Take your pick about which was more irritation: Bill Clinton's last-minute remarks about statehood for the District of Columbia or George W. Bush's ignorance of the subject.
On Jan. 15, with just five days to go in his second term, Mr. Clinton let it be known that he favors statehood for the District. His timing was as lame as possible.
The way you get statehood -- or anything else -- is to work with Congress and mobilize concensus over many months. You don't deliver a limp sentence of support when you're an outgoing duck and then wave to the crowd. But that's Bill Clinton, always looking to be liked before he looked to be effective.
With the new president be any better on the question of D.C.? Not if the Great License Plate Flap is any indication.
About a month before Bush took office, Clinton ordered a set of "Taxation Without Representation" tags hung on the presidential limousine. Just before he took office, Bush ordered the plates removed. But even earlier, Bush laid a license plate egg.
Asked whether he planned to keep the plates, Bush replied that he doesn't favor statehood for Washington, D.C.
Excuse me, Mr. President, but "Taxation Without Representation" is a rallying cry for D.C. voting rights in any form, not necessarily in the form of statehood.
For the moment, however, the new president is more concerned with the zing the tags delivered than he is with their message.
Clinton knew full well that the tags would embarrass Mr. Bush. They were a booby trap disguised as a parting gift. Now that Bush has removed the tags, he looks peevish. If he had kept them, he would have appeared to back D.C. voting rights, even though he doesn't and probably never will.
Of course, Clinton could stand a zing himself for failing to do much on the District's behalf during his eight years in office. He put no political octane behind voting rights for the District -- the same rights that every other citizen enjoys.
This typist had been hoping for a better day under Bush. But it doesn't look likely.
The new president's advisers have told him that the District of Columbia contains little or no potential for Republican votes, because registration in the city remains about 9 to 1 Democratic. It has been at about that level since the District first voted for president in 1964. Bush has obviously decided not to expend a drop of presidential sweat in or on the District.
Perhaps it's fanciful to think in terms of Bush building a political base here. After all, he got clobbered in Washington, D.C., on the first Tuesday in November. Black voters turned their backs on him elsewhere, too. Bush won only 8 percent of the black vote nationwide.
Yet if he were ever going to try to entice blacks to become Republicans, Washington, D.C., would be an excellent place to start.
Black residents here are better educated and earn better salaries than most blacks elsewhere. I have often heard black Washingtonians say they resent being taken for granted by the Democratic Party. They surely resent it even more after Bill Clinton pledged to help the city see full voting rights and never even sent a voting rights bill to Capitol Hill.
Besides, the city is hardly a one-party town when it comes to local offices.
There are two actual Republicans on the D.C. Council, believe it or not. Nor do the Democrats who serve there act like reincarnations of Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin. This is not a city government where doctrinaire politics operate.
So President Bush would not be barking up a dead tree if he paid attention to the District. The question is how to get him to do so.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 6.83 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Forum Member Who Shall Be Nameless. 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited January 26, 2001).]
Personally, I think statehood for D.C. is an idea whose tame came a long time ago.
However, does anyone really believe that the black voters of DC are going to 'reward' a Republican for giving DC the vote, rather than 'going with the crowd' and voting Democrat anyway?
------------------ "My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q
posted
I think DC statehood is also a good idea. There's been a slow-moving movement here in Florida to split the state in two. West Florida would start at the Alabama-Florida state line and go all the way to the Apalachicola River. The main reason for all of this? The tax-money sucking area called Pennisular Florida.
posted
"However, does anyone really believe that the black voters of DC are going to 'reward' a Republican for giving DC the vote, rather than 'going with the crowd' and voting Democrat anyway?"
Of course not. Blacks are so incredibly stupid and ignorant that they'll never do anything without majority support. The only thing the Republican party can do to increase black support is to raise welfare wages. And legalize pimps. Nobody of African American position would ever, ever do anything for themselves. Perish the thought.
------------------ "...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.
------------------ "One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant Star Trek: Legacy Read them, rate them, got money, film them....
posted
New York State can't wait until Long Island/NYC finally decides to become its own state... Though it might not happen, because they do realize the rest of NYS would cut them off, and they'd die off like a useless limb. Personally, I'd rather see NYC fall off into the ocean in a great earthquake. Then the problem would be solved absolutely.
------------------ "President Bush. It's fun saying that. Go ahead, you try." - M. Lucinsky, Spectrum Editor
posted
But then Spider-Man and Daredevil would be out of a job.
------------------ "And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!" -Bubbles
posted
What's the point in having so many states, anyways? Canada has a larger landmass and only 13 provinces/territories. It can't be population densitry, because China only has 22 provinces. What's up with that?
------------------ Chickety china, the chinese chicken, you have?
posted
I would think it has something to do with a lil' bit of population, one part congressional districting AND state/local taxation. At least HERE it does.
------------------ "Okashii na... namida ga nagareteru. Hitotsu mo kanashikunai no ni." (That's funny... my tears are falling. And I'm not sad at all.) - Quatre Raberba Winner
posted
Well, the states aren't just subdivisions of the central bureaucracy. They're semi-autonomous, at least in theory. There are just a few powers that they all agreed to give up to a central government, for various reasons.
At least, that's the way it's set up. How it actually works is a completely different thing.
------------------ Disclaimer: "All references to vices and of the supernatural contained in this game are for entertainment purposes only. _Over_The_Edge_ does not promote satanisim, belief in magic, drug use, violence, sexual deviation, body piercing, cynical attitudes toward the government, freedom of expression, or any other action or belief not condoned by the authorities." - `OverTheEdge'
posted
You still haven't told me why there are so many. I mean, do you really need a north and south Dakota or Carolina? And all those states on the east coast - they can just be one big one called New England! And Louisiana is a pitiful representation of what it was when it was first bought.
------------------ Chickety china, the chinese chicken, you have?
posted
Politics.... Hawaii and Alaska are way out there, literally and figuratively.... It probably happened for control pruposes, divide the land in to easy to control sections, sub divide those into caounties/parishes, sub divide those into townships.... now we can every representation at a level of 36 square miles and up....
------------------ "One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant Star Trek: Legacy Read them, rate them, got money, film them....
posted
Well, as for the east coast, they were originally effectively fourteen or so soverign nations. Texas was, as well. West Virginia seceded from Virginia during the civil war.
Other than that, the states were mainly US territories before they became states. Some were whole for specific reasons (Oklahoma, Florida, Alaska, Hawaii), while others were simply convenient subdivisions that eventually became semi-autonomous nations.
As for why we have them, well, why not? You'd have to try to convince two states and the federal congress if you wanted the number to be thinned down. It'd be more trouble than it was worth. Besides, with the way our government is set up, ten states have more power in the senate than one big state would. If we merged with Kentucky, my vote would have somewhat less effect. This would also effect the number of presidential electors, to a lesser degree. If ten NE states combined, they'd have eight less electors among them.
Well, now that I think about it, that might not be such a bad thing.
------------------ Disclaimer: "All references to vices and of the supernatural contained in this game are for entertainment purposes only. _Over_The_Edge_ does not promote satanisim, belief in magic, drug use, violence, sexual deviation, body piercing, cynical attitudes toward the government, freedom of expression, or any other action or belief not condoned by the authorities." - `OverTheEdge'
posted
Yep, especially if we can get FL to join up with GA.
------------------ "One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant Star Trek: Legacy Read them, rate them, got money, film them....
Printer-friendly view of this topic
