Huckabee Backs DC Representation
Written by Sean on September 1st, 2007I had to post something since I didn’t want to look at that tech building any more.
Mike Huckabee is breaking with Republicans yet again, this time on legislation that would give Washington, DC a Congressman. Now I could make the argument that the legislation is patently unconstitutional or talk about how even a proposed alternative would be dangerous, but I won’t.
This is a party loyalty issue. Forget the smoke and mirrors. Forget the reasons that the Founders set aside a federal district. Forget what happened in Philadelphia. Any legislation that grants the District of Columbia voting rights will grant the Democrats an additional Congressional seat. The proposal to grant Utah an at-large seat until the next election does not solve that because the DC seat will remain in Democrat hands and it is anybody’s guess to what state that seat would be allocated after the next census.
I’d like to back Huckabee, not so much because I like him but because I really don’t care for Giuliani, McCain or Romney. I’m still undecided on Thompson. Taken with his tax-hiking, big government history, though, something like this makes it all the more difficult.
The GOP field is depressing, and it seems like things get worse every time a candidate opens his mouth. Fortunately I’ll have the Irish win this afternoon to make me forget about it for a while.
1
AM
I really think the GOP candidates are trying to see just how bad they can be and still win the nomination. When you’ve got candidates running for president in this party and they’re all spitting in conservatives’ faces (save only for the candidates who have no chance of winning the nomination), it really makes you wonder why conservatives are letting them get away with it by not deserting the candidates.
1
PM
DC representation is a fun and games issue, not something that should decide the direction of our country for the next four years.
1
PM
No, that’s wrong. What the candidate believes about constitutional issues is a serious consideration when asking what kind of Supreme Court justices he’s going to pick. Yeah, you can’t have agreement on everything, not even when it comes to Supreme Court justices, but on this issue Huckabee is so clearly taking the unconstitutional position that he must not ever read the Constitution. This is not a gray area like those areas where Justices Scalia and Thomas disagree. This one’s a gimme.
But why should I even bother with a response? You were 180 degrees wrong about Harriet Miers, so obviously reason isn’t your strong suit.