Pet Worth: This Month's Highly Adoptable Animals
New Whole Foods to Open Up Exactly Where it is Needed Least
The Weekly Feed: Experimentation Edition
Jack Evans Hops Aboard a SmartBike at Bike Lane Unveiling
Morning Roundup: Change Edition
If there's one thing that no member of Congress wants to be accused of, it's not supporting the troops. That very fear might be the only thing that finally gets the District a voting seat in the House of Representatives.
CQ Politics reported this afternoon that House Democratic leaders are considering attaching an amendment to a defense spending bill that would grant the District a voting seat in the House. No decision's been made yet, and the defense bill will come to a vote in coming weeks. An amendment expanding the definition of federal hate crimes was also recently attached to the defense bill, provoking loud complaints from many Republicans.
As you'll recall, the D.C. House Voting Rights Act (H.R.157/S.160) was derailed earlier this year by a Republican amendment that would do away with the District's oft-criticized gun laws. So the logic here is to attach the House seat to a bill that many Republicans would be loath to vote against. It's smart, if slightly underhanded politics. Don't forget all those calls from the voting rights community for a "clean" version of the DCHVRA.
DC Vote Executive Director Ilir Zherka, who has worked closely with D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes on the current voting rights legislation, doesn't see a problem with adding an amendment to the defense bill. "Any way we can get voting rights enacted into law works for us," he told us. "The goal is to get it done."
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Slightly less effective than fundamentalist christian senators tacking on a rider to the DC medical marijuana bill that repeals the law of gravity, replacing it with one of "intelligent sucking."
I'm sorry, "Democrats" and "sneaky" are not words I would associate together.
I hope it works. But Martin, it was not a "Republican" amendment. It had support of 40% of House Democrats.
Well, yes and no. The gun amendment has been floated by both Dems and Repubs, though the most recent version came from a Republican. Sure, some Dems supported with it, but less consistently than Repubs.
If it was just a "Republican Amendment" it would fail. I guarantee the support would have come from 35-40% of the Dems.
I see that all the time and it annoys me because it is a semantics game some dems use to obscure the fact of how much the party has changed on the issue.
Sheesh.
It was Republican in that a Republican attached it, it was supported only by a minority of Democrats, and that minority Democratic support was achieved only because of a nationwide campaign of lobbying/threats by the NRA.
Closer to home, obviously the majority of DC's elected Democrats opposed it, often quite loudly. In the end, only few elected Democrats said we should swallow it in order to get Voting rights, and not because there is any sense that a majority or even strong minority of DC's voters supported the Ensign (R) amendment.
with Childers (d)
All i am saying is that the reason anti-gun folks are doing so poorly is because they have lost a significant portion of their support among democrats.
last comment...and despite the tired NRA bogeyman, the real reason for drop in gun banning democrats in Congress is because they reflect a definite shift in attitude across the country on gun control.
Google "gun poll gallup" or "gun poll rasmussen"
If you really think the party has changed, run a pro-gun candidate for city council or, more cheaply, a local opinion poll. See how it goes.
Just sayin'
It has changed nationally-which is why you see more pro-gun dems in Congress.
i don't feel like it's changed as much as people are just sick and tired of the whole thing. nothing has really changed in the last 20 years. people have just gotten used to people being shot. we're so used to it that it doesn't shock anymore.
Actually IMGoph, I think I agree with you-in part. What has changed over the past 20 years is that crime has gone down, while in many states gun laws have been rolled back.
I, for one, will never tire of people getting shot.
Perhaps in some places, but obviously not here. Mississippi- even the real Virginia- is a long way from DC.
and martin, please help a brother out. When you get a juicy DC vote/guns story at 4:30, please hold for 10:00 AM the next day.
Hey, I'm not making you post comments!
Oh I know. Its just that I could have gotten a good hour of work avoidance behavior off of this thread.
As if the two of you could forego your ritualistic dance - puh-lease. You're like the bickering elderly married couple a few doors down. I think Martin has a list of "New-baiting" topics tacked up next to his computer, and sprinkles them into every article. Not that I'm complaining!
I know, I'm a sucker.
What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. A tired cliche, but damn is it appropriate to this scenario.
Instead of a "sneaky" play by the Dems, how bout a "smart" one. Use this procedural move as bait. Here...I'll set this up in steps.
Step 1. Wait for Republicans to get their panties in a bunch, as they always do when DC voting rights comes up.
Step 2: Anticipate and deflect GOP talking points.
Step 2-1: Deflect the non-germane argument, that this is attached to a defense spending bill, by pointing to the non-germane NRA gun amendment on the last stand alone DC voting rights bill. Also point out that this can be construed as germane to defense spending, since we are spending billions of dollars to establish democracy in foreign lands, but refuse to have democracy for the 600,000 people in our nation's capital.
Step 2-2: Deflect the "this is unconstitutional" argument. There are plenty of legal scholars who back the assertion that this bill falls under the "plenary power" of Congress over the district. Argue the bill should pass Congress and then, and only then, can a case be made to the Supreme Court.
Or Step 2-2a: CONCEDE this bill IS unconstitutional. Draw GOPers to push the unconstitutional argument, question them about if there is any other reason why we shouldn't give 600,000 people the right to representation in our democracy. There is no other argument. Intentions of Founding Fathers easily beaten back with 3/5's clause and the fact that DC was NEVER envisioned to have 600,000 inhabitants. Now that it does, the Constitution should be adjusted accordingly.
Step 3: Propose Constitutional amendment granting full DC voting rights. Trap GOPers with their own words and arguments (Well, if the only thing wrong with DC voting rights is the way we are going about it, help us go about it the right way) Cheer on bipartisanship, and correct a glaring error in our nation's foundational document.
We've had this possibility before. Sen Warner (the GOP Warner) pretty much said this was his only reason for voting against DC voting rights when it was a bill in the Senate before her retired and Mark Warner took his seat, AND said he'd support a constitutional amendment. But alas, near-sighted Dems didn't take him up on the offer. Imagine how fun THAT could have been...fighting for a Constitutional amendment drafted by a retiring GOP Senator, and brought to the attention of the people of this country (who would have to approve such an amendment) by the power of President Obama's bullypulpit.
But alas. We are content with the scraps thrown to us...compromise deals that don't grant the citizens of DC TRUE representation in Congress. There is no logical reason to not support a Constitutional amendment, as the consistent argument from the right is that this bill is unconstitutional. So....instead of letting them have that argument, strip it from them, force them to take a stand on the principles of Democracy and force them to come up with real, actual reasons to deny DC voting rights (ummm...cause it's a majority black city is what it ultimately boils down to.)
The weakness of Democrats is their consistent inability to see the big picture, to make long term legislative strategies, and to defeat GOPers by stripping them of their own arguments. Until they can do this, it will be a weak and ineffectual party, and the 600,000 residents of DC will never have their inherent right as a US citizen to full representation in a Congress that pretends to have the authority to tax them.