For all you “protest” voters who were so mad at Republicans for one or two things that you decided to vote the Democrats into power, here is another example of what you get.
This bill, should it make it past the legal challenges bound to arise (as it’s 100% unconstitutional, more on that later), will expand the voting members of the House of Representatives to 437, granting DC’s representative a vote and increasing the Utah delegation by 1 (to 6 voting members). Sen Ensign (R-NV) managed to add a provision that guts DC’s gun laws before the bill was approved. The bill now goes to conference, as the House has already passed a bill to give DC’s representative voting rights.
While not as grand a scheme as Pres Roosevelt’s efforts to pack the SCOTUS, this will have a similar effect in the House and Senate. Why the Senate? It’s the next logical step in the argument. “We have a Representative in the House, but we’re unrepresented in the Senate. Our voice is only halfway heard!” I can see no scenario under which ANY Republican can win the House or Senate seats here (remember, DC voted for VP Mondale over Pres Reagan 85-14 in ’84, a race Pres Reagan won the popular vote by 18% nationally and 525-13 electorally).
Were DC a state, I’d say tough for Republicans, because that’s the way the system is set up. They aren’t, however, and under Article 1, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, this means they don’t get a voting member of the House of Representatives. Sen Alexander (R-TN) sums up my feelings thusly:
“The bill passed by the Senate is unconstitutional because the District of Columbia is not a state. Our nation was formed by states, and the District is a unique city – not a state. The Constitution itself makes that distinction. The most logical alternative for giving D.C. residents full representation in Congress would be to give the District back to Maryland. The District was created from land ceded by Virginia and Maryland. Just as Arlington and part of Alexandria went back to Virginia in 1846, most of the District could again become part of Maryland, leaving only a small area around key federal buildings and monuments. I voted for an amendment that would have given DC residents full voting rights under this approach. Another option would be to keep the District as a separate entity, but allow DC residents to vote in Maryland. Congress should have passed one of these alternatives instead of passing an unconstitutional bill.”
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Things like this, on both a large and a small scale, are what you get when a bunch of people decide that they’ll either sit it out or vote for the other guys (who are inevitably worse on virtually all issues) because their pet issue isn’t front-and-center, and they want to teach the party a lesson. Congratulations, here’s your prize.
February 27th, 2009 at 7:59 am
Will Utah get an extra EC point now?
February 27th, 2009 at 8:29 am
Ohio, it’s a moot point. If this had been done 2 years ago, then Sen McCain would have gained one more electoral vote from Utah. As is, the census is going to reapportion votes anyway, so there will be no impact on the Pres election in ’12. If enacted before the ’10 elections, however, it would create a new seat in Utah.
February 27th, 2009 at 8:29 am
Hmm. When it comes to “protest voting,” I’m a repeat offender. But I do my dirty work through the Libertarian Party (or Constitution Party if the state’s ballot rules exclude the former).
I’m totally baffled, though, how anyone could claim to be “conservative” — even in the most loosely defined sense of the word — and vote Democrat for President.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:01 am
I agree with you MarkG. That’s what bothers me about knickers. She indicated that she and her sisters and sister’s in law all voted for Obama. That’s very troublesome for me. She harms our candidate Romney by saying so. If she had done it for any reason, I feel she should be quiet about it, because it only encourages those who are not Mitt fans to bail on him if he becomes the nominee.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:10 am
“because it only encourages those who are not Mitt fans to bail on him if he becomes the nominee.” As long as Mr. Romney does not endorse characters like Knickers, haha, I intend to support him in the General election regardless of who’s camp I join in the primary. My main goal for 2012 is to get a President other than this guy from Chicago. I thus intend to vote GOP!
February 27th, 2009 at 9:14 am
Give DC statehood, and cut another state out Utah or something to keep the balance of power even.
Actually, why not just give each state three senators? One in each class. Prob. better anyway (yeah, I know, more government, but I’m not sure increasing the number of Senators actually ups the size of government very much) – since each state will not elect one senator every two years.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:14 am
I’m not even a US citizen but even I can see that denying voting/representation rights is unjust.
