January 23, 2007
Fenty Snubs Bush, Sits With Pelosi
Around the time of last year's State of the Union address, we asked whether then-Mayor Anthony Williams should have foregone attending the annual event as a guest of First Lady Laura Bush, to make clear his continuing disappointment with the District's lack of voting rights. Some commenters thought the idea preposterous, with one going as far as to opine:
Of course the mayor should attend. What the f*ck is boycotting it going to accomplish?Adrian Fenty seems to see some merit in the idea, though. The Post is reporting that Fenty has decided to attend as a guest of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, a snub his people attribute to her having invited him first. That excuse notwithstanding, Fenty often stated during the mayoral campaign that he wouldn't attend as a guest of the White House until they reversed their stance on voting rights. Also, Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (Md.) have both spoken out in favor of granting the District voting representation in the House, with Hoyer going as far as to state that he was moving towards giving D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton the power to vote on amendments on the House floor. (Currently she can only vote in committee, though she did gain the right to vote on amendments on the House floor in 1993 and 1994.)Do you think the news media are going wonder where is the DC mayor? As far as the media is concerned, "Who gives a sh*t?"
Though merely symbolic, snubbing Bush is the right move. Fenty shouldn't have to sacrifice his city's principles in order to sit alongside the First Lady and be recognized by the president during his address. Voting rights isn't something that we should be compromising on, and Fenty should make sure Bush knows that.
|
Whatever man.
[sarcasm]I'm sure W is laying awake at night wondering what he can do to curry favor with DC voters.[/sarcasm]
"A greedy grab...an outrageous power play...a distressing sign that the leadership hasn`t the slightest clue that people are fed up with Washington`s business as usual"
-- Editorial on Delegate Voting, The New York Times (12/29/92)
Why do you people care so very very much about DC voting rights.
I live here, and I dont give a flying f--k!
Well frankly, I do think that voting rights is something worth compromising if it means keeping on good terms with the executive branch of the government. While Congress is no longer Republican, decisions up and down the executive branch affect us quite a lot (i.e. what budget he submits, decisions on land dispositions, etc.)
Getting a vote for a shrill grandstander is less important to me than these issues.
Will Fenty's snub affect the policies of the executive branch towards the District? I don't know. It sure won't help. And in the meantime it sure won't do jack to get congressional representation.
I agree 100% with Martin. Mayor Fenty is doing the right thing!!! It takes a lot of balls to stand up for what you believe in. Who cares if he loses some face-time on screen with the President???
I agree 100% with Martin. Mayor Fenty is doing the right thing!!! It takes a lot of balls to stand up for what you believe in. Who cares if he loses some face-time on screen with the President???
Senator Barry
Senator Skinner
Think about it.
Reid - Congress has exclusive rule over DC. The Executive branch aint got shit. Submitted budgets are merely suggestions from the Executive branch. I'd be inclined to think that any Executive branch decision regarding DC could be overruled by the Congress if necessary.
While the Bush administration has shown itself to be quite petty, I do doubt that any serious change in policy would occur due to where the mayor sits during a ceremonial speech.
Screw the vote in Congress, let's lobby for no taxation.
Screw the vote in Congress, let's lobby for no taxation.
Duly seconded . . .
Wait! DC has principles? When did I miss the boat on that bit of news?!
I like this Fenty character already. It does matter that you have the most basic form representation up on the dirty hill. The question becomes not that Gomer "Bush" Pyle's cares but how silly the thought, U.S. will send people to die establishing basic voter rights over in a foreign country that doesn't even want them around while its tax paying, naturally born citizens here get totally screwed and ignored. Plain common sense if you ask me.
Screwed out of what?
Some other yahoo collecting a big paycheck to "represent" us.
I seriously doubt that any senator that was elected in DC would really have my or the best interest of my family at heart.
The only thing they would be concerned with would be collecting lobby money.
If you asked Bush who the mayor of D.C. was, I don't think he would even be able to answer correctly.
The voting on amendments thing is a farce, because if the vote turns out to be close enough that the delegates were a factor it'll be tossed aside and another vote will be taken without delegate participation.
Basically, this is just an opportunity for delegates to say "Me, too!" on amendments that were already going to pass (or fail) anyway. Utter waste of time.
"Reid - Congress has exclusive rule over DC. The Executive branch aint got shit. Submitted budgets are merely suggestions from the Executive branch. I'd be inclined to think that any Executive branch decision regarding DC could be overruled by the Congress if necessary."
That's true to a degree, but the fact remains that many decisions made by the executive branch affect us directly. These decisions may be subject to Congressional rejection, but that's rare. For instance, the decision on what to do with Walter Reed was an executive branch decision. Yes, Congress could have overruled BRAC, but really, it's pretty unlikely.
And the President's budget isn't "merely suggestions". It's the starting point for budget negotiations. Yes, Congress might insert some funding for us here and there, but the fact remains that if it's not in the President's budget, it's less likely to be in the final budget.
So no, it doesn't make sense to snub the President (especially to make a purely symbolic point), no matter what cathartic release it might bring.
When you want a powerful man to do something for you, the best strategy is to offend his wife. Wait, that makes no sense! Mayor Fenty should have accepted the First Lady's invite.
Fenty and the Box.... fine sitcom title...
If the Dems asked him first, then it isn't a snub if he turns down a later invite. But he should do it graciously, and say he's so horrified by his chance to be the Token Negro in the box that he'd like to actually meet face to face with Republicans later to actually, you know, substantively discuss the fate of half a million Americans that live within spitting distance of where these fine fellows pontificate day in and day out.
Let me tell you this - around here, we way treat this so-called 'snub' as news, perhaps even a proud stance for our cause. But nationally, no one is going to be pointing fingers or asking why the DC mayor is not sitting next to Bush. This does not engender change at all, except to our detriment, and to butter up the congress which will not change their makeup just due to some silly PR move by Fenty. Overall I'd call this pretty darn inconsequential.