by publius
Ah, the great John Warner. Let’s remember this gushing description of his record:
Time and again, from his stance on withdrawing troops in Iraq to his concern about global warming, he has taken on his party and bucked conventional wisdom. [Larry Sabato says] "What's important about John Warner and what distinguishes him is that he is a centrist, along with 70 percent of Americans.” . . . To understand John Warner, friends and colleagues say, is to understand his deeply ingrained sense of duty.. . .
But first, he said, he has 16 more months in office, untethered from charges of acting for political advantage. He does not intend to go quietly.
"No one can say politics is going to dictate in one way or another how I'm going to decide and speak out about what's in the best interest of this nation," he said. "And I'm going to do that."
On the vote for D.C. voting rights:
Warner – NAY
On the vote to reverse one of the worst and most embarrassing laws in America and restore habeas corpus:
Warner – NAY
On the Webb amendment (via TPM Muckraker):
Warner – [will vote] NAY (but not before trying to sneak a weasally toothless alternative).
And he's retiring. The D.C. voting issue is especially rich because he claims to be drafting a constitutional amendment granting D.C. voting rights. That’s great, but it provides absolutely no reason to oppose this voting bill (which is barely short of cloture). I guess he’s like the old Communists who opposed the New Deal because it would co-opt the larger revolution.
Good riddance.
The D.C. voting issue is especially rich because he claims to be drafting a constitutional amendment granting D.C. voting rights. That’s great, but it provides absolutely no reason to oppose this voting bill (which is barely short of cloture).
Wha? If he thinks the bill is unconstitutional, hence his amendment (I assume), why isn't that sufficient reason to oppose it?
Posted by: Ugh | September 19, 2007 at 05:34 PM
fair point, if that's what he thinks. but the article indicates he's concerned about litigation. no reason not to enact one and then simultaneously work on the amendment
Posted by: publius | September 19, 2007 at 05:54 PM
plus, i am highly highly skeptical that constitutional beliefs have anything to do with this. particularly coming from the party who pretty much ripped it up whenever bush cried "terrorism."
this is about disenfrachising democrats. the constitutional stuff is a pretext
Posted by: publius | September 19, 2007 at 05:55 PM
this is about disenfrachising democrats. the constitutional stuff is a pretext
That's likely right, just thought that the idea he couldn't simultaneously oppose the bill and support the amendment seemed out of place.
Personally, though I haven't thought too much about this issue, it seems to me that voting rights for DC in the House would be unconstitutional (he says, while living in DC).
That said, there doesn't seem to be a principled reason not to amend the Constitution to give DC two senators and a representative (or whatever it would be entitled to if it were a state with its population).
Posted by: Ugh | September 19, 2007 at 06:31 PM
Principled reason: If that's all you did, the District would still be completely dominated by the federal government, under Congress's thumb. You're not bothered by the idea of creating a pseudo-state with the representation in Congress, but none of the independence of a real state?
The average member of Congress has enough trouble asserting their independence from the leadership, you're proposing three members who'd be doomed from the start.
I think the District needs to be a real state, or none at all, not some kind of second class state that Congress can push around at will.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | September 19, 2007 at 07:51 PM
I think the District needs to be a real state, or none at all, not some kind of second class state that Congress can push around at will.
How does this differ from the current situation? I mean aside from the black people/democrats who live there getting some say in who actually does the pushing?
Posted by: Pooh | September 19, 2007 at 07:54 PM
Brett - that's a good point, which I obviously also haven't thought much about, other than "3 votes are better than none."
Posted by: Ugh | September 19, 2007 at 08:29 PM
isn't the bulk of Maryland, and much of the population of VA already "dominated by the federal government" ?
didn't we have a revolution over the idea of "taxation without representation" ?
Posted by: cleek | September 19, 2007 at 09:23 PM
isn't the bulk of Maryland, and much of the population of VA already "dominated by the federal government" ?
Not so far as I can tell, FWIW.
Posted by: Ugh | September 19, 2007 at 09:30 PM
Say employed by the federal government, or its contractors, and you're not that far off.
Except for the underclass working all the retail and food service jobs (and still below the poverty line) to support the people working for the government and contractors, anyway.
Posted by: Nate | September 20, 2007 at 01:15 AM
In Germany, Berlin is one of the Bundesländer (states) and it is the capital. That does not seem to cause any real problems to their democracy. Why don't you just let e.g. Maryland annex the D.C? Then you would not have any problems with its special status. After all, the division of the country into sub-regions is a purely practical matter. ;-)
Posted by: Lurker | September 20, 2007 at 05:21 AM
this is about disenfrachising democrats. the constitutional stuff is a pretext
That James Madison was one prescient dude, predicting that the population of DC would someday be mostly Democrats. I do wonder though why he wanted to disenfranchise Democrats when he was a co-founder of what was to become the Democratic Party…
The last time an amendment was tried it was ratified by 16 states in the 7 year limit. Living here in Dem controlled MD; it’s tough for me to imagine that Republicans controlled 34 state governments for that whole seven year period.
Snark aside, it seems pretty clear that two-thirds of the country is just fine with the current situation. And given the district’s crime and poverty rates, count me as one vote against retrocession to MD.
Posted by: OCSteve | September 20, 2007 at 07:52 AM
Berlin was without the federal vote for 40 years (Berlin representatives in Bonn had just advisory functions) but was compensated for that by federal money. It was neither then nor now run by the Federal Government.
Today the main problem is that the state Berlin has to pay for much of the capital Berlin while the old funds were abolished. Useful reforms are blocked mainly by our own Texas (Bavaria). Given also the huge costs of bringing East Berlin up to Western standards the financial situation is dismal.
A planned fusion of Berlin with the surrounding Brandenburg (capital: Potsdam) failed because the Brandenburgians saw the trouble coming and would not have anything to do with it.
So, any solution for DC should be thought trough thoroughly or the result may be worse than the status quo.
Posted by: Hartmut | September 20, 2007 at 07:54 AM