March 26, 2007
Fenty Pushes Voting Rights at White House
Though Republicans managed to sink legislation that would grant the District a voting seat in the chamber last week, voting rights activists haven't given up. In fact, they're going straight to the top. According to the Post, Mayor Adrian Fenty is slated to meet today with Joshua Bolten, Chief of Staff to President George W. Bush.
We're not sure what the meeting will accomplish, though. The White House officially expressed its intention to veto the legislation last week, and the Bush administration isn't exactly known for changing its mind. Moreover, though Bolten is thought to see the issue sympathetically -- his mother taught at George Washington University, he attended St. Albans School and has reportedly admitted his sympathies for the District's plight -- the White House's decision is sure to go through Karl Rove, who would never stand for giving the Democrats another seat in the House. (Rove both lives in the District and was caught exploiting a tax break for District voters in 2005.)
But advocacy for voting rights demands that we push every lever of power we can, and Fenty's meeting may give him a better idea of how strongly Bush would fight the legislation if it passed the House and squeaked by the Senate. If things go really badly, Fenty will just end up sitting in Bolten's office trying to act impressed as Bolten plays demos of his band's totally rad cover of "Freebird." (Bolten plays bass in a band known as The Compassionates.)
Ultimately, the fight this week remains in the House, and neither side seems to be giving much ground. Republicans seem intent on attaching a provision that would nullify the District's gun laws, knowing full well that such a measure would either sink the legislation or force Democrats in swing districts into an uncomfortable situation of balancing voting rights against gun owner rights. On the other side, Democrats are trying to round up the votes to prevent such a move.
In related news, D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton will be answering questions in an online chat over at the Post today, we're still having our Voting Rights Happy Hour this Wednesday at the 18th Street Lounge and we plead that you keep calling Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) to remind him of his responsibilities to his 600,000 new constituents.
Yes, that is Joshua Bolten in the picture. For real.
|
That picture is indisputable proof that Republicans can't rock no matter what. They can pretend, sure, but the spirit is false.
This makes me so upset. I feel like there needs to be a national expose on DC voting rights. It seems like no one out there knows about our little problem, but wouldn't stand for it if they did.
Anyone interested in the clever but sneaky way the House Republicans got the DC voting rights bill off the floor last week needs to follow the link below to this Congressional Quarterly story.
In politics, there's ideology and there's policy, but sometimes there's just underhanded parliamentary maneuvering. If you don't like it, don't blame the GOP. Blame the House Democrats for getting caught flat-footed.
http://public.cq.com/docs/cqt/news110-000002477321.html
[P.S. No, I don't work for CQ or Congress.]
Though Martin managed to lead off yet another voting rights discussion with a Republican dig, CDTrave hasn't given up on DCist.
"Fenty will just end up sitting in Bolten's office trying to act impressed as Bolten plays demos of his band's totally rad cover of "Freebird.""
Replace "Freebird" with "Whipping Post" and you may be onto something.
CDTrave,
So what dig was that? The Bolten being in a band one? Because I'm pretty bipartisan about that. Hell, Edward Kennedy could play keyboards for a band and I'd similarly mock him for it. Or the fact that Rove did violate the law by claiming a homestead exemption even though he's not a D.C. resident for voting purposes? Or the one about Republicans sinking the bill? That's fact.
I don't understand your seeming opposition to the way we approach voting rights. We only pick on Repubs because they're the ones lining up against granting us voting rights. Trust me -- we'll have something on the Dems that sided with them on the gun ownership issue.
"managed to sink", "exploiting a tax break", "intent on...nullifying".. But I was mostly focusing on the fact that all these posts seem to require including a reference to the Republican evil-doing in the first line, God Forbid blame rest elsewhere for even a split second in the reader's mind. In this effort by the Republicans, I see an intention to bring balance to the laws that govern the District, and the Democrats unable to cope with a debate beyond the scope of their comfort zone. But what point is there to pointing fingers? If the necessary support in Congress isn't there, we've got a whole lot more sleeve-rolling to do. Let's just make sure we war-dial the right people for comments attributed to them.
"Let's just make sure we war-dial the right people for comments attributed to them."
Lookit, if the nerds at C-SPAN can't get it right, there's no hope for the rest of us. It was an honest mistake, and one that was corrected as soon as new information came in. Huge media conglomerates make the ocassional Obama/Osama, Iran/Iraq mistake, so I think we can let DCist slide on this one.
Yeah, DCist Martin. You should know better than to trust the incompetents at CNN on anything having to do with republican malfeasance. DCist seriously needs to fact check that source. Just go straight to FOX or Drudge. I'm sure that'll make it all better.
I'm with CDTrave. Where the hell were the Dems when they controlled the White House AND the House AND the Senate? DC has been Congress' private pissmop for a long time. Tired of them peeing in your face and telling you it's raining? You need to get some Republitards on board the program if you want legislation passed. Appealing to the usual conservative causes like tax reform and 2nd Amendment would gain votes, but that would require actually thinking outside of the marginalized voting rights box you've painted yourselves into.
