12.06.2006

Legislative Hurrah

I'm not going to have the Republican Legislature to pick on for the next two years. Hurray for that. So, to celebrate the upcoming Democratic takeover of both houses of Congress, I'd like to send some lovin', touchin' and squeezin' to the Republican-held 109th Congress.

Republican congressional leaders decided yesterday not to bring to the floor a bill giving the District a full voting member of the House, dooming the measure's chances in this legislative session.

That's right, folks. DC's quixotic attempt to secure federal voting rights has again ended in failure. And I couldn't be happier.

Now, I want the opportunity to have an elected voting member in the House of Representatives as much as the next guy. I really do. But not at the price being asked by Representative Thomas Davis (R-VA) and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC). That one vote in the House is meaningless. As American citizens, DC residents deserve their cake so we can eat it too. We want the same representation as everyone else. That includes two Senators. Passage of this compromise legislation would mean that DC would have that one shiny vote, but we would still be less represented than every other American.

Furthermore, the Utah compromise vote is total bullshit. Let me explain to Rep. Davis and Del. Norton how representative democracy works. The people elect representative to vote on their behalf. It's not meant to preserve political balance. If an area that's 90% Democrat is having their human rights trampled on, giving Republicans an extra vote to offset that new vote is not an appropriate solution. Someone explain to me the purpose of having a DC vote when Republicans in Utah get a new vote of their own. Everything cancels out. DC residents are no better off.

I won't even attempt to take on the blatant unconstitutionality of this proposed law. I covered a lot of this stuff here anyways. But, seriously, thank you Republicans. You probably didn't strike down this legislation for the right reasons, but, whatever. Now Del. Norton and the new Democrat 110th Congress can work towards getting Washington its representative and its two senators. I don't care if it takes absorption into Maryland or a Constiutional amendment, but something has to be done. Not letting a majority-minority area have the voting rights its deserves is the worst kind of disenfranchisement.

Bravo, Republicans. You did something right while in the majority. Good luck in 2008.

21 comments:

  1. There was an extremely hot Asian chick on the metro this morning. I am usually not the kind to be attracted to Asian women but this girl definitely made it difficult for me to stand up once the train finally arrived at my stop.

    ReplyDelete
  2. LincolnParkerDecember 07, 2006

    Word to the wise: if it takes retrocession into MD or a constitutional amendment, it WONT HAPPEN.

    Which state legislatures, exactly, will take it upon themselves to grant DC full representation?

    You know the two words that come into the minds of your average Joe Twelvepack in Peoria if asked about local DC politics?

    Starts with Marion, ends in Barry.

    It is what it is. We knew the deal when we moved here. I have my problems with the situation on principle, but the constitution spells out our federal city and its circumstances.

    Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass if I had three more dim-witted politicians to ignore me. What would they end up doing? Work really hard to make the schools here suck even worse?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Someone pointed out to me last time I was bitching and moaning about this legislation that the states rejected giving Washington voting rights long before Marion Barry became mayor-for-life. I think it's just racism, not anti-crackheadism.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for reminding us that this legislation is complete b.s. It's like throwing us a bone when everyone else is sitting down to a full meal. And we're all like, thank you mastah ... thanks for the bone!!

    BOOO!!! Let's take the bone, but wait until the right moment to jump on the table, take the turkey and run.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ted Kennedy's LiverDecember 07, 2006

    2 senators for DC? Step off.

    I'll give you stupid wankers a congressman, but two senators? Take another dose of the happy pills, clowns.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I was all set to laugh at you for suggesting two senators for D.C - FULL state-level representation for a CITY? Glad I did a bit of research - D.C. has a larger population than the entire state of Wyoming. That makes the unjustness of it all a little more clear to me, as a temporary resident of the area.
    I still don't think you'll get a senator, though, let alone two, so it may be a mistake to pass up what you CAN get in favor of the impossible dream.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's not a matter of what we can or can't get, it's a matter of what we deserve. We are American citizens as much as anyone else but we don't have equal representation. That's a crystal clear civil rights violation.

