Thursday, March 22, 2007

dc vote

ok, this might be a running commentary on the house debate on voting rights...

1) pete sessions is an ass. his discussion of the voting rights bill notwithstanding, the fact that he has multiple times insisted on referring to the majority as the "democrat majority" instead of the "democratic majority". he knows his use of this is needling democrats.

hey pete sessions, stick to the issues. i agree the bill is flawed. but let's vote on this, not demagogue.

2) sensenbrenner is right...this shouldn't be an at-large seat for utah, it should use the four districts that were drawn up for this last year.

3) bob bishop has a good point. i don't know if i agree to him, but we have to take what we can here. his sense of humor is pretty lame though (i should know, i have a similar sense of humor).

4) lynn westmoreland is just rambling about stuff that isn't germane to the bill. he wants to make sure that DC can never have senate representation? and he just made up the word "bipartisanism" least i've never heard that word before.

5) david dreier brings up a point about amending the constitution. unless we figure out whether the tack we are on with this bill is really constitutional or not, we can't move forward on potentially amending the constitution. the minority party is not interested in statehood or representation for DC. you can claim constitutionality or not for this bill, but you can't actually RULE on that. the courts must. but THEY CAN'T RULE ON A BILL UNTIL YOU PASS IT. he's just demagoguing about taxes, not discussing the actual merits of this bill.

6) ahhh candice miller. she used to be the secretary of state in michigan. her name was on my first driver's license. but her statement about trying to get as many people as possible registered and able to vote in michigan while she was the SOS is baloney. she was intrumental in getting the motor-voter law passed there, which makes it more difficult for students to vote.

7) tom davis' discussion about what senators and representatives actually represent is interesting. the house can give us a vote because of the district clause, but we can't have senators without an amendment. interesting....

8) eleanor. lots of emotional stuff. meh. could be more moving, but oh well. is mike panetta allowed on the floor?

9) dana rohrabacher makes an interesting point, and a gracious offer, but DC wants to be able to represent itself. maryland's senators would not be able to dedicate their full attention to matters in their own state as well as our city.

in conclusion, statehood (or an amendment that gives us everything that statehood entails) is the conclusion we must meet.


PalacePool said...

at this point, i would rather just be exempt from federal income tax.

IMGoph said...

have you seen this at dcist: meet your new rep.? it's a pretty funny idea.

though i would like to just have a federal income tax exemption too...

Anonymous said...

I have long been a proponent of the "no federal income tax" solution myself, but that's largely because I have little faith in my fellow residents of the federal colony. Call me an elitist (though I prefer to think of myself as anti-felon), but people who'll elect Marion Barry don't deserve the opportunity to swing national politics. If DC became a tax haven though, I might just change my mind. ;)