The criticism of Kirk, however, has been met by an equally aggressive counteroffensive on the right: journalists and other citizens have lost jobs for refusing to endorse the sanitized narrative of his life, and even Jimmy Kimmel was fired after daring to mention Kirk and Republicans in anything other than a positive light.
Erin Reed reports on a House resolution about "a courageous American patriot" who is a "fierce defender of the American founding and its timeless principles of life, liberty, limited government, and individual responsibility." He did so with "honor, courage, and respect" and was a "model" for Americans. This is bullshit.
Erin Reed notes:
“Charlie Kirk was a fierce defender of the American founding and its timeless principles of life, liberty, limited government, and individual responsibility,” the resolution reads—conveniently eliding his relentless campaign against the liberties of LGBTQ+ people. It praises him for engaging in “respectful, civil discourse,” even though he once said Black pilots made him wonder if they were “qualified” and called transgender people an “abomination unto God.” And it claims he “worked tirelessly to promote unity,” despite his calls to execute President Biden for treason.
Ninety-five Democrats voted for this claptrap, while thirty-eight voted present, and twenty-two didn't vote. Only 58 simply voted "no."
215 Republicans voted "yea" with four not voting. It was clearly an important vote for them.
Many noted, in the aftermath of McBride’s vote, that Kirk had personally attacked her—calling her a “man” and claiming she wanted “to force all of society to change its laws to indulge [her] sexual fetish,” hardly the “respectful and civil discourse” the resolution insisted he embodied.
Rep. Sarah McBride, the only openly trans member of Congress, who Kirk once called a man, voted yes. I understand her carefully threading the needle, including as the sole representative of the state of Delaware. But really?
The resolution has various mundane things against violence and so forth, but it also glorifies Charlie Kirk with comments such as:
Honors the life, leadership, and legacy of Charlie Kirk, whose steadfast dedication to the Constitution, civil discourse, and Biblical truth inspired a generation to cherish and defend the blessings of liberty.
I don't think it is appropriate for Democrats to sign on to this resolution. It perpetuates the glorification of Charlie Kirk, which is a lie.
One really disappointing "yea" vote here is Rep. Raskin, usually a sane, sensible person who doesn't hold back, his opposition to injustice. What the hell are you doing? What is his excuse?
My representative, who is a strong Trump opponent but has his moments of being a tool, didn't vote. Brave man! The House Minority Leader, who doesn't want to endorse Zohran Mamdani for mayor of New York City, voted yes. Fuck you. I'm so tired of that guy.
The Republicans are making this guy a martyr. This resolution was passed after Jimmy Kimmel was silenced for criticizing the response to his death, particularly Trump. Yes, the FCC shit got even Ted Cruz using words like "mafioso." Not that he would actually do anything serious about it.
Cruz et. al. cheered on silencing people for criticism. This is in the spirit of the "model" the people's House supported. A simple resolution is mourning of his death, and opposing politically related violence would be understandable. Selective, for sure, but understandable. This resolution glorified him.
What message is the Democrats sending by not having the guts (except for a quarter of them) to simply vote against this thing? 45% voted for it. Do better.
ETA: NYT has an interview with Charlie Kirk's widow entitled "For Erika Kirk, a Husband’s Life Cut Short by Violence He Seemed to Foresee."
More promotion of the idea that Kirk is a martyr, almost a Jesus-like figure. The subtitle notes "she sees divine work in his death." Beyond parody.
It is unsuprising that people are trying to provide some divine meaning to his death. People do that. The usage of such headlines, however, adds to the glorification. OTOH, guess NYT won't get cancelled.
I don't recall the murder of the Minnesota legislator and her husband (and their dog, plus the shooting of two others) getting this much coverage.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!