This morning's Post had an editorial that was just overloaded with disdain towards Republicans for not pushing this legislation forward. Between this and the Post Editorial Board's eagle opus, I'm starting to think that the brain trust on 15th and L isn't quite all it's cracked up to be.
Just look at how this clunker starts:
DON'T BELIEVE...that the decision was put off because of worries that a D.C. voting seat would not pass constitutional muster. At this point, the only plausible explanation for the demise of the bill is that Republican leaders in Congress and the White House oppose democracy for anyone who happens to live in the nation's capital.
I really hate to defend George W. Bush, but leave the White House out of this. I am confused at how this can be blamed on the Executive Branch. Can Bush float from the clouds deux ex machina style and make Congress do his bidding? Maybe two years ago, but not now.
And the Post is being dishonest by claiming that Constitutional worries are implausible. I certainly have my Constitutional worries. Granted there are some scholars who believe this legislation would pass Constitutional muster, but I doubt they're in the majority. Any doubts are legitimate. Please don't call those with gripes anti-democracy. It's hardly fair.
The beauty of the compromise crafted by Mr. Davis and Eleanor Holmes Norton, the city's Democratic nonvoting delegate to the House, was that party politics was taken out of the equation, as two new seats would have been added to Congress -- one for the mostly Democratic District and one for predominantly Republican Utah.
So, the "beauty" of this compromise is that it doesn't really give Washington a vote. It will immediately be canceled out. Brilliant! The simple act of voting does not mean that Washingtonians are fairly being represented. Where else can a people only get the right to vote if its canceled out by another?
So, Post, what advice do you have for the incoming Democratic leadership?
They should make clear that they won't countenance any talk of stripping Utah of its seat, which would kill the deal.
First, would it kill the deal? I mean, Dems will have a majority in the House. It's not like Republicans can filibuster in that chamber. Why wouldn't they want to give Washington a vote while stripping Utah of its phantom extra representative. I'd still be peeved that we wouldn't have any senatorial representation, but it would represent a fair start.
(By the way, some people left comments mocking me for advocating two votes in the Senate for the District. I don't get it. Why is that laughable? Wyoming has less residents than the District and they have two senators. Alaska and Vermont are just barely ahead of us. Each of those states has two Senators. It's crazy that a set of islands in the middle of nowhere has more senatorial representation than the District. So, why can't we have senators?)
The Post continues to act as if democracy only works if it preserves an even fight. That is ludicrous. People have the right to be represented regardless of what balances it maintains or destroys. The Post is not nearly as interested in the District's welfare as it would have you believe. Shame on them.