Whatever His Constituents Want

Really?

How about witch burning?  "Witches," of course being non-conformist and otherwise trouble-making women.  I bet you could get higher poll numbers for feminazi burning than for slavery.

And killing handicapped newborns? I bet you could get a big majority for infanticide, especially from the anti-choice crowd that doesn't give a fuck about babies, only fetuses.

And human sacrifice!  At the halftime of NFL games!  Boy THAT would really be popular!


Steve Benen:

After Republicans did a bang-up job at minority outreach last week, it was tempting to think the party couldn’t possibly make matters worse. Think again.

A Nevada assemblyman came under fire Monday after a YouTube video surfaced in which he told a Republican gathering he would vote to allow slavery if that is what his constituents wanted him to do.

“If that’s what they wanted, I’d have to hold my nose … they’d probably have to hold a gun to my head, but yeah,” Assemblyman Jim Wheeler told members of the Storey County Republican Party at a meeting in August.

The comments have not been well received by Nevada Republican leaders, who are rushing to distance themselves from the GOP state lawmaker. The Republicans’ state Senate leader, for example, suggested Wheeler “find a new line of work.”

For his part, Wheeler published an explanation of sorts on his personal website, saying that his point was only that he’s inclined to support literally any position embraced by his constituents. It’s not that he endorses slavery, only that he would allow slavery if his constituents wanted him to.

I first had the constituents-vs-conscience debate with a town council member decades ago. I always thought it was easy to claim constituents-first as long as 1) your constituents were generally sane and did not demand things like slavery and 2) reliable polling was rare enough that you could claim your constituents supported whatever you wanted them to support. 

So the real question is why Wheeler chose slavery as the constituent-driven issue he'd be "forced" to support. Why not abortion on demand? Or 100 percent tax on income over $1 million? Or $1 million per person restitution to the descendants of American slaves?

Because, of course, those are things he would never support even if 100 percent of his constituents demanded that he do so. Slavery, on the other hand, is obviously something he would pretend to oppose but be perfectly happy to vote for if he could plausibly claim his constituents wanted it.

How do I know he's lying? Because he's a repug and his lips are moving.