The Manhattan Project
Morning Roundup: Second Helpings Edition
Compromise Uncertain on Same-Sex Marriage Law
Fire at 17th and L NW Forces Evacuations
Sculpture Garden Ice-Skating Rink Remains Closed
President Obama has a way with words. Unlike the somewhat elementary formulations of his predecessor, Obama has tackled a number of complex issues -- torture and Guantanamo Bay, relations with the Muslim world -- in recent speeches. He is keenly aware of the power his words hold, and he doesn't act like the American people are children lacking the capacity to understand and digest tough issues. It's time he stepped up and used his oratory for the sake of District voting rights.
We were encouraged when Obama, a friend of Mayor Adrian Fenty and a supporter of D.C. voting rights, was elected alongside a Democratic majority in Congress. D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton -- long the leader of the struggle for voting rights on the Hill -- was so confident of the capital's new political alignment that she predicted that a voting rights bill would clear Congress by February. Come June and we are where we've been many times before -- facing another apparent legislative defeat.
We could huddle up and try again, but there's little to reassure us that Republican senators and their NRA-fearing Democratic colleagues won't again try to attach another gun law-gutting amendment. We could have another march, we could send more residents to lobby members of Congress, we could buy more ads and complain a whole lot more. But when it's all said and done there's little to reassure us that any of what we've done in the past will suddenly work now. If a Democratic House shrugged their shoulders and handed us a draw only six months into its existence, why should we think they won't do the same in another six?
This is where Obama comes in. This may seem like a provincial issue that shouldn't occupy the time of the nation's elected leader, but the longstanding and systematic disenfranchisement of 600,000 U.S. residents -- not to mention the impact it has on the country's moral standing -- demands presidential intervention.
The District's lack of voting rights and the apparent inability by Congress to correct it has continued for this long because this hasn't yet been made into a national issue. Members of Congress can vote against D.C. voting rights because they know that their constituents likely don't know about the issue, or just don't care. And the real constituents that do care -- that would be us -- have no real leverage over those members and their votes. Activists have admirably traveled the country to spread the word and try and build grassroots support for D.C. voting rights. But when it's all said and done, there's simply not enough of us and not nearly enough money to make this as national an issue as Obama could in one speech.
President Obama has challenged Americans before. He's explained that recovering from the current economic crisis will take sacrifices. He has argued that a cleaner environment will require changes in our individual lifestyles. He has admitted that improving relations with the Muslim world will involve altering longstanding U.S. policies and practices. It's time he take to the lectern and forcefully challenge Congress to do something to enfranchise the District's residents.
It's too easy for most members of Congress to act like a few hundred thousand non-voting District residents don't count for anything. Obama should tell them differently. He should make it impossible for them to stand by their usual arguments that we're simply too corrupt or uneducated to handle our own affairs. He should call them out by name when they claim that D.C. doesn't need its own representative. He should make them publicly defend why they think the Founding Fathers would have wanted to deny a large group of American citizens the democratic rights granted by the Constitution, and for no better reason than geographic location. He should plainly ask the American people, "Is it OK to treat District residents like second-class citizens?"
Obama has nothing to lose. The worst Republicans can throw at him is that he's advocating for District voting rights to get himself two more Democratic senators and one more Democratic representative. If that's the best they can do, we're confident Obama's argument would prevail. The District's residents may be able to take this recent defeat in stride, but they shouldn't have to resign themselves to never getting voting rights. At this point, it seems like only President Obama has the words and the authority to make the case for them. He should.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I'm sure this is already on his agenda, right after repealing DADA and DOMA, putting the taxation plates on his limo, and finding the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
DADT. D'oh!
Oh, and while I'm at it, this has to be the most cloying, self-serving, and naive of Martin's cris de coeurs about DC votings rights that have appeared on DCist, and that is saying something.
Blackcloud,
Self-serving? I'm hardly doing this for myself. Naive? Sure. I'll take that one. But I've been writing about this for so long that sometime naivety and hope are the only things that would make you not want to up and move to Centreville, if only to have a vote.
Martin,
I didn't mean self-serving in the sense that you would benefit personally, or there was some illicit gain you would realize. I say self-serving in the sense that you are invested in this cause and now you are calling upon the POTUS to come to its rescue after it has been thwarted. That strikes me as inherently self-serving: Someone stole your candy, so now you want the president to find it for you. Making an appeal like that strikes me as fatally personal. POTUS isn't a charm or a talisman to be pulled out to ward off dark magic, although many people treat it that way. You're far from alone in that. Everyone wants POTUS on their side. That's politics.