You want democracy for DC? Start acting like it, beginning with compromise. But that would require giving up a few cherished Democratic myths, like gun control works and Government is there to help you.
"Trust me -- we'll have something on the Dems that sided with [the Republicans] on the gun ownership issue."
So DCist is going to prove that it doesn't hate GOPers by releasing the hounds at moderate Dems who have the gall to reach across the aisle and agree with Republicans on the gun issue?
And please, lets be clear that the Republicans didn't "sink" the voting rights bill. The Dems are the ones that pulled it from the floor. All the Republians did was offer an amendment that had enough support in the House to pass.
Monkeyrotica - Is it your contention then that past failures by the dems justify the current games the GOP is playing?
Politburo - My contention is that DC is a child with two fathers. One a kindly, benevolent, aging, hippy, loveburger-type who only occasionally molests us and the other a violent alcoholic, religious fanatic and closeted homosexual who molests us the rest of the time. We're getting screwed by both, it's just that the latter makes no secret of their contempt for us. Anybody remember Bill Clinton's first presidential campaign walk down Georgia Avenue, complete with plattitudes about the indiginity of the lack of voting representation and how he'd do everything in his power to get it? And as much as the Repubs talk the 2nd Amendment talk, deep down inside, the last thing they want is an armed DC populace. Why would they want to deprive themselves of such a convenient whipping boy come election time, be it gay marriage or medical marijuana or gun control?
No, I'm afraid the GOP "games" are just the usual political grandstanding and I can't see how Norton didn't expect it to happen the way it did. Why didn't she just call them on it? Okay, we'll get rid of the gun ban in exchange for a vote in the House. We can always go back and ban them later, but we'd still have the vote. Instead of pissing and moaning about the GOP not playing fare, stick it back in their fat sputtering faces.
CDTrave - Those statements are, in my opinion, fair.
Monkeyerotica - I think it's important to note that we'll anyone to task for opposing District voting rights, be they a Democrat, a Republican or an independent. As for the gun issue, I personally oppose congressional intervention because it wouldn't stand ANYWHERE else. The proper way to knock down D.C.'s gun laws is through the courts, and given the recent decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals, that may well happen. It is patently undemocratic for Congress to dictate what laws D.C. can and cannot have, period.
Redstater - In short, yes. I'm looking into the Dems that supported the plan. As I said before, my opposition to Congress intervening to tell D.C. what gun laws it can and cannot have is that it subverts what little democracy the city can claim to have. Are the gun laws unconstitutional? Maybe. But doesn't America's constitutional system leave that up to the courts to decide?
"It is patently undemocratic for Congress to dictate what laws D.C. can and cannot have, period."
I noticed you said "undemocratic" not "unconstitutional."
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 says Congress can dictate whatever the hell it wants in the Federal City. That isn't going to change until DC stops being the Federal City and becomes a State or gets retroceeded and I don't see either of those things happening any time soon.
My problem with the gun ban is the slippery slope argument. DC argued that it isn't a State so the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply in DC. Suppose the City Council decides that they don't particularly like some of the dangerous ideas being floated around, oh, say, THIS WEBSITE and decides that in the interest of public safety, it needs to be shut down. DC isn't a state, after all, so the 1st Amendment doesn't apply here, right?
The court roundly rejected the "not a state" argument, so the hypotheticals are moot.
monkeyerotica took the words right out of my fingers. Its really irrelevant if you think that Congress' "power to dictate what laws DC can and cannot have" is undemocratic. The Constitution says that Congress has the power to "exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever" over the District, so if a bunch of evil Republicans want to toss DC's gun laws, I reckon they can.
This is another example of how this bill is so sloppy. Its supporters cite the all-encompassing power of Congress over the District as their rationale as to why the bill is constitutional, but then get their panties in a twist if some other congressmen use that same clause to try to change the gun laws. Can't have it both ways, hipsters!
With the Dems in control of Congress, its beyond me why Holmes-Norton doesn't introduce a voting rights constitutional amendment.
Redstater - I see your point, but one use of the District clause is to enfranchise District residents and the other to tell them how they can and cannot rule themselves. The gun trick gave the distinct impression that some Repubs and conservative Dems think owning a gun is a more important right to be promoted than is having a voting representative. That's simply not right.
As for the constitutional amendement, do you really think it would fly in the Senate or with the states? After all, that would give D.C. a rep and two senators, a move few Republicans would likely support. The constitutional amendment would only have a chance if Dems controlled the White House, had 61 senators and controlled the necessary number of states.
On the gun front, I do have this much to say -- does anyone remember the last time a bunch of unrepresented people with guns were taxed? Just sayin'.
If a straightforward DC voting rights constitutional amendment was proposed and voted on by Congress, anyone voting against it -- Democrat or Republican -- would deserve any and all criticism that you could give them. And that also goes for any state that doesn't vote to ratify it.