September 28, 2007
D.C. Republicans Face Easy Choice
When it comes to who the D.C. Republican Party should side with in the 2008 presidential contest, the choice is obvious -- Mike Huckabee.
Sure, the former governor of Arkansas doesn't have much of a chance of winning, but he's been consistent in his support of D.C. voting rights. In yesterday's All-American Presidential Forum on PBS, hosted by Tavis Smiley, it was Huckabee who backed voting rights for the District's 600,000 residents. In response to a question, Huckabee stated, "I believe that the people of D.C. should be able to vote for representation. I think that's appropriate, for the simple reason of equality and justice....They ought to be able to vote." And while his claims might have seemed like pandering to Smiley's largely black audience, in late August Huckabee broke with President Bush on the issue, arguing, "They’re American citizens. They pay taxes and it just doesn’t seem right that someone could be even partially disenfranchised.”
On the other end of things, a number of the Republican hopefuls might have lost their chance with local voters. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) and Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Ca.) voted against legislation that would grant the District a voting seat in the House of Representatives, as did Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Frontrunners Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson have yet to take a stand on D.C. voting rights, so they may still be able to woo the small number of Republicans that call the District home.
|
Wow, what a worthless article about a complete non-issue that nobody cares about.
If the biggest issue to the people in DC is a seat in the House, then I guess the people that work in DC aren't the only ones that are completely out of touch with reality.
If a seat in the House is your make or break issue, I pity you. Stop dreaming, wake up, and go outside.
What war? The economy, what's that? Civil liberties, like the statue? DC wants a house seat!
Nobody cares.
Sounds like Ron Paul. As a constitutionalist, he votes against almost everything that's not strictly within the bounds of the Constitution or its amendments. Same guy who voted against giving the Congressional Medal of Freedom to Rosa Parks, because he thinks they're an unconstitutional use of taxpayer money. He did suggest the each House member should contribute 100 bucks from their own pockets though.
House seats don't matter in Police States.
Ah, but this is an excellent example of why people should think carefully before voting on a one-issue basis. Huckabee? Seriously? Have you looked at any of his other positions?
Just to clarify, yes Ron Paul voted against it because it is not currently supported by the Constitution, however ... he would support it if it was introduced as an amendment to Constitution and believes that that should be the proper course of action to grant voting rights to D.C. residents.
Sadly when all is said and done Martin, I think it will be a race between Hillary Clinton and Fred Thompson and we cannot say for sure that either of them is pro a vote for DC.
Enemy of the District
Everett: If you're not conservative, then he's not your candidate. That being said, if you're not conservative, why do you even care? Was the "D.C. Republicans Face Easy Choice" part lost on you? If your reasoning is that, much as everyone likes to say that the Republicans have thrown away their chances for '08, there is still a chance that the Republican candidate will win, and you'd rather that Republican not be Huckabee (although, frankly, I find him to be one of the less scary Republican presidential candidates), ok, but otherwise? What's it to you?
To be fair, that should probably read "ultra-conservative," not just "conservative," but either way...
Why on earth should District Republicans support voting rights for the District? By disenfranching themselves, they disenfranchise an even greater number of Democrats. It's kind of like voting, but better!
lol@Huckster
Huckster is running for VP, not the top spot, hence the last two "VP" debates.
Wake up.
yes, Ron Paul voted against legislation because he knows it will take a Constitutional Ammendment
Sheesh, how low can go to distort someone's position. It's not like Ron Paul himself didn't articulate this during the Morgan state debate.
Were you not listening?
Later.
Newly announced wacko Alan Keyes treated us to the old "you can always move" argument:
That's a city that's supposed to belong to the nation, not to any one group and not to any one region. That's why it was put together in the first place.
I think it's terribly important to maintain that symbol of the unity of our country. We're a free people. If folks don't want to live in the conditions that prevail in Washington because of its unique status, they can go to Maryland. A whole bunch of folks have done so.
They can go to Virginia. A whole bunch of folks have done so. Some of the biggest churches and everything else now exist in Prince George's County, because people left the District.
They have that right, and I think that they can exercise it. But I think that the country is entitled to have this possession that symbolizes our whole united people, standing together as one community. I think it's terribly important that we sustain it. Tancredo endorsed retrocession -- to Maryland and Virginia, since apparently he's never looked at a map and noticed that the Virginia part has already been retroceded (mmore than 150 years ago).
Looks like the preview shows multiple paragraphs in a blockquote, but then the system mangles them after the comment is actually submitted. Everything from the apparently end of the blockquote up to "Tancredo" is supposed to be part of the quote from Keyes.
First stop, Rosslyn. Then the rest of Arlington county. We're gonna un-retrocede the fuck out of the secessionist parts of DC.
Not like you could vote for a president anyway if you really lived in DC.
BostonRay has a position: DC is not a state and therefore does not qualify. The states cannot admit a non-state per the US Constitution. Case closed unless you can get the Constitution ratified. I know what Virginia's vote will be - No. Only states get the voting power you demand.
I don't know how Huckabee gets singled out when him, Brownback and Paul all made it clear that amending the constitution is the way to do it and supported that measure.
Keyes is just flat-out wrong. He doesn't know anything about the history of self-governance or voting in the District. It's far more complicated and at various times we DID vote and were governed by the states from which the land was ceded it's a miss mash of systems and requirements for our own charter have come and gone since then. We didn't even get to vote for the president until 1963. Some of these are result of compromise, but to say that we were specifically created to reflect the nation doesn't really make a lot of sense. And the myriad of changes during the 19th century to our voting rights and charter do not reflect that -- they may reflect a meddling desire for control by congress, but that's about all. For the strange convoluted history go here.
ultraconservative is right. acting like all republicans are the same is pretty myopic.
I can read the title to the article just fine, thank you. I'm saying that huckabee does not represent many republicans' policy positions -- he's about as far right as they come. among the repulicans I know across the country, not many of them think he'd make a good president. that's just my experience, of course. but uh, thanks for the reading comprehension lesson?
This article fails to mention that Ron Paul and a number of others said that they supported the right of D.C. people to have representation but they did not agree with the legislation. The proper way to get representation is to amend the constitution. It's simply not a right of congress to grant DC voting rights without getting approval from the states.
Everett: My point was that, as a liberal, I don't have a dog in that race -- do you? If not, then why all the fuss? If so, why not actually articulate what you don't like about Huckabee instead of complaining about single-issue voters?