This short item, buried deep inside USA Today should not go unnoticed:
October could be the first month of the Iraq war when no U.S. servicemembers will have died in combat in Baghdad.
As of Thursday, the Pentagon had reported 13 U.S. troops killed in combat and non-combat incidents this month in Iraq. If the number holds, it would tie July for the lowest monthly U.S. death toll of the 5½-year-old war.
This is, of course, very good news (which is exactly why it’s getting little attention). It also highlights the great irony of John McCain’s involvement with Iraq. Had the surge in Iraq been a disaster, McCain would not be a viable candidate. But now that Iraq is getting better – much better – nobody cares anymore. What McCain didn’t really understand when he entered this race is that no matter what happens in Iraq, the war is a political loser for him. Failure – his fault. Success – voters are moving on. Perhaps the right position on Iraq, politically speaking, was to either: oppose it, like Obama (failure – he got it right and it remains an issue very much in the news. Success – and nobody cares, so it doesn’t really hurt Obama), or ignore it (failure – it’s Bush, not me. Success? Great, lets move on).
But if that’s the lesson politicians are going to learn, who’s going to be the one supporting – actively supporting – the next war. You know, this is probably not the last one.
what about the republicans?
But the simple and Constitutionally prescribed solution to this “problem” won’t create two new Democratic senators in a city that votes 9 to 1 in favor of Democrats.
“It’s a win-win solution for everyone.”
Except if you live in Maryland
““It’s a win-win solution for everyone.”
Except if you live in Maryland”
haha, I was going to write the same thing. I live in maryland and this sounds more like a lose-lose.
You can also transfer only the residential sections, leaving the true capital areas as federal preserves.
Hmm. Here’s a letter from the head of the DC Republican Committee. His argument seems better than yours.
Dear Senator,
The District of Columbia Republican Committee (D.C.R.C.) urges you to support S. 160, the D.C. House Voting Rights Act of 2009.
More than half a million U.S. citizens who live in Washington D.C. pay federal income taxes at a
higher per capita rate than all but one state, yet we have no vote on raising or spending federal revenue.
We serve in our armed forces but have no vote on going to war. We have an elected local government that is subordinate to the Congress, but no vote in D.C.-specific Congressional decisions.
S. 160 is based on an earlier bill by former Congressman Tom Davis (R-V.A.), former Chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. It is a bipartisan bill that would give D.C. a Member of Congress, together with an additional seat for another state, initially Utah, which was next in line for an additional seat after the 2000 census and reapportionment. Another Utah seat would likely leave unchanged the current partisan balance in the House. S. 160 would take effect with the next Congress, the 112th. The bill maintains D.C. as a federal district subject to Congressional control, and does not make it a state, and specifies it does not give D.C. voting representation in the Senate. The
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs has approved the bill, 11-1.
We believe that Article I, Section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution, which gives the Congress “exclusive legislation” over the federal seat of government, empowers the Congress to enact legislation giving D.C. voting representation in the House. Others believe that the constitution limits representation in the House to the states. S. 160 would ensure that this is resolved, before elections are held for new members from D.C. and Utah, by expedited judicial review of any challenge to its constitutionality by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, with appeal, if any,
directly to the Supreme Court.
Conservative Republicans like former Congressman J.C. Watts, former U.S. Senator Edward W.
Brooke, Republican Study Committee members Congressmen Mike Pence and Dan Burton along with R.N.C. Chairman Michael Steele, Vice Presidential nominee Jack Kemp and former Special Prosecutor Ken Starr have all endorsed giving voting rights to the District of Columbia.
We respectfully request that you to support S. 160, the DC House Voting Rights Act of 2009.
The Republicans, to the extent that they still believe in doing the right thing (not too sure they do, anymore), will support voting rights for DC. However, there is another solution that nobody seems to have considered: offer DC voters a choice of becoming citizens of any state in the union, with the option of reconsidering every, say, 5 years. Then they could all vote in their state of choice and be represented. Their tax status would be the same as any out-of-state residents.
“Conservative Republicans like former Congressman J.C. Watts, former U.S. Senator Edward W. Brooke…”
Edward W. Brooke was the Linc Chafee of the 70s.
