Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-02-2009, 09:04 AM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default Ann Plays the Race Card

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-02-2009, 09:47 AM
willmybasilgrow willmybasilgrow is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 142
Default Re: Ann Plays the Race Card

Almost done with the DC discussion.

Eve, don't use Chicago language to describe life in DC! you don't have an alderman. You have a council member.

The issue is so political? Yeah, ok. I've been living here 20 years, and ok, yes, it's Democratic. However, lots and lots of people here are registered w/ the Democratic Party and not the other party because that's the machinery here. Many of these Democrats are extremely conservative, and would likely be in another party anywhere else. DC ain't Berkeley, not by a long shot. And, who is to say what will happen? It is indeed possible that this could become a half Dem/half other party in the future, right? I can easily see that happening.

Eternal deadlock - ABSOLUTELY, Eve.

I am glad to hear Ann say it's unfair that DC doesn't have a vote. She left that out in her own blog posting on the subject, firing up her readers into an anti-DC frenzy. And I agree, there should be a constitutional amendment, but I sure as hell don't wanna go with Maryland.
===
Moving on...

Race helps Democrats but hurts Republicans. Yes. And let's also be clear: Gender helps Republicans but hurts Democrats.

And yet, if you heard Rush's speech (at the Hilton?) this weekend, he referred derisively to an "anchorette" and the audience jeered. So there's sexism on both the left and the right, it's a long tradition in this country, I think.

Last edited by willmybasilgrow; 03-02-2009 at 09:57 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-02-2009, 09:59 AM
Ray Ray is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 408
Default Re: Ann Plays the Race Card

"Ann defends Bobby Jindal"--oh Jesus.

Why am I about to do this to myself?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-02-2009, 10:04 AM
willmybasilgrow willmybasilgrow is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 142
Default Re: Ann Plays the Race Card

Maybe you're snowed in?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-02-2009, 10:32 AM
nautirony nautirony is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 49
Default Re: Ann Plays the Race Card

This is what Ann Althouse writes about those who criticize Jindal in her blog.

"Why are all these people so confident that they are not manifesting racism?"

Are people supposed to defend themselves though the prosecution has not shown any evidence that they have committed a crime?

Why make sense when we can make controversy, eh?

As the anti-drug TV spots say:

This is a law school professor's brain.

This is a law school professor's brain after listening to Rush (and admiring his tactics after a few years).
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-02-2009, 10:53 AM
Ray Ray is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 408
Default Re: Ann Plays the Race Card

Quote:
Originally Posted by nautirony View Post
This is what Ann Althouse writes about those who criticize Jindal in her blog.

"Why are all these people so confident that they are not manifesting racism?"
1) because they don't approach life as an exercise in eristics.

2) because the speech is even worse if you close your eyes.

Snow day is right. Where's that Monopoly set?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-02-2009, 11:39 AM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: Ann Plays the Race Card

Quote:
Originally Posted by nautirony View Post
Are people supposed to defend themselves though the prosecution has not shown any evidence that they have committed a crime?
Exactly. Well said.

The absurd racism charge is an Ann Althouse smoke bomb, thrown into the middle of a conversation to get everyone off track. Anyone who engages this argument is taking the bait and helping Ann keep the focus of the conversation where she wants it.

Last edited by TwinSwords; 03-02-2009 at 11:43 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-02-2009, 12:54 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Ann Plays the Race Card

Quote:
Originally Posted by nautirony View Post
This is what Ann Althouse writes about those who criticize Jindal in her blog. [...]

"Why are all these people so confident that they are not manifesting racism?"

Are people supposed to defend themselves though the prosecution has not shown any evidence that they have committed a crime?

Why make sense when we can make controversy, eh?
Exactly. It came of as yet another one in an endless series of Ann's stunts designed solely to generate blogospheric buzz. Transparent and lame.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nautirony View Post
As the anti-drug TV spots say:

This is a law school professor's brain.

This is a law school professor's brain after listening to Rush (and admiring his tactics after a few years).
Back to back bulls-eyes.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-02-2009, 11:26 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Fact-checking Eve

This is demonstrably not true. For example:

TPM, February 19, 2009:

Quote:
The new AP/GfK poll shows that the public is optimistic that the stimulus plan will work, and they approve the performance of Democrats on the economy -- and disapprove of the Republicans.

The poll was conducted from February 12-17, during the final days of the compromise process for the stimulus bill. So we now have a look at public opinion during the period when it became clear that the bill was going to pass:

• 52% of Americans approve of the stimulus bill, with 41% disapproving. And the public is confident by a 54%-45% margin that the plan will result in significant improvement.
CNN, February 20, 2009:

Quote:
The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey, released Friday, also suggests that six in 10 support the economic stimulus package that Obama signed into law Tuesday.
WaPo, February 24, 2009:

Quote:
Large majorities of Americans in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll support his $787 billion economic stimulus package and the recently unveiled $75 billion plan to stem mortgage foreclosures. Nearly seven in 10 poll respondents said Obama is delivering on his pledge to bring needed change to Washington, and about eight in 10 said he is meeting or exceeding their expectations.
Gallup, February 25, 2009:

Quote:
Also, more Americans say the economic stimulus package supported by Obama contains either the right amount of government spending or too little spending, rather than too much: 54% to 41%.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-02-2009, 11:53 AM
ImmRefDotCom ImmRefDotCom is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 35
Default Head size differential considered annoying

It's like looking at someone with one eye larger than the other. It's just not natural. Equalize the head sizes please.