    Absorption into MD will give us the Senators That probably won't happen.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Krystal KoonsDecember 07, 2006

    TWO SENATORS for DC? Hahahhahhahahahahhahahahahahahahaha!

    This city was the seat of federal government long before African Americans migrated here from the South.... It was designed that way long before this became a political football for the democrats and is not racism.

    How would you like it if there was a "serious" movement for Crawford, TX, to succede from the state, somehow become its own state and then get two senators and a representative. that scenario is almost as ridiculous, I think.

    Two senators, huh. Over Strom Thurmond's dead body. Or whatever.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm with Ted. 100%

    ReplyDelete
  10. Allowing DC residents to vote in MD is a bad idea all around. As someone who votes on the issues, rather than for a party, I like being from a state that can swing occasionally. It gives me a reason to vote for people like Bob Ehrlich who can keep the democratic state of MD on its toes. Infusing a whole bunch of democrats into the electorate will make we want to move to a new swing state, like Virginia.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Krystal, your example is silly. Crawford, TX already elects two senators. Perhaps you've heard of Sen. Cornyn or Sen. Hutchinson. To say that the people of Crawford aren't represented would be silly. Saying the same about Washington is decidedly unsilly.

    Washington's history is of no matter in this debate. Currently we have 560,000 people who are taxed and sent off to war without any opportunity to express our wants, beliefs, and desires. So, we should get two Senators of our own or we should join up with Maryland.

    And most recent Anonymous, it would suck for MD independents and MD Republicans. Sorry. But it's the most reasonable solution.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Look, it is just for DC to have 2 senators and at least one Rep.

    It also just that african americans with ancestors that arrived during slavery get some tax breaks in lieu of reparations.

    Ain't neither one going to happen.

    Embrace the one Rep that you can get, then push for incremental change.

    Otherwise you are choosing to get nothing, so stop complaining.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Just one representative is still disenfranchisement. One vote among 435? Please. Senators wield more power. We deserve that.

    If it were a matter of pragamatism, I'd be down with the one vote (as long as Utah didn't get an extra). But there is no room for pragmatism when dealing with basic civil rights.

    ReplyDelete
  14. LincolnParkerDecember 07, 2006

    Rusty, people who live in Guam are American citizens too.

    I can still petition the government for redress, sue in federal court, yada yada yada.

    If this issue were that important to me, I'd express my thoughts and desires by moving.

    I already gave up my 2nd Amendment rights when I crossed Eastern Avenue.

    You make fun of the dumbshits in Congress every day. Why the hell do you want three more? You really think they would improve things here?

    That they'd stay true to their campaign promises, and never sell out, and make rational decisions, and dedicate themselves to the betterment of their constituents? Really? Just like the city council does, huh?

    I agree on principle with the no taxation without representation deal. Simple solution: Stop taking federal income tax from DC residents.

    Pie in the sky thinking? Yep.

    But no more than what you're going for.

    ReplyDelete
  15. OK, if DC residents get exempted from Federal taxes, I am moving.

    Tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Krystal KoonsDecember 08, 2006

    Rusty,

    I think you are the silly goose. In my example, I meant the people of Crawford, TX, getting their own set of senators in addition to the two already elected in Texas.

    This whole thing is a non-starter. You oughta try reading something besides the Washington Post and the City Paper once in a while, by the way.

    You silly goose.

    ReplyDelete
  17. What else do you recommend for local coverage? I read the Northwest Current too, but they don't have their articles online.

    ReplyDelete
  18. lincolnparkerDecember 08, 2006

    DC Examiner has some good local stuff you don't see everywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The Examiner? You're kidding. The Examiner is a joke. The Northwest Current is way better.

    ReplyDelete
  20. lincolnparkerDecember 08, 2006

    To each his own, I suppose, but the Examiner is online and in my estimation they do cover local angles with straight reporting better than a lot of others. I know it's not the wall street joutnal, but it serves a purpose.

    Being on 12th street se i have no use for the NW current, nor for my local Hillrag.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Fair enough. We can all agree that The Georgetowner blows.

    ReplyDelete