman or person of color be included on U.S. currency. For King, the proposal to replace former president Andrew Jackson, a slaveowner, with an abolitionist and feminist icon was “liberal activism.”
I find that spin quite interesting. There’s some kind of truth buried in it. For people like Steve King, perpetuating injustice is preferable to changing anything because changing things means that he doesn’t get to keep what he has. [...]
And the real sexism or racism is perpetrated by women and people of color who insist on changing things, because they’re the ones who think in terms of gender and race, unlike Rep. King who can’t see any sexism or racism even when it originates between his own ears.
HIGH IMPACT STORIES • TOP COMMENTS
TWEET OF THE DAY
BLAST FROM THE PAST
At Daily Kos on this date in 2009—SCOTUS Upholds Voting Rights Act -- For Now, Anyway:
It's one of the neat things about the Reconstruction Amendments that's sometimes overlooked -- not only do the 13th through 15th Amendments outlaw slavery and involuntary servitude, guarantee the privileges or immunities of all citizens of the United States as well as their right to due process and equal protection -- but the Amendments also expressly authorize Congress to enact further legislation enforcing these provisions.
Among this legislation is the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which finally outlawed various discriminatory voting practices that had been responsible for the widespread disenfranchisement of African Americans in the United States. Moreover, the Act in its Section 5 created federal oversight of local elections administration, requiring that those states which had a history of discriminatory voting practices ("covered jurisdictions") couldn't make any changes that affected voting—couldn't even move the location of a polling place—without getting "preclearance" from the United States Department of Justice. The idea was, basically, "we're not going to let you have one bad law struck down only to see you try again the next day with some new scheme to screw minority voters—so before you change anything, see us." That list of covered jurisdictions is here, and not only includes many Southern states but also most of New York City, isolated parts of Michigan and South Dakota, and even some California counties (among other locations).
On today’s Kagro in the Morning show: Greg Dworkin rounds up the latest polls and other Trump disasaters, and Joan McCarter notes Rubio’s return, the Congressional Dems’ protests demanding gun votes, and Trump’s latest attempt at a speech. And, still more superdelegate proposals considered.
On iTunes | On Stitcher | Support the show: Patreon; PayPal; PayPal Subscription