Viral

A Republican Senator Claimed The Founding Fathers Would Be Against D.C. Statehood, And Others Pointed Out Other Things They’d Be Against As Well

Republicans love citing the Founding Fathers. Specifically they love to publicly presume what they would be for and against were they around today (presuming they could make heads or tails of, among other things, our magical-seeming technology). Along similar lines, non-Republicans love dragging Republicans when they make wild assumptions about the men who founded America. Ohio Representative Jim Jordan, one of the most dunkable people on Twitter, caught heat last last year when he claimed they would be against life-saving pandemic safety restrictions.

Now a far more obscure GOP lawmaker is getting mocked for much the same thing. Mike Rounds, former governor of South Dakota and now one of its senators, was not pleased that the House spent part of Monday debating whether to grant statehood to Washington D.C., which has long had zero representation in Congress, despite having a larger population that some entire states. Republicans have long opposed such an idea, while Democrats put it on their to-do list after taking control of all three bodies of government.

Rounds was against the idea, too, and he took to Twitter to make his argument. “The Founding Fathers never intended for Washington D.C. to be a state,” Rounds declared. He then said the quiet part loud, pointing out that D.C. is largely comprised of Democratic voters.

But most naysayers dwelled on the first part — the one where Rounds simply cited his idea of what George Washington and company would think in 2021. Some pointed out that they would be shocked to find the state in which he made his political career even existed.

Others pointed out they would be against free black people, too.

Ditto other groups.

There were lots of things the Founding Fathers would be appalled at now.

Although they would also definitely be against the failed MAGA coup of January 6.

Oh and by the way, Rounds was also technically wrong.

×