Technically Hillary Clinton should not be SOS as her salary went up in the last 12 months.
Sometimes you have to let common sense rule.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:41 am
The simple solution to this problem is to just phase out the district of columbia and make it a state, their reward then would be a representative as part of the state of Virginia or Maryland. What state would be stupid enough to shoulder the burden of DC though? DC is a strange bird. What has been the disadvantage to being a state capitol city instead of part of a state? This is dumb, totally dumb, and sounds like the liberals probably are making an issue about this. This year is a nightmare.
Where will this madness stop? Are we to believe that if we keep up this kind of nonsense that Puerto Rico will have two senators one day without being a state, or that illegal immigrants have representatives in the house?
I suppose the easiest thing to do is to follow the constitution (duh). After all, that’s the legal way to do it. If DC complains about representation, then they better be willing to join a state and accept the responsibilities that come along with that.
Heath, all legal Americans can vote, and states comprise a nation in the United States. Make D.C. a state or part of a state, then we have an argument here to give representation. D.C. voters get plenty of representation by voting.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:42 am
people who sat out or protested did so because the they didn’t see the GOP as a better alternative to the Dems. if they did, they would have voted. plus, do you have any proof that those people exist and read this site?
February 27th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Ohio, glad to hear it. I wouldn’t vote for Palin in the primaries, but would be fine with voting for her in the general.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:55 am
I remember all the posters on this site who said they would not vote for the Republican if their choice didn’t win the nomination.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:56 am
I always develop fondness for those who quote one of my state’s representatives.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Gee, I’m so sorry. Sitting here in wee little Utah, we get another seat as well. Now, I know some won’t understand, Utah is a very, very GOP state. So, a big chance that the rep will be conservative.
Actually, what is so wrong with having repsentation? Yes, electon have consequences. Those of us who ‘protest’ voted, sent a loud and clear message. Don’t pick unqualifed and offensive folks to lead us. If we are truly the party of values, pick someone who has them. AND LIVES THEM.
It’s been fun so far, and I do look forward to the next 3 plus. O man should kick into re election mode any day now.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:41 am
“unqualifed and offensive folks to lead us”
John McCain is unqualified and offensive? More importantly, Barack Obama is qualified and inoffensive?
February 27th, 2009 at 10:42 am
Ohio – I’m not running for anything! But, Utah might get that third seat….
Naaa. I’ve got 7 kids to get raised first. By then, I’ll be too old and tired to run for the mail.
Oh, and I’m not the only one in the country that refused to vote for mac and cheesewiz. Notice they lost a lot of the conservative votes? I could have handled almost anyone except three for veep: Paul, Palin and Huckabee. Those three were total deal breakers from the git go.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:42 am
“I remember all the posters on this site who said they would not vote for the Republican if their choice didn’t win the nomination.” Four years can make a big difference.
It is funny that people want to make DC a state (or state like;) I wonder if they would allow Ottawa-Hull to become a province.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:45 am
Yes, Knickers, you were not the only Conservative who was swept off his or her feet by Mr. Obama’s charm.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:51 am
We voted to right the rudders of the GOP ship. The ‘religious’ far, far right lead us into the deep waters. we either had to swim or drown. McCain would have had us drown.
This econ issue was happening if we got Obama or McCain. Thankfully, it’s not happening under the GOP watch. Romney was warning of it during his campaign. He was poo pooed by severl, INCLUDING mcCain who did not get religion on the econ crisis until about October. Clueless? I think so. And Palin? Totally unqualified. That’s not just my opinion, but that of so many others. McCain was trying to pander to as many as possible with that pick. The religious right, the women, the under educated. He lost the woman’s vote.