I appreciate your commitment and conviction, though I disagree in this instance. DCVRA is a total crock. DC citizens deserve the vote, not unconstitutional chimeras. And Obama really has better things to do than push for it to pass. Because if he does get behind it, it will only make it that much harder to get real representation for DC.
Blackcloud, from one TARDIS-lover to another: I agree whole-heartedly. My eyes nearly rolled out of my sockets reading through Martin's post. I'm sorry, but it was really registering way off the sob scale.
I'm not saying it should be ignored, but AT THIS TIME I don't think Obama should be mired in this kind of issue when middle America and veterans are getting the shaft mainly in part due to this economic !$#@ storm... and the majority of them do get to vote.
Just because the guy eats our burgers and invites our kids to watch movies, etc. etc. doesn't mean he'll drop everything to save this bill AT THIS TIME... but maybe in a few months as the relationship between him and the city continue to build.
Ah Martin, you might want to note that "...there's little to reassure us that Republican senators and their NRA-fearing Democratic colleagues won't again try to attach another gun law-gutting amendment" Is an incorrect statement. Those worthies are protecting the rights that both the Constitution gives us and SCOTUS confirmed existed.
DC Voting rights is however explicitly banned in the same document.
DC Voting rights is however explicitly banned in the same document.
Are they? Where does it say in the constitution that the residents of the District of Columbia are not afforded the same rights as every other American? Please show me!
A little farther along in that document there is a section part called the 5th Amendment, which prevents the government from depriving people of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Liberty is defined as: immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority: political independence. Would Congress's current denial of liberty to the residents of the District of Columbia be a violation of the 5th Amendment? Think about that.
Two parts actually-
Article 8
"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States,"
and limited by
Section 2
"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States"
and
Section 3
"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, "
Being no state-DC was ceded to the Feds, you can not have a representative or senator.
Get statehood and you get two of the latter and one (possibly two) of the former
But that would require amendment, not legislation by fiat.
I'll take this one. Obama will not do that because he is a smart politician (whom i voted for). With everything else going on, you are asking him to take a position on 1) and issue no one cares about; and 2) an issue that deeply divides the Democrats. He is not going to risk his shiny new majority over this (he will save that for G'tmo or the economy).
I think we can both agree that just because no one cares about an issue doesn't make it OK to ignore it, right? Also, if no one cares, what risk does Obama run?
If I were Obama, I would want to basically avoid giving Republicans any ammo before the coming healthcare fight while keeping the Democratic coalition firmly together. Something as contentious as A. gun laws and B. DC voting rights is too risky at this point to make a big deal out of. It's the same reasoning on why Obama hasn't taken stronger steps for the gay community at present. While he cares about these issues, as do I, it is most important to tackle supremely pressing issues to the entire country like healthcare when he's got such high favorability ratings. Everything else will come in due course.
Oh yeah, here's an idea--inundate Congress-watcher Norton's email box with "thanks for getting our hopes up that you could make a sensible compromise" letters.
sent mine about an hour ago ;-)
"law-gutting"!!!! You knew it was coming folks.
"law-gutting"!!!! You knew it was coming folks.
NewHCE,
By that I meant an amendment which does away with D.C. gun laws and makes it impossible for the city to impose any regulations whatsoever, which is exactly what Sen. Ensign's amendment did.
I know what you mean. You just seem to like that phrase.
As a postscript, I applaud Martin for taking his critics on in the comments. With the exception of the occasional "behave yourself" warnings, Sommer doesn't have the balls to wade into the seeping underworld of commentland, much less address us head on (yes, that would be a call out).
second
The "seeping underworld of commentland" is my home, and the commenteriat are my people.
Provided the comments remain generally personal insult-free, I'm a fan of debating this type of stuff. I recognize that I don't have the right or only answer, though I do have a pretty good soapbox to pretend like I do. Ahhhhh, the pleasures of blogging.
I appreciate your stance and tone, Martin.
Too much real politik makes for cold, bloodless, policy. And, while we're at it, I'm with you on the whole guns make for blood thing, too. As I imagine the (not even close) majority of DC voters are.
This makes me absolutely furious! It's obvious that lobbying congress doesn't work. A more unconventional approach needs to be taken. What is it going to take? Do we have to destroy this city to get people to pay attention? DC should have voting rights. It should also be the 51st state. Sometimes you have to take matters into your own hands. Pay attention.
@207 - imho, destroying the city will only set us back 40+ years, and we didn't even have home rule then.
