House Postpones D.C. Voting Bill
I’m not sure to to flame first; the Republicans for a particularly egregious attchment of an irrelevant poison-pill rider, or the Democrats for unwillingness to accept a purely symbolic (repealing a law that has already been struck down in court) diss in exchange for a substantive (DC voting rights) achievement.
How is this a substantive achievement for the Democrats? They get another voting seat in the House that’s countered by the new seat in Utah, so that’s a wash, and, by increasing the Utah house membership, the Republicans are pretty much guaranteed another electoral vote in the presidential race.
I know some Democrats have been supporting this bill, but I don’t know why
But surely, in a world of principle (yeah, i know, we’re talking about Washington) the question shouldn’t be whether the bill will benefit Democrats or Republicans in the electoral college.
The question should be whether or not the population of the District of Columbia deserve to have a voting Representative in the House.
Now, that issue itself can be debated, but the debate shouldn’t turn on who will benefit most in the next Presidential race.
Welcome to the era after 1990, mhendo. There’s no such thing as a vote on an issue any more, it’s all vote-by-party based on what’s best for that party. It started with the Republicans opposing Clinton, and going so far as impeachment over nothing, just because they had the votes to do it. Then there was the great gerrymandering of Texas. I think (no facts) practically every vote in the last 15 years or more has been along party lines, period.
Issues? There’s no such thing. One is either loyal or one is a traitor. The whole politics of divisiveness is appalling to me: “pro-life” vs “pro-choice” doesn’t allow much room for compromise. “Support our troops” as if bringing troops home wasn’t supporting them. Painting issues as black or white, ignoring the fact that the US is founded on compromise.
“It started with the Republicans” actually sounds pretty partisan.
Good point. He should have said that fifteen years ago, on the count of three, both parties agreed to start doing it simultaneously.
Daniel
I don’t see how this could fly without an amendment to the Constitution. The Congress represents the states and DC isn’t a state. Either change the Constitution or redefine DC to be only say the land between the Lincoln Memorial and the Capitol and give the rest to Maryland. It isn’t that the citizens of DC don’t deserve to be represented in Congress, it’s that there isn’t a legal way to do it.
Actually, I think the point is that partisanship is older than 15 years. It’s kind of like climate changes: there’ve been ups and downs, from the railroading partisanship of the Jefferson, Buchanan, and Roosevelt eras to the relative kumbaya cooperation of the Indian Hater, Other Roosevelt, and Reagan (credit to Tip O’Neal) eras. Right now, there’s a really really big spike toward partisanship, and it may feel like it just started yesterday, but it didn’t. But I will concede that the modern level is as no-holds-barred as any before it.
The Democrats withdrew the measure not because the gun rights provisions were a “poison pill.” Instead, they withdrew it because they feared that pro-gun Democrats would support it. A measure to allow DC to have Congressional representation as well as to repeal DC’s gun laws would have passed Congress. The Democratic leadership is so opposed to any sort of common sense gun legislation, however, that they killed the whole bill. If you want to blame anyone, look squarely at Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer.
And do you agree that the modern level, while by no means the fault of just one party, was ramped up pretty dramatically by the Republican party in the mid-nineties as part of the glee at taking Congress for the first time in forever, and that it’s reasonable to argue that this ramp is what kicked off the current modern level in partisanship?
Daniel
Thank god that they did pull the bill. The last thing I was is for this miserable city to have voting representation in Congress, me included. (In case you can’t tell, I’m Republican). The real reason that they pulled the bill was because if it came to a vote, it would be testing Democrats from conservative parts of the country where gun rights are much more popular. If they vote against it then it will give great ammunition for Republican to run on TV ads during the next elections crying about how the Dems don’t respect the 2nd amendment.
My take on it is very simple: it takes two to be bipartisan. You can blame the Republicans for being gleeful, or you can blame the Democrats for being pissed off.
I wish I knew who said this first:
There are only two parties in Washington, the Stupid Party and the Evil Party.
And when the government does something truly stupid and evil, it is called bipartisanship.
That is sublime.
Why not? I don’t particularly care whether Washingtonians have voting representation in Congress or not. I live in Northern Virginia. However, one of my principles is that Democrats should stay in power.
Hell, I want Puerto Rico to have a full vote, and I’ve got no idea how they’d use it. In for a penny democracywise, in for a pound.
Daniel
Not exactly. The Constitution says that the House represents the people of the Several States, but it also says that Congress can do whatever it wants with D.C. So there are valid arguments on both sides.
I am, as I have said before, fully in favor of D.C. residents having a vote in the House, and I wouldn’t be opposed to making it (or Puerto Rico) a state.
Yeah–it seems like, by definition, if you’re not a state, you shouldn’t be part of the United States. If they want to slap Puerto Rico onto Florida or something, I wouldn’t mind that.
Daniel
I doubt any of us down here would be able to tell the difference anyway.
Puerto Rico has consistently voted to remain in their current status. Should they desire statehood, I would support it. Until then, they have no reason to expect full representation.
I’ll support a constitutional amendment to grant D.C. statehood. As Plan B, I’ll support giving D.C. back to Maryland, with the consent of Annapolis. There is no other way D.C. may legally and constitutionally be granted full representation in the U.S. Congress.
You’re right, they’re not a United State - but that’s specious - both D.C. and Puerto Rico are a territory of the United States, as were 36 of the current states.