On the other hand
Our good friends over at the Deseret Morning News editorial page have figured out how to be on the winning side in the discussion on whether to give Utah a fourth seat in Congress, no matter what it is.
In a Monday piece, the editorial board lambasted the plan to give D.C. a voting member of the House and balance it with a new representative for Utah:
"But just because this effort is back before a new and differently oriented Congress doesn't mean it smells any better. In fact, the idea of an at-large seat makes it smell even worse.
"Should the plan become law, everyone in Utah would be represented by two House members -- the one from their own home district and the one representing the entire state. And everyone in Utah and the entire nation would have something else, as well -- a big court battle.
"For people who believe the Constitution actually means what it says, this compromise is illegal. House members, the Constitution says, shall be "chosen every second year by the people of the several states . . ." The District of Columbia is not a state. A group of Republicans in Utah reportedly already has a legal brief ready in case the plan becomes law."
Ouch. A scathing critique, but a principled one, right?
Mmmm . . . maybe not so much. Less than two years ago, this ran on the same editorial page:
"A bill to give Utah a fourth congressional seat in exchange for granting a seat to the District of Columbia offers a great opportunity for the leaders of this state to show they stand behind fairness. . . .
"The bill is one of the few intelligent compromises ever offered in the age-old fight over giving the District of Columbia representation. District residents have a strong argument to make about being the only Americans who are taxed by the federal government without any representation."
You can make your own John Kerry or Mitt Romney flip-flop joke here. It's really too easy. But usually when papers run a point-counterpoint editorial, they don't do both sides themselves. Also, we have to wonder why our buddy Joe Cannon leaves D.C. to run his fancy newspaper and sells those of us back in the capital city down the Potomac. Et tu, Joseph?
And for those of you who don't like the D-News' editorial stands, give it time. They'll change.
-- Robert Gehrke
In a Monday piece, the editorial board lambasted the plan to give D.C. a voting member of the House and balance it with a new representative for Utah:
"But just because this effort is back before a new and differently oriented Congress doesn't mean it smells any better. In fact, the idea of an at-large seat makes it smell even worse.
"Should the plan become law, everyone in Utah would be represented by two House members -- the one from their own home district and the one representing the entire state. And everyone in Utah and the entire nation would have something else, as well -- a big court battle.
"For people who believe the Constitution actually means what it says, this compromise is illegal. House members, the Constitution says, shall be "chosen every second year by the people of the several states . . ." The District of Columbia is not a state. A group of Republicans in Utah reportedly already has a legal brief ready in case the plan becomes law."
Ouch. A scathing critique, but a principled one, right?
Mmmm . . . maybe not so much. Less than two years ago, this ran on the same editorial page:
"A bill to give Utah a fourth congressional seat in exchange for granting a seat to the District of Columbia offers a great opportunity for the leaders of this state to show they stand behind fairness. . . .
"The bill is one of the few intelligent compromises ever offered in the age-old fight over giving the District of Columbia representation. District residents have a strong argument to make about being the only Americans who are taxed by the federal government without any representation."
You can make your own John Kerry or Mitt Romney flip-flop joke here. It's really too easy. But usually when papers run a point-counterpoint editorial, they don't do both sides themselves. Also, we have to wonder why our buddy Joe Cannon leaves D.C. to run his fancy newspaper and sells those of us back in the capital city down the Potomac. Et tu, Joseph?
And for those of you who don't like the D-News' editorial stands, give it time. They'll change.
-- Robert Gehrke
12:37 PM
| 
2 Comments:
You ought to write about the small business survey just conducted of the Salt Lake Mayoral candidates. http://www.slcmayor.com
Robert, I like to think that Joe has brought some of his trademark wisdom to the Editorial Board, and has helped them see the light.
Whatever the case may be, I sincerely believe that the D-News has now taken the correct position. Where does the Trib stand on this issue?
Post a Comment
<< Home