tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post8491540553342414104..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: Statehood, AgainJonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-84345588460889662762010-04-23T08:18:49.711-05:002010-04-23T08:18:49.711-05:00I don't think the Dems really have the ability...I don't think the Dems really have the ability to do anything "big" like that. They don't have the votes, for one thing. Sure, Health Insurance Reform was a really "big fucking deal" but it consisted of pretty modest reforms, not like creating a whole federal system like MediCare or Social Security, for example. I don't think the Dems could ever get the rural state Senators on board for that. Sullivan is right when he says the Dems reek of cowardice. Even now.<br /><br />On the other hand, the Republicans had relatively little trouble recruiting Democrats to authorize spying on American citizens in violation of the Fourth Amendment, to authorize the President to torture prisoners at will, to suspend the right to habeas corpus, to create a whole new prescription drug subsidy for older Americans, to attack a sovereign country preemptively, and all manner of other unAmerican outrages. Republicans just play that game better.Jamesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-49189256816106283042010-04-23T06:54:16.184-05:002010-04-23T06:54:16.184-05:00There's a good democratic argument; the state&...There's a good democratic argument; the state's are sovereign entities, albeit one's who have contractually sacrificed certain aspects of sovereignty for the sake of mutual defense, free trade, and resource sharing. As equal partners in that contract, the Union, they should each have an equal say, as sovereign entities, in how it operates. Giving each state two senators allows for disagreements within a state to be expressed at the national level.<br /><br />It was more explicit when senators were elected directly by state legislators, but the whole point of the Senate was to give each state a direct voice in national affairs the same way the HOR gives one to the people through popular election. Of course, now that senators are popularly elected, that aspect of the Senate, and the anti-majoritarianism that it fostered, has been significantly reduced.Heronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14776242322789918501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-74161252569650111972010-04-22T22:52:26.359-05:002010-04-22T22:52:26.359-05:00This seems so easy to me. The Dems never pushed f...This seems so easy to me. The Dems never pushed for statehood because they never had the votes in the Senate. For Nelson, Lieberman, or Lincoln, there is no incentive for adding two new left wing senators and thus diluting their clout as swing votes. You also seem to neglect the possibility of troubling racial tensions coming to a boil over D.C. statehood. An unreliable Senator and numerous Blue Dogs might be tempted to defect as angry white men gripe at Obama's black Senators.<br /> When you think about it, that would be the single biggest political argument against the idea. It seems like Obama would have a huge amount of influence on these two senators, and the Democratic machine in general. The D.C Democratic primary would turn into a pretty insane high stake affair, and this is from the city of Marion Barry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-90546010662962616662010-04-22T21:44:46.866-05:002010-04-22T21:44:46.866-05:00I do not remember details, but I recall a claim th...I do not remember details, but I recall a claim that the constitutional requirement could be met by a scheme where each state has one senator and the remaining 50 senators are national at-large candidates.tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13145639900234999261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-10791450671756981562010-04-22T21:09:25.572-05:002010-04-22T21:09:25.572-05:00not an answer to your question, but Mark Plotkin h...not an answer to your question, but Mark Plotkin has pushed a way around statehood for years:<br />http://www.wtop.com/?nid=62&sid=1241055Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-18135469785167516622010-04-22T20:30:45.084-05:002010-04-22T20:30:45.084-05:00With all of the other policies that liberals have ...With all of the other policies that liberals have been holding their breath on since 1995, health care reform, immigration reform, finance, labor, climate and energy, I just don't think there was enough oxygen left to push DC statehood as well. I think everyone realizes that it's blatantly unjust, but can you really argue that it's more important than any of the above priorites -- most of which aren't even going to get passed in this Congress? You can't push <i>everything</i>.<br /><br />Plus, it honestly couldn't pass this session. No Republican in the Senate has the slightest incentive to vote for it, and it's easy to paint as a power grab, while Senate Democrats are terrified of nothing more than looking like power-grabbers. If they won't take any concrete action against filibusters, they're not going to admit another state on a party-line vote.Ace-Khttp://www.alexanderkobulnicky.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-73362279588505084022010-04-22T19:35:25.078-05:002010-04-22T19:35:25.078-05:00The last time it was tried was in 1993, the last t...The last time it was tried was in 1993, the last time the Dems controlled everything in DC. The bill went down hard, with 277 Members of Congress voting against.<br /><br />The District has ratified a constitution twice already (and even picked a state name: New Columbia)<br /><br />Why it hasn't been tried again, I have no idea...I'm guessing there would be plenty of resistance in Congress from Dems, even if they have no good reason for objecting.Kalhttp://politikal-blog.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.com