I also don’t see a problem with one of the two states taking DC into it’s fold. Or, making it the 51st state. However, if I were VA or MD residents, the last thing I would want is a state where welfare is high and crime even higher. the balance is tha Utah gets another rep. Since were pretty GOP here, it’s pretty much a wash in votes with DC having a rep.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:59 am
“We voted to right the rudders of the GOP ship. The ‘religious’ far, far right lead us into the deep waters. we either had to swim or drown. McCain would have had us drown.” Oh silly me, it wasn’t chicken Little, and those who bought houses that they could afford who caused the credit crises, it was the Religious Right. Haha.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:10 am
But Utah would likely not keep that seat for long, seeing as how the 2010 census is right around the corner.
John McCain’s “economic incompetency” shouldn’t have been an issue. With this Congress, McCain- or Romney, or Huckabee, or Reagan- wouldn’t have been able to impose his economic ideas. You and I both know that. So don’t tell me Romney would be doing anything differently, because he wouldn’t. He’d be subjected to whatever this Congress would accept.
So then what did this presidential election matter for, you ask? Foreign policy. And you voted for this buffoon who took an international relations course at Columbia to be in charge of the foreign policy of this country.
Thanks for that. Much appreciation.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:10 am
If common sense ruled then the world to you would be some sort of twilight zone.
Rules are rules. DC is not a state. If people want to bitch and moan about being underrepresented they can always pack up their things and move 5 minutes across the Potomac.
I could probably go out on a limb and tell you *everything about* this would-be representative but I digress.
Can SCOTUS shoot this down?
February 27th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Robbie, you are just wrong about what McCain or Romney would be doing under these circumstances. The presidency provides a bully pulpit. McCain would not have been effective using it against the dems, because he doesn’t understand economics and wants to be seen as bi-partisan.
Romney would use it well, and would have a very effective stick to beat the democrats with – his knowledge, and his committment to fiscal conservatism. It would make a difference.
As for cleansing the GOP, I agree that McCain would have buried the party even more. In principle, this lose was necessary. But I agree that our foreign policy is going to suffer in ways that may be incalcuable.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
“Those of us who ‘protest’ voted, sent a loud and clear message. Don’t pick unqualifed and offensive folks to lead us.”
So you vote for someone who is even less qualified and infinitely more offensive. Disgraceful.
Adam, this is absolutely unconstitutional, but whether or not there are five justices willing to rule this new bill unconstitutional is a real question. I sure hope that there are and that they hold or at least suggest that the solution to the problem of DC not having representation is either amendment or annexation.
February 27th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
I don’t think that McCain would have had the guts to veto these porkulus bills. I honestly don’t know if Huck or Romney would have either, maybe Giuliani would have.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
I really am so sick of hearing about Romney and his godlike qualities. Okay Romney knows more about business then McCain…I guess that means McCain would just open a lemonade stand on the front lawn of the White House. NO, he would’ve surrounded himself with intelligent, conservative minds and instilled conservative principles into the bill. He definitely would have vetoed the pork, filled spending bill…he built his career around being anti-pork…then instead of the Republicans appearing to be obstructionists, the Democrats would be, but people like you and your alter ego…knickers, do you get two votes when you have multiple personality disorder, decide the best thing to do is to vote for Obama…I CAN HONESTLY SAY I CAN NEVER SUPPORT ROMNEY BECAUSE OF HIS MOST ADAMANT SUPPORTERS…in my mind they say a lot about the guy.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
See? You guy finally pushed Jersey off the deep end. He now thinks McCain would push away all his buddies and surround himself with “intelligent, conservative minds” and now he’ll never vote for Romney. I hope you’re happy. Next time try a little tact and pragmatism, like Romney would.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
“NO, he would’ve surrounded himself with intelligent, conservative minds”
After McCain picked Palin, that argument lost all credibility. period. Had McCain picked T-paw or Mitt as V, you would have a good argument.
February 27th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Getreal – lol good one! Jersey, as has been said many time by people much smarter than I, don’t let any candidates supporters dictate who is best for your country. I get really ticked at the Adam guys and Kristofer, and Alex, but I sure as heck would rather have their candidates than what we have now and will always vote accordingly.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
27 – MatthewK, you’re really too hard on Palin. She’s very conservative on some issues, and basically conservative on most. I’m not saying she’s a genius but she’s not an idiot either. She just wasn’t prepared to handle a national campaign. We’ll see if she’s ready next time. We know Romney is.
