Or just give the city back to Maryland, minus the federal area.

They don't want it.

If I lived in DC, I wouldn't want to be part of that side of Maryland, either ;)

SI

The District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment was passed in 1978. However, the freedom-loving all-men-are-created equal states failed to ratify the amendment. Only 16 states chose to ratify the amendment.

The slight at the end is fairly laughable, so I don't even know why I'm addressing it. 600,000 people is not like someone living in a Congressional utility closet. That's akin to "We can't let gays get married, next people will want to marry dogs."

Would you be in favor of statehood, or being absorbed into Maryland? Or is there some advantage to retaining the current status?

The closet thing wasn't about size, more about my amusement of people demanding a congressman, so I don't quite get the thing about the dogs.

That's what I was asking, I don't know if statehood would be preferable to merging or not. Assuming it is, that'd be cool. I'm all for self-determination for people of D.C. to be their own state, part of another state, or retain their current status. I'm just not as sympthetic when they seem to just want the best parts of all of the above.

The difference would be those two states actualy became states in the appropriate manner. The District of Columbia was not created to be a state. It makes sense to assign the residential areas to Maryland and Virgina as appropriate. Or don't have residential areas in D.C.

This appears to be a little more involved than just a political issue. It screams fraud and jail time for "advisors".

If given the choice of secession to Maryland, statehood, or maintaining the status quo I would choose statehood. Given the choice of secession or status quo, I would choose secession. You don't realize how much it matters until you don't have it. :) In particular, as DT mentioned, it's not just representation. The fact is that Congress has ultimate control over our budget, laws, etc. On top of that, there is not a single member of Congress that represents DC. Other compromises I would perhaps accept are not paying federal taxes or autonomy from Congress without representation.

I believe the measures that have been attempted in recent years (bills to give DC one congressperson while giving Utah one to balance it, for instance) have been measures in expediency and practicality. As proven in '78-'85, an amendment doesn't seem to work. There is just no incentive for other states to care if 600,000 people somewhere else in the country are disenfranchised.

Ultimately the problem is that DC is overwhelmingly Democrat. This is, not surprisingly, about politics, not about equal rights.

As mentioned the problem is politics.

1. Statehood -- big favor to Democrats
2. Seccession -- big favor to Republicans
3. Status Quo -- no benefit to either

Can representation happen where it's not a political coup by one side or the other?

What? :confused:

I am sure it had nothing to do with economics, Indian wars/affairs, and the local people.

The comments from the story are pure classic ignorant Glenn Beck gold.

CBO: Health law repeal adds $230 billion to deficit - Sarah Kliff - POLITICO.com

The non-partisan CBO reiterated today that repealing the new Health Care Law would add $230 billion to the deficit.

Here's the part in the story that gets me upset.

The House Rules Committee meets Thursday on the health repeal legislation with a procedural vote scheduled for Friday and a floor vote next Wednesday. The new Republican rules will say that no bills can pass if they add to the deficit, but Republicans are making an exception to their own rules for the repeal bill.

Glad to see the Republican Party is showing from day 1 they won't govern as promised, but instead show the nation that once again, they are lying hypocrites. Glad to see it come from Day 1.

No need, the article does it:

I don't believe there was any greater mandate given to the GOP majority than to at least make an effort to repeal this abomination. Failure to do so would be ballot box suicide for many, if not most.

I know it's talking in to a deaf ear, but it can't be overturned. It will not get through the senate or a presidential veto. I wished they used their "mandate" to balance the budget. If they want to keep taxes lower, find some meaningful cuts in Medicare/Social Security. But we know that won't happen, so maybe there's 2 more years of gridlock.

And the problem with that is what? If it means no more "incentive" or "stimulus" legislations, no more good intentions/bad implementations programs and no more punitive bills (all on top of growing the bureaucracy), then it's worth it.

Why does the repeal have to be all or nothing? Why can't they just get rid of the stupid/unconstitutional parts initially?

Which is why I said effort. If the Senate and/or the abomination in the Oval Office won't cooperate, that's on them. But the House damned well better make an effort or be tarred with the same brush, their choice. If that effort is unsuccessful, which I'm virtually certain it will be, then move quickly to other means of preventing as much of it as possible, most likely with moves aimed at defunding it.


