STYLETHREAD -- LET'S TALK SHOP!

bumblebee · Dooney & Bourke

RE: Inauguration Woes in D.C.....

dc · Dooney & Bourke

Hey mia -

It is ironic - congress has ultimate control over DC, but we have no votes in congress (we have non-voting reps). And there is the problem that people really do think of DC as some empty city where the gov just happens to be and people go to work. But we live here, and we have concerns about the state of the country, we have issues on which we'd like a national voice, etc. It is simply a right that we do not have - the only people in this country who do not have it. Think of all of the things that the senate and congress vote on... from sending the country to war to confirming political appointees and supreme court justices. Not one of those votes is on our behalf - we are not counted in those decisions. Eleanor Holmes Norton, bless her, can talk until she goes blue in the face, but she can't cast a vote for us and voting is what really counts.

Then there are those who would say, why grant state's rights to a little city? But DC is treated as a state in many other ways - we have presidential electoral votes, we have a legal code, etc. Plus, we have more people than Wyoming and about the same population as several other states. And geography aside, it's a civil rights issue. Whether DC becomes a state or what, we ought to have a vote in congress and the senate. We are the only people in the country who do not, and that is wrong. Things are simply imposed upon us by outsiders, like we're not members of this country.

Here's a good article about DC voting rights (or lack thereof):

http://www.dcvote.org/rights/history.cfm

A snippet from the article that sums up the history:

"The history of the disenfranchisement of the people of the District of Columbia is unique. It is a story that helps us understand the frustrations the people of Washington have experienced over the past 200 years and one that helps illustrate the importance of being ever vigilant of the manner by which an elected government treats the people it is supposed to serve. Ironically, no one is really sure why the Americans living in the District of Columbia lost their voting franchise in the first place.

The city of Washington was first incorporated in 1791 on the northern shore of the Potomac River near Georgetown, Maryland, and across the river from Alexandria, Virginia. The "Federal District," or the "District of Columbia" as it came to be called, consisted of pieces of land that were ceded by Maryland and Virginia to be used as the seat of the Federal Government.

Representation, Before 1801

Prior to the establishment of the District of Columbia in December 1800, residents of the newly founded city of Washington, and the existent cities of Georgetown and Alexandria, continued to vote for federal congressional representatives as citizens of either Maryland or Virginia. In fact, Uriah Forrest, a resident of Georgetown within the boundaries of the District of Columbia, served as a Representative from the state of Maryland to the U.S. Congress from 1793-1794.

When Congress arrived to take up residence in the new capital city in 1801, they passed the Organic Acts of 1801, which first disenfranchised the people living in the District of Columbia. The Act no longer permitted residents of the District of Columbia to continue to vote in the states from which the District had been created. "

-- Edited by dc at 16:26, 2005-01-21

-- Edited by dc at 16:29, 2005-01-21

Lilykind · Hermes

quote:
Originally posted by: bumblebee
i have to say that i was feeling particularly proud of us west coasters last night when i was driving home through a gigantic protest at the federal building in LA. obviously there was nothing anyone could do about the big party on the other side of the country, but they were still out there making it known that they didn't like it. warms my heart. "

Nope...nothing anyone could do.

They messed up my commute home too but I don't really mind, although I didn't really care for the police helicopters buzzing right over my apartment building. I wished I'= could've been there. And the honks of support! There were people honking up until around 11 PM like crazy. It's kinda nice for leftie me to be living in such a blue state.

However, this whole inaguration makes me sick, especially with the record-breaking amount of money spent. I listneed to clips of the Bush speech and it was all I could do to not puke "freedom freedom freedom"...

Good grief...BF is being speculative that it's the beginning of the end of American civilization as we know it and is trying to decide what country we should move to.

DC Shopper · Dooney & Bourke

some of the professors here in my planning program have thrown out the idea of ceding DC back to either MD or VA and just keeping the government buildings and downtown area as under control of the federal government.

interesting.

dc · Dooney & Bourke

quote:
Originally posted by: DC Shopper
"some of the professors here in my planning program have thrown out the idea of ceding DC back to either MD or VA and just keeping the government buildings and downtown area as under control of the federal government. interesting."

Yeah, DCS, some people are floating that idea. I do not like it. If I wanted to live in VA I would still live in VA (my move was not all about geography... I don't care for VA state politics). And I have never wanted to live in MD (not sure why - think it's a bias b/c I grew up in Great Falls), though I guess politically it's the better choice and more representative of DC's political leanings. DC residents are proud of being from the district, and it should stand on its own - it really is its own entity and should remain so. Plus, it'd never fly - those states will not willingly take on the woes of DC.

I just don't get what is so hard about giving us ONE senator and ONE voting rep. Nothing needs to change except that. Who would it hurt (except the republican balance)?

-- Edited by dc at 17:26, 2005-01-21

Mia · Kate Spade

That's so ironic...that the people living in the city where the White House is located have no say...I almost can't believe it. it seems so obviously wrong.

I wonder, if DC was 90% Republican, we'd see more movement on this front? Heh.

