# Another Flurry Of Bipartisan Idiocy **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 22, 2007, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-flurry-of-bipartisan-idiocy/397077 "2007-03-22T21:08:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2007, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-flurry-of-bipartisan-idiocy/397077/1 "2007-03-22T21:08:05Z")
House Postpones D.C. Voting Bill > [@](#): > > Legislation to give the District of Columbia voting representation in the House stalled short of passage Thursday when Republicans unexpectedly injected the volatile issue of gun control into the debate. > > Apparently fearful they might lose control of the proceedings, Democrats decided to postpone action on the voting rights measure, which had appeared to be moving methodically toward passage… > > Debate on the measure appeared to be winding down when Republicans exercised their prerogative to outline a proposal to block city officials from any attempt to ban firearms permissible under federal law. The ban is already under attack in the courts, and a U.S. Appeals Court recently struck down the city law… 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. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2007, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-flurry-of-bipartisan-idiocy/397077/2 "2007-03-22T21:53:36Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2007, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-flurry-of-bipartisan-idiocy/397077/3 "2007-03-22T22:08:46Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing] 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 [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2007, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-flurry-of-bipartisan-idiocy/397077/4 "2007-03-23T11:30:17Z")
[QUOTE=mhendo] Now, that issue itself can be debated, but the debate shouldn’t turn on who will benefit most in the next Presidential race. [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2007, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-flurry-of-bipartisan-idiocy/397077/5 "2007-03-23T12:19:45Z")
“It started with the Republicans” actually sounds pretty partisan. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2007, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-flurry-of-bipartisan-idiocy/397077/6 "2007-03-23T12:41:24Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] “It started with the Republicans” actually sounds pretty partisan. [/QUOTE] Good point. He should have said that fifteen years ago, on the count of three, both parties agreed to start doing it simultaneously. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2007, 12:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-flurry-of-bipartisan-idiocy/397077/7 "2007-03-23T12:47:49Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2007, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-flurry-of-bipartisan-idiocy/397077/8 "2007-03-23T12:55:31Z")
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness] Good point. He should have said that fifteen years ago, on the count of three, both parties agreed to start doing it simultaneously. [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![Renob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8c91f0/32.png) [@Renob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renob)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2007, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-flurry-of-bipartisan-idiocy/397077/9 "2007-03-23T13:04:28Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2007, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-flurry-of-bipartisan-idiocy/397077/10 "2007-03-23T14:33:37Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] But I will concede that the modern level is as no-holds-barred as any before it. [/QUOTE] 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 ---
**Author:** ![Cowboy8467](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5e925/32.png) [@Cowboy8467](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cowboy8467)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2007, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-flurry-of-bipartisan-idiocy/397077/11 "2007-03-23T17:35:04Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2007, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-flurry-of-bipartisan-idiocy/397077/12 "2007-03-23T17:55:11Z")
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness] 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? [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2007, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-flurry-of-bipartisan-idiocy/397077/13 "2007-03-23T18:19:59Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2007, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-flurry-of-bipartisan-idiocy/397077/14 "2007-03-23T18:21:48Z")
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto] 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. [/QUOTE] 😃 That is sublime. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2007, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-flurry-of-bipartisan-idiocy/397077/15 "2007-03-23T19:50:27Z")
[QUOTE=mhendo] 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. [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2007, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-flurry-of-bipartisan-idiocy/397077/16 "2007-03-24T01:57:10Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing] 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. [/QUOTE] 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 ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2007, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-flurry-of-bipartisan-idiocy/397077/17 "2007-03-24T02:14:46Z")
[QUOTE=BobLibDem] 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. [/QUOTE] 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. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2007, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-flurry-of-bipartisan-idiocy/397077/18 "2007-03-24T02:24:45Z")
[QUOTE=Captain Carrot] I wouldn’t be opposed to making it (or Puerto Rico) a state. [/QUOTE] 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 ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2007, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-flurry-of-bipartisan-idiocy/397077/19 "2007-03-24T02:34:45Z")
[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness] 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 [/QUOTE] I doubt any of us down here would be able to tell the difference anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [March 24, 2007, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-flurry-of-bipartisan-idiocy/397077/20 "2007-03-24T02:47:22Z")
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. > [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Yeah–it seems like, by definition, if you’re not a state, you shouldn’t be part of the United States. 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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/another-flurry-of-bipartisan-idiocy/397077.md?page=2)