pinto
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-19-07 12:39 AM
Original message |
| DC representation narrowly lost in the Senate today. 57-42 (needed 60) |
|
Edited on Wed Sep-19-07 12:40 AM by pinto
All Dem's save Baucus (Mt) voted aye. Both (I)'s voted in favor, along with 4 (R)'s. Byrd didn't vote.
So close.
Not a burning issue, I know, but I've always favored the District having equal representation in Congress.
|
| WCGreen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-19-07 12:40 AM
Response to Original message |
| 1. YEa, they should get it.... |
|
DAmn, Byrd would have voted for it...
|
| pinto
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-19-07 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
| 2. Yeah. And two more (R)'s would have sealed the deal. |
|
Edited on Wed Sep-19-07 12:45 AM by pinto
Don't understand Baucusus' nay, but I assume it has something to do with Western small state parity - there's an undercurrent of that.
|
| WCGreen
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-19-07 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
| 3. That's probably right... |
|
But there are probably more folks in DC than in Montana...
|
| pinto
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-19-07 12:55 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
| 6. There was talk about some feasible compromise, since DC representation would add 2 - |
|
probably Democratic Senators and one - probably Democratic Representative to Congress.
Buzz here in the west was about Utah's concerns, but I don't see why Baucus would vote nay. :shrug:
Next time, it'll pass.
|
| rusty quoin
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-19-07 12:47 AM
Response to Original message |
| 4. I know..that was damn close. (you noticed that I said damn, not God damn, so no censure.) |
| liberalmuse
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-19-07 12:53 AM
Response to Original message |
| 5. Why should D.C. have representation? |
|
Edited on Wed Sep-19-07 12:53 AM by liberalmuse
God knows the rest of us don't. Seriously, I don't understand why Congress keeps shooting this down. I can't help but wonder if D.C. is the last vestige of Jim Crow? Does someone have a better, more informed explanation?
|
| JI7
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-19-07 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
| 7. because DC is mostly Democratic, meaning 2 additional Dem Senate Seats |
|
that's pretty much why Republicans are so opposed to it.
|
| hang a left
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-19-07 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
| 9. I don't think that they would get 2 senators. |
|
I thought it was just a house rep they were shooting for.
|
| pinto
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-19-07 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
| 8. Well, they're citizens. But, seriously, it isn't about Jim Crow, it's about how the District was |
|
originally set up. It's not a State, it's a federal district, hence the lack of Congressional representation allocated to the States.
|
| tritsofme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-19-07 01:03 AM
Response to Original message |
| 10. The bill seemed unconstitutional to me, we need an amendment if DC residents are to be granted |
|
proper representation in Congress.
|
| TheUniverse
(954 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-19-07 01:19 AM
Response to Reply #10 |
| 12. Then why not make a constitutional amendment? |
| tritsofme
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-19-07 01:21 AM
Response to Reply #12 |
| TheUniverse
(954 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Sep-19-07 01:18 AM
Response to Original message |
|
A district having taxation without representation is certainly important to me.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts)     |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 12:22 PM
Response to Original message |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