If you’re going to take exception to something he said, imagine the thought of McCain injecting something conservative into a bill. McCain and Senate bills don’t usually end up taking that turn.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Well, illinois, let me be clear…now that I have cooled off. I have heard of Republicans voting for Obama but I have never read or heard such vindictive, childish, moronic, take-my-ball-home statements like those coming from Martha and “Knickers in a twist.” First, I would like to say I should have written SOME OF HIS MOST ADAMANT SUPPORTERS, because you and others have proven time and time again to be fair…I may not always agree with you but you do try to be fair and succeed at most times. Secondly, I would never vote for Obama no matter who the Republican Nominee was…I’d vote for Paul before I would ever conceive of voting for Obama…no offense to the Paul supporters of the board…so by that statement alone I would obviously support and vote for Romney before I could ever vote for Obama and I would never not vote out of protest because, I feel, that is just pointless.
February 27th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
30 – I can totally understand things getting heated and overstating something. I think Knickers probably spends her whole life in such a state.
February 27th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Jersey, I’m not a take my ball home voter at all. I supported Romney in the primary, but would have happily voted for Fred or Rudy. Right now, I can see myself supporting a number of candidates, just not Palin or Huck.
I just don’t get why everyone has a cow when someone criticizes Palin for things that are true.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
#3 MarkG, I will admit I voted independent in 2004 for the House (I was upset that my Congressman was against the Iraq effort, and I figured he would win re-election anyway; I was right). I see a large difference in protest voting when the balance of power isn’t at stake.
#8 Where will this madness stop? Are we to believe that if we keep up this kind of nonsense that Puerto Rico will have two senators one day without being a state, or that illegal immigrants have representatives in the house?
Jcutler, you win the gold star with that comment! That is EXACTLY the natural progression of this nonsense! How about we actually, you know, follow the law in this? DC already has extra-constitutional electoral votes as if they were a state. Can we roll them (and several of the DC ‘burbs)into Maryland while we’re at it?
#12 Tommy, did you know I lived in TN a few years ago? In fact, I supported Gov (now Sen) Alexander when he ran for Pres in ’96. I doubt he would have won, but I think he would have done a little better than Sen Dole.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
#13 Actually, what is so wrong with having repsentation? Yes, electon have consequences. Those of us who ‘protest’ voted, sent a loud and clear message. Don’t pick unqualifed and offensive folks to lead us. If we are truly the party of values, pick someone who has them. AND LIVES THEM.
It’s been fun so far, and I do look forward to the next 3 plus. O man should kick into re election mode any day now.
How many sentiments can I find wrong in all this? First, DC isn’t allowed a voting member in Congress because they aren’t a state or part of a state. It’s pretty clearly defined in the Constitution.
As for sending a message, you’ve sent the message you can’t be relied on. You prefer putting your pet peeves ahead of the nation. Your choice, but I think it’s wrong-headed (and I’m being very kind).
As for “the O man,” are you actively hoping he wins a 2nd term, because I can’t see your attitude do anything but assist in that. What exactly ARE your values, that a BAIPA-opposing, inexperienced, questionable connections man gets your enthusiastic support?
#15 Ohio – I’m not running for anything! But, Utah might get that third seat…
Um, you live in Utah, right? How do you NOT know they already HAVE 3 Reps, and this bill would give them a fourth? Also, it would only last for two years, at which time the census causes everyone to redraw their congressional districts.
#18 We voted to right the rudders of the GOP ship.
No, you voted to pout and prove you care more about yourself than the country. You’re allowed, but I think you’re a jerk for it.
#32 I just don’t get why everyone has a cow when someone criticizes Palin for things that are true.
I just couldn’t leave you out of this, Martha!