The thing that I find interesting/repulsive about the inaugeration was the tone - Bush's tone - I mean, if I was American I wouldn't have voted for Bush so I acknowledge a bias there but, seriously, what world does this guy live in? He's going to "end tyranny"? Hubris much? Total, arrogant over-reaching much? It would be bad enough if things were in a pre-2001 state but I just want someone to pull Bush aside and tell him dude, Iraq is in a state of chaos, Afghanistan is back to supplying heroin to the world, you never found those WMD's etc. etc. ETC. - perhaps now isn't the time to be making wild claims about what you're going to achieve in your second term? I mean, is this even partisan? Do people who voted for Bush think Iraq is all cool and almosr democratic right now? I. Don't. Get. It.

Also, yeah, how transparent is this "terror!! terrorism!!!" chicken-little thing everytime there's some need to frighten the crap out of the populace and/or justify a huge security presence? Does anyone really think all those police were on the streets to protect the public from *foreigners*? I think I'm going to adopt this strategy. Anytime anyone questions me I'm just going to start shrieking "terrorism! terrorism!! Run! Run for your lives!!" until the other person leaves or something. We'll see how it goes...

dc · Dooney & Bourke

Mia - Interesting you should mention the hubris. Here's a good column in today's post (I heard this guy, David Ignatius, on NPR this a.m. as well talking about the same thing). It's true - I cannot get OVER Condi Rice trying to say Barbara Boxer was trying to "impugn" her when all she was doing was asking her to explain contradictions she herself made and things she herself said. And she refused to answer! God, I hate that woman. And please SOMEONE tell her to get a new 'do.

Anyway, here's the article:

Worrisome Hubris
By David Ignatius

Friday, January 21, 2005; Page A17

A Republican who has served in three GOP administrations remarked that the mood in Washington this inauguration week reminded him a bit of the second Nixon administration. There is a smugness and insularity among senior officials -- a feeling that because the president has won reelection, his aides don't have to explain themselves or their policies to the nation.

A warning light of that second-term arrogance was Condoleezza Rice's confirmation hearing this week before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Rice is a smart and often charming person who could make a good secretary of state. But there's a broad consensus in Washington that she has not been a successful national security adviser; she wasn't able to resolve policy disputes in a timely way during her four years at the White House, and she didn't articulate effective strategies for dealing with postwar Iraq, Iran or North Korea.

So it was appropriate -- no, absolutely necessary -- that Rice get a tough grilling from the Senate. Where would she push U.S. foreign policy? What lessons has she learned from her past mistakes? What explanation can she offer for policy positions that she took on Iraq that now appear to have been wrong?

Rice's response to these questions was a kind of truculent peevishness -- as in, "How dare you?" She was provoked, to be sure, by California Democrat Barbara Boxer, who tried to bait the nominee with questions about Iraq of the "when did you stop beating your wife" variety. But that's part of the confirmation process. Boxer's basic question was an appropriate one, especially for this nominee: Did your loyalty to the president lead you to overlook key facts about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and other issues?

Rather than answer the question, Rice took it as a personal insult. "I have never, ever lost respect for the truth in the service of anything," she said, and then went on to admonish Boxer that she should ask questions "without impugning my credibility or my integrity."

Boxer stood her ground and again pressed the issue of weapons of mass destruction, pushing Rice to admit that she had made a mistake. It was aggressive questioning, but not inappropriate. After all, the issue was the main rationale the administration offered for launching a war that has now claimed well over 1,300 American lives. Again, Rice bristled: "Senator, we can have this discussion in any way that you would like. But I really hope that you will refrain from impugning my integrity."

Here's the nub of my worry, as Bush & Co. begin their second term: If they confuse rigidity with resolve, and refuse to learn from their mistakes because they fear it would be a sign of weakness, they are going to get the country into real trouble. Because they have mostly been promoted from within, the members of the second-term team are especially in need of reality checks from outside -- even rude or awkward ones. If they take offense at such challenges and treat public scrutiny as a personal affront, they won't be successful. It's as simple as that.

President Bush gets away with a similar stubbornness and refusal to admit error. But then, he's president. He claimed in an interview with The Post last week that the election result amounted to a mandate for his policies in Iraq. That's stretching things -- given that Bush offered so little detail during the campaign about his plans for Iraq or anything else. You can't have a mandate for policies you haven't explained. But again, he's president, and he has certainly won the test of reelection.

Not so Condoleezza Rice. And not so the administration's nominee for attorney general, Alberto Gonzales, who was similarly unhelpful when pressed during his confirmation hearing for details of the administration's legal thinking about interrogation and torture. These are public servants, whose confirmation hearings are their equivalent of an election. If they aren't prepared to answer tough questions from the public's representatives, they flunk the test. The essence of our system is public accountability -- a concept that the Bush team still seems to have trouble understanding. Accountability isn't about serving the president but about serving the country.

The late congressman Phil Burton of California used to say that government officials got in trouble when they began to believe that all the show and pomp of Washington was "for real." By that, he meant that officials were led astray when they began to think it was about themselves and their party rather than the nation. That delusion is especially easy in a second term, after four years in the adulatory echo chamber of the capital. Just ask survivors of the Nixon administration.

Rice can still be a fine secretary of state, and Gonzales a good attorney general, if they remember who they're working for.

-- Edited by dc at 17:54, 2005-01-21