Something that I genuinely doubt is actually a top 5 priority* for most of those who voted for this House majority.
*in & of itself, rather than as a by-product of other actions


I could live with that, beats the blue hell out of recent developments.

If there's a better thread for this then someone let me know & I'll repost/delete/etc but for now ...

Herman Cain inches closer to presidential run *| ajc.com

I'm sorry, 'cause I find Herman generally likable & more tolerable to listen to than most talk radio guys (he's on WSB-AM at night, fills in for Boortz occasionally) but ... who is he kidding? I would hope that he's smart enough to be doing this just to get some input in conversations that he wouldn't otherwise be a part of (or to get some mid-level cabinet post down the road a ways) but I'd put his chances of winning the nomination at being slightly better than mine & that ain't saying a whole lot. I have to think his name recognition outside of Georgia is incredibly low versus the likely field.

He's actually been doing well in some straw polls. I had never heard of the guy until he finished second in a couple of conservative only polls.

Who?

edit: Looked him up.... yeah, no way in hell

So they raised state income tax 67% here in Illinois across the board. Remarkable.

66% tax increase in Illinois - Front Office Football Central

Eh, I hadn't heard much of Bill Clinton before 1991 or so.

They have to pay for that seat Blagovich was trying to sell somehow.

Pretty cool story.

Presidents Do Actually Leave Each Other Sweet, Secret Notes | Story | BLTWY

There was a guy on NPR talking about presidential letters that were left from one president to the next and how he was trying to track them down after writing a fiction book about the practice

SI

That's exactly what the linked article is about :D.

This seem to come out of nowhere and unsure as to the reason? I actually support moving towards more of this with Cuba. Fidel isn't around anymore and Cuba really isn't a threat.

Obama to ease travel restrictions to Cuba, allow more U.S. cash to island - Cuba - MiamiHerald.com

They relaxed restrictions some already last year, too. It's just a continuation of that

SI

From what I've read this returns things to where they were before Bush2.

Disappointed that Lieberman isn't going to allow me the opportunity to vote his ass out. :(

The vitriol against Lieberman reminds me so much of the anti-RINO sentiment of the far right.

I think there are many non-partisan reasons to hate this guy. He is a typical war mongering hawk who ducked out of actually going to war (like Bush Jr. and Clinton ahead of him) I don't care much for war but at least Bush Sr. or McCain could bring some experience to the table. What is more hypocritical than avoiding the draft and then calling for other people to go fight? Another reason (and it this conversation rarely happens because it is so "taboo") is his apparent lobbying influence from Israeli interests. And this isn't because he is Jewish. My guess is there are at least 50 Jewish senators but he is the one that really sticks out. And the huge one (however anyone wants to spin it) he is a huge proponent of the internet kill switch. Sorry but I have trouble accepting any one person being given the ability to shut down the internet during what they deem to be a “crisis”.

How many people dislike Lieberman and would love to vote him out of office because he didn't serve and was for the Iraq War, is very pro-Israel, and wants an internet kill switch?

C'mon. Most of the people saying so are liberal Dems who want to get him for turning on the party. No different than conservative Reps who wanted to get Arlen Specter.

Don't know how anyone could be more hypocritical on any other issue than being a war hawk who was too big of a pussy to fight himself when he had the chance. Someone else's kids? Sure, nobody is making them join the military! It would be like the secretary of the treasury having tax issues with the IRS. Oh wait... :)

Please. Most people really don't care that politicians who may advocate for a war didn't fight in one if they are from the same party (or are for the war). Especially, as in Lieberman's case, he got a deferment because he was in school and then because he was married and had a kid - rather than outright dodging.

Meh, maybe you are familiar with Lieberman and feel that way and maybe you just read his pr on a site like wikipedia. I am very interested and read a lot of stuff about the war propaganda and politicians and am sickened by people like him, W Bush, Ashcroft, and Cheney who are warmongers who all could have served themselves but found a way out of it. His studies were really more important than the imminent threat of Communism taking over the world?