The Little Red Book on DCist Commenter Etiquette usually requires NewHCE to tackle Martin, and obligates me to handle Sommer. However, subsection (c)(3) contains a limited exception permitting me to weigh in on Marty-Mart's voting rights posts.
I am trying to envision what this speech would look like. If it says that 'get your shit together and give D.C. residents the vote,' then I think that would be phenomenal but unlikely given the potential for negative flack. If it says 'don't include another gun rights amendment' then I think that's not only an even bigger shot in the dark, but would miss the point. Republican busy bodies will tack on whatever they feel will take the wind out of dems sails - this time a gun amendment, next time perhaps a ban on the recognition of gay marriage - with the knowledge that, until now IT HAS ALWAYS WORKED. Do you think the voters in Utah will care if it happens again? Instead, and presuming that D.C. voting rights is the true prize in all of this, then the point is that Democrats need to get the damn votes to strip out the amendment or 'suck it up and deal' through compromise. GET ME MY VOTE. If it comes with guns for all, then so be it. At least then I can even the odds.
Washingtonians need to stop looking for a hero to do the work for them; they need to mobilize and collectively give Congress hell. Look, if Congress doesn't want to find a place for DC, then maybe DC shouldn't find a place for Congress.
And the real constituents that do care -- that would be us -- have no real leverage over those members and their votes.
Come now. There's leverage to be had. After all, I haven't seen anyone throwing tea in the Potomac yet--at least for the right reasons anyway.
I wonder if Fox would give us all-day coverage...
Aaaaaacccckk!! Earth to Mother Ship ... Earth to Mother Ship. Come in please. I'm ready for transport. The natives are restless. Come in PLEASE!!!
You know, I am thinking now that it was the fear of losing in court that got them to roll on this.
Very possible. The thing never had a chance in SCOTUS anyway.
I'm really afraid that with this defeat, along with the coming of the Real World and Real Housewives, that our CHUD underlords will decide that we, as DC residents really don't deserve to live. I would understand, and comply.
The DC Council thinking ahead to Supreme Court repercussions? Impossible!
OMG, it jst thndred!
Yes. I decided to summon Gozer the Gozerian for purposes of pushing voter rights.
How's that one-party rule thing working out for you DC? The Republicans ignore DC because they know its a lost cause, and the Democrats ignore DC because they know they have it in the bag.
By the way, Bob Dole, Jack Kemp, and a handful of Republican lawyers have done more to advance DC voting rights then any Democrat in recent memory. Jack Kemp literally went to the floor of the House to personally lobby for DC voting rights and it was Republican lawyers who drafted the memos stating that the House plan was constitutional (a point that is still up for debate).
What I want to know is 1) what the compromise was that was proposed by Hoyer and 2) who were the "local pols" that supported it/didn't support it.
Put it out there, get some discussion on the issue, let the voters choose sides. It is amazing how fearful pols in this town can be about being public with their differences on the issue.
207: "destroy this city now?"
Already done in 1968 --- took about 30 years for U Street/14th Street and the H ST NE corridors to BEGIN to come back. Yeh - that's a plan...
Now, now, people, let's all just calm down a second here. The whole "riot in the streets" thing didn't do a hell of a lot for the very people who burned down their own neighborhoods 40 years ago and it sure as hell isn't gonna work now. Neither will killing the Golden Goose by forcing the toney-periphery that runs the show to move most of the operations for the federal government outside the four corners of the District. Hell, if push came to shove I'm sure every federal agency would scoot out to Leesburg in a heartbeat with only the SCOTUS and Congress left behind--airlifted in daily to the former site of the National Mall, the National Helipad.
Let's all take a deep breath and consider what we get in the bargain for no representation in Congress:
1) No commutes on I-66, I-270 or Rte 50 in rush hour
2) Gobs and gobs and gobs of federal funding, to otherwise supplement our budget with its inherent deficits caused by the odd middle manager stealing $50M in a clip
3) Property values that continue to rise in stark contrast to places further out in the Commuter Dead Zone (so called since one will eventually die behind the wheel trying to commute from a home located there) as well as the rest of the housing market
3) Free museums
4) Great restuarants
5) Not having to answer to ex-NOVA's MENSA chapter in Richmond
Alas, I wish I could say I wouldn't trade the above for seats in both Houses but I am after all a shallow, petty person. Disenfranchised, but generally content. Certainly much better off than our forbears who didn't see much in the way of collateral benefits from colonialism.
Don't forget:
6) A ready topic of discussion around gin and tonics at The Fox!