Nobody (ok, so not that many) has a problem when it’s known to be true and relevant to politics (like the sports complex in Wasilla). Very few object too loudly if it’s known to be true but tacky (Bristol’s pregnancy on the basis of being a values voter). The problem is when you put out salacious rumors as fact (I won’t repeat yours and Knickers’ favorite, which I’m still waiting to see credible evidence for: please send such to richard.murray.001@gmail.com if you can find it, as posting that crap on here could get you banned by Kavon).
I’ll repeat something I’ve told you many times before. If you’re so confident that Gov Palin is an incompetent bimbo, why not focus on the persuasive failings of her governance than tabloid trash? You’d win more converts, and assuming your guy won the primary, would allow for more opportunity to pick up the stragglers. It would make for a stronger run in the general than this sliming crap you pull.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Richard, I don’t focus on tabloid trash – never have. The only thing I’ve ever done is chime in once saying there was evidence for it. I did that one time. That’s it. I would never start that conversation, and haven’t. And, I didn’t start the bimbo thing, either. I said she uses her sex appeal and that is one definition of a bimbo. That’s the extent of it. Besides, I’ve apologized for that comment every which way from Sunday, and you’re never satisfied. You keep bringing it up. It was how long ago, 6 months? Let it go. I’m not harping on you over things you said 6 months ago.
I always base my comments on substantial things – for example, Palin saying the bailout was about healthcare, that she has some ethical red flags, that she has trouble putting 2 words together. That she didn’t prepare well for VP, etc.
My problem with Palin is not about the rumors and whether or not they’re true, but on things I saw during the campaign, and what I see in her character.
Hey, someone even talked about Palin smoking pot today, and nobody cared, but if I had said it, all hell would have broken loose. Others can talk about Palin’s intellectual challenges, but I can’t without being attacked. I just don’t think I slime her at all, Richard. I’ll admit to being highly critical, though.
Yeah, people keep telling me to tone it down if I want converts. I guess that makes sense, but that’s not why I comment. I just say what I think. People here at Race already know who they want, nothing I say is going to change that.
February 28th, 2009 at 8:10 am
#35 Besides, I’ve apologized for that comment every which way from Sunday
You have? I missed that. I’ll take your word on that and try to quit bringing it up. You’re absolutely right I shouldn’t harp on something that you’ve backed off from (including the other thing). My mistake, and I apologize.
The rest is perception. The content of your attacks usually has some basis, so I’ll give you points there. It’s lost in the editorializing you do, though. Fairly or unfairly, it’s tainted everyone’s opinion of everything you say, so your comments are seen from perspective. That’s your own doing.
I just don’t think I slime her at all, Richard. I’ll admit to being highly critical, though.
You must have a different opinion of “slime,” then, that doesn’t include something that may have some basis, but isn’t really relevant. Of course, relevance is always in the eye of the beholder…
As for trying to win converts, while people bring that up, that isn’t the main purpose. The main purpose is to NOT harden people’s views to the point where they protest vote against the better option. If Gov Romney wins the nomination, he’ll need the votes of Gov Palin supporters to win the general. He won’t be able to get them if he pisses them off too badly in the primary. I didn’t see his commercials during the campaign, but I’d imagine they came off about like you did, and that’s why Gov Romney ALSO would have lost big in the general in ’08, and why Sen McCain (who has made a political living that way) had to choose someone like Gov Palin to have any kind of chance (up until the economic collapse, anyway). Keep that in mind.
February 28th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Richard – fair enough. But Romney’s commercials were nothing like my comments!!! Hey, I know my rep, here, and I also know Romney’s commercials. No comparison. They were about records. Period. They were not mean spirited, just to the point. Not personal, either. (Unlike another guy we know.)
February 28th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
36 – Richard, you can find Romney’s commercials pretty easily on YouTube. His account is GovMittRomney. It has all of his political ads, major speeches, and highlights from his debate performances and TV interviews during the primary. He had two anti-Huck ads and two anti-McCain ads that I can recall. Both Huck ads and one McCain ad followed the same basic format, two compliments, one hit on their record in office. The second McCain ad was showing McCain and Hillary Clinton as being in agreement on many issues.