Commentary loves spreading democracy — to oil-rich Islamic states anyway. When it comes to democracy for Americans, they’re not big fans. When your ideas are no longer capable of attracting majorities, you need to bank on low turnout and disenfranchisement.
There are practical political reasons that Maryland residents don’t want retrocession of the area of the District of Columbia that was ceded to the federal government by the state of Maryland. Rural Marylanders don’t want it because adding a second large city to the state would reduce their power in the state legislature, and make urban interests even more dominant. Baltimore residents don’t want it because it would create a major rival for their city’s power. Why would a city that dominates its state want to add a second large city to the state, one that would compete for attention and resources from the state government? Republicans don’t want it because DC is overwhelmingly Democratic, and its addition to the state would effectively end any influence they have in state government. Democratic politicians don’t want it because it would bring in a new crop of Democratic politicians to compete with them. That leaves retrocession with approximately zero percentage of support in Maryland.
Statehood means statehood. D.C. could be a state. Puerto Rico could be a state. The Virgin Islands could be a state. Guam could be a state. Even though it would likely translate to a massive gain for Democrats (most of these areas lean heavily Democrat), it is unlikely to happen. Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam enjoy a tax status that makes statehood unattractive (even with the power that comes with two senators and a congressperson). They use the IRS tax system, but all the money goes to the local Puerto Rico, Virgin Island, and Guam governments. In addition, they all get plenty of federal money now on top of that. D.C. is unlikely to become a state, so it can only gain a congressperson by being incorporated into Virginia or Maryland, which again seems unlikely.
It is NOT a “a win-win solution for everyone”, the Democrat Party won’t have absolute power. If DC becomes a State, The Democrat Party would have 2 more Senators in the US Senate.
We are now all Democrats. Democrats Rule.
Take it from an Illinoisan, to cede the DC area to Maryland would simply make it the center of Maryland politics and corruption – much like the city of Chicago is to the rest of Illinois. We in Illinois want to make Chicago a separate entity – god forbid, even a state – to rid ourselves of this hell hole.
Maryland, say no!
From a Marylander of all eight of his immigrant years: NO, NO, NO and NO. DC can be formed by the annexation of Montgomery County and the rest of suburban NoVA. Baltimore county and Charm City would be outnumbered by a generally Republican state called what-used-to-be Maryland. Just as Virginia’s Richmond vs. Alexandria feud, so does Annapolis have a problem with MoCo. Virginia can do without NoVa, MD can do without MoCo and DC should be just as glad to have those sh*thole areas to add to its roster.
Pure Genius…
In years past, I would have spent Mardi Gras blind drunk. Reading the news today, I sort of miss that tradition.
Your tax dollars at work… removing tattoos, funding racism via La Raza, and building a shrine to Ted Kennedy which Mary Jo Kopechne…
If everyone in D.C. knew the rules why are they complaining? D.C. is a mess and it is way to small to give it state status. I think Maryland or Virginia or half and half is best. I have heard of the “no taxation without representation” argument, but you have to pay taxes first. I don’t think there is a lot of income taxes being collected in D.C. ww
All the utopians are in favor of more national parks and D.C. is pretty much a national park now. Let’s just call it a national park. We’re already feeding the wildlife there anyway. But that’s not the important thing, which is to get the U.S. Congress OUT of there. The technological advances of the last 233 years don’t require that each of these solons and their lackeys congregate in one location to transact their business. We have phones, fax, email, snail mail, radios, tv, and other means of effective communication that didn’t exist in 1776. Assembling all these people in one location is a license for lobbyist abuse. Put them back in the district that they are supposed to be representing.
Give me a break. Maryland? Give DC to California. Or New York. Better yet — Michigan! (Even better: Quebec.) There’s no real requirement for “contiguity” in this day and age.
Of course, I like chuck martel’s idea. No reason I can think of why Congress couldn’t meet by videoteleconference. Thousands of federal employees could work from home — many of them in Duluth, Atlanta, Lubbock, and Seattle. The Supreme Court should be moved to Alaska.
The president would govern from his home state.
True, as far as it goes. Also an option: use the amendment process to give DC a vote in the House, but not in the Senate. I think this would be the best outcome. Although the amendment process requires 2/3 of both houses plus 2/3 of the states, I think it would still be easier to accomplish as it would be more politically palatable than DC statehood.
I know, I know: it’s 3/4 of the states. Sigh.