Sorry. There are people like President Obama who voted for the war as a senator and is continuing the war as the President. I definitely do not agree at all with him but he didn't get out of serving in a major conflict. These guys all basically say (by their actions) that they needed school more than possibly dying so they could go into public careers and then decide where other peoples children can possibly die.

13, 11 D's & 2 I's.
Meet Jewish Senators 14, 15 — and 16? Plus: the House GOP's Jewish Mormon – J.J. Goldberg – Forward.com

So, basically, you don't agree with civilian control of the military?

And you know who else didn't fight in a war and then decided other peoples children could go die? That bastard Franklin Roosevelt! He decided to be Assistant Secretary of War rather than go out to the trenches of Europe and then said kids could die fighting the Nazis and Emperor of Japan! That horrible man! :mad:

I can understand being against the wars, but it's a bit much to require personal and professional experience in anything congress deals in. Most congresspeople don't have professional experience in anything. (including trying to run a budget).

I am talking about people that wish to start (or started) preemptive war. I already used Obama as a much clearer example of somebody who (IMO) is making bad decisions on wars but at least doesn't the past to prove that he was too chicken shit to serve. (ala Lieberman, Bush Jr, Cheney, Ashcroft...) Seems like FDR fits in there unless I missed his refusing to serve in the Spanish-American war or something?

I understand. Again I don't really wish to require everyone to have served just think someone is a piece of shit if they are gung ho about agressive wars as an older man but when they were called on fight made up excuses or got deployed out of harm's way.

(And to your other point about untrained leaders trying to run the budget or understand business, I would agree completely that seems to be part of the bigger problems that occur every 5-10 years. Who knew our legislation would have this unintended consequence?!?)

16? Wow, that's higher than I thought. My original post actually should have said Congress. Obviously half the senate isn't Jewish. (1/3 of the Supreme Court is, but not half)

Lieberman is different than your typical DINO or RINO case. He actively campaigned for the Republican presidential candidate and made comments suggesting the Democratic candidate was not patriotic. You can't say the same thing for someone like Specter. Hell, Specter was out there telling everyone how great Sarah Palin would be if she had to be Commander in Chief.

I'll give Lieberman credit for being an advocate of the DADT repeal and being instrumental in getting it passed. At least he went out on a good note, unlike his buddy McCain who is a complete disgraceful joke at this point. But even the DADT repeal doesn't make up for Lieberman's attacks on anti-war Democrats or his dismantling of the health care bill.

Every day it gets more and more likely that there won't be any serious alternative option to Obama in 2012. He won't really have to defend his record (which might explain his performance thus far). I though the Sarah Palin thing was kind of a big joke I wasn't in on - but I'm starting to think she actually might be the nominee. And if not her, Huckabee? Gingrich? Really? Romney could have some momentum support as a moderate alternative, but I really don't think the Republicans are going to be going for "moderate alternative" in 2012 (and Romney, realizing this, has been moving further and further right all the time). Maybe someone else could step up, but - I think they're actually going to nominate one of the crazies. It doesn't matter what Obama does, or what he had promised, or where he has fallen short. And he and his people probably knew that back in '08.

It can become a bit of a self-fulfilling prophesy. If President Obama looks beatable, then more electable candidates will enter the race to try and beat him, and the GOP will have a stronger nominee, making the President even more beatable. If, however, he looks unbeatable, then the more electable candidates will wait until 2016, and the GOP will have a weaker nominee--making the President even more unbeatable.

Of course, an "unbeatable" post-Gulf-War-I President George H. Bush led to some of the Democratic heavyweights sitting out the 1992 election and led to relative unknown Bill Clinton winning the nomination. So these things could play out strangely.

Personally, I think that President Obama is in decent shape for re-election, but unemployment staying around 10% will make his re-election anything but assured. And, considering that the economy has been humming along without any real increase in employment make me nervous (both as a fan of the President and as a fan of America) that 10%+ unemployment will be with us for a long time barring the kind of structural economic change that we seem unwilling or unable to make.

I think the opposite will happen. in 92 the incumbent was hurt by a 3rd party, Perot. in 2012 i can see the republican vote being split also by a 3rd party candidate, tea partyer. just a 2-3% split i think can put obama over.

One guy who scares me is Rick Perry.