While I didn't listen to it, the stimulus bill might have support in the polls, but that only reflects what people know about the bill. If they knew everything in it - and were aware of its long-term effects - they would probably have a different opinion.

P.S. Here's more on Eve Fairbanks.

P.P.S. From Althouse's site, here's even more. From DailyKos: link. From HotAir: link.

Last edited by ImmRefDotCom; 03-02-2009 at 12:09 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-02-2009, 12:27 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Fact-checking Ann

This is highly misleading. It was not just "the other side" that tried to "crush" disliked Jindal while all Republicans not named David Brooks just "allowed that to happen." Lots of people on the right did not like Jindal's performance at all. For example:

Allahpundit on Hot Air called it a "horrible speech." American Power headlined, "Jindal Torpedoes Presidential Aspirations."

LA Times reports:

Quote:
"You can't go on TV and counter Obama with that," said radio host Laura Ingraham.

Philip Klein of the American Spectator said Jindal seemed more like a high school student delivering his valedictory speech than a prospective new GOP leader.
Ace of Spades (last year's CPAC Blogger of the Year):

Quote:
Jindal's Response...

Awful. He walked out like an earnest dork and has a weird inflection, trying to sound upbeat and sunny when it's clearly not his natural metier. It sounds false, and he looks false.

I don't care how much of a star Jindal is, America doesn't elect somewhat-off dorks as president.
Allahpundit/HotAir again, in a later post:

Quote:
“Awful” is Ace’s word but I’m in no mood to disagree. And neither are most HA commenters, judging from this mammoth thread.
Ramesh Ponnuru:

Quote:
I thought his delivery was weak. The content will play well with the party base but seems unlikely to expand it.
K-Lo:

Quote:
E-mails I'm getting are from disappointed conservatives.
Byron York:

Quote:
I just got off the phone with a very plugged-in Republican strategist who told me that Republican reaction to President Obama's speech, which the party will roll out in the next few days, will mark the beginning of a new GOP approach to opposing the president's initiatives. (No, Bobby Jindal's ineffective response was not part of that new approach -- everyone seems a little embarrassed about that.)
Charles Johnson/LGF gathers up some more reax:

Quote:
Krauthammer: ”Jindal didn’t have a chance.“

Juan Williams: ”It just came off as amateurish. Even the tempo in which he spoke seemed like sing-song, and he was telling stories that seemed very simplistic and almost childish.“

Brit Hume: ”This was not Bobby Jindal’s greatest oratorical moment.”
and adds:

Quote:
As I wrote last night, the most specific point in his speech was the slam against volcano monitoring. And that came across as ignorant to me, and pandering to the anti-science far righties.

Evidence for this opinion: signing that Discovery Institute-inspired atrocity into law, which led to the canceling of a major scientific convention in New Orleans (with possibly more boycotts to come). It’s very telling that in the whole speech he couldn’t come up with anything more specific than a slam at a scientific program. There are much more worthy targets in the stimulus package than a relatively low cost science program with the potential to save a lot of human lives in a major volcanic event.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 03-02-2009 at 12:35 PM.. Reason: longer dingalink and wordsmithing
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-02-2009, 12:34 PM
Simon Willard Simon Willard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The sylvan exurbs west of Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,328
Default The Oxymoron of District Representation

It is a great liberal cause to limit the influence of the powerful.

One manifestation of this is the decision that no state should have the advantage of hosting the nation's capital. Our good friends in Virginia and Maryland generously agreed to cede some territory for the creation of the District of Columbia. (Until Virginia reneged. Sorry about that, Maryland.)

This symbolic separation of the ruling elite from the states always gave me a warm feeling about the legitimacy of our Federal system -- that the District was home to people devoted to the Union as a whole, devoted to the work of government, international diplomacy, and the ideal of respecting the interests of all the people in our American nation -- that the District was a place to be supported and celebrated by Americans from all 50 states -- that the District was not a place for people to execise their own self-interest.

Giving DC residents representation in Congress makes DC a super state, and shatters that idealism. There's nothing anti-democratic about restricting the participation of DC residents at the Federal level. It's all about respecting the integrity of the Federal process in the 50 states.

I am stunned by Eve's claim that DC residents yearning to vote are trapped there against their will. If this is a problem, surely funding can be found to relocate them. I am also shocked that a scholar of Ann's credentials should think it "unfair" that residents of this Federal district should not participate in the election of officials at the Federal level.

Last edited by Simon Willard; 03-02-2009 at 12:49 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-02-2009, 12:47 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: DC voters ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Willard View Post
...

I am stunned by Eve's claim that DC residents yearning to vote are trapped there against their will. If this is a problem, surely funding can be found to relocate them. I am also shocked that a scholar of Ann's credentials should think it "unfair" that residents of this Federal district should not participate at the Federal level.
Jeeze, Simon. You're being more than just a little disingenuous. DC is far more just another US city than it is a Federal seat. (I've lived most of my life in or near DC and Philadelphia.) The only reason to deny that many people a vote, is because of the (likely accurate) perception that they'd be, largely, liberal. Arguing that that's a bad thing is worse than merely disingenuous.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-02-2009, 12:57 PM
Simon Willard Simon Willard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The sylvan exurbs west of Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,328
Default Re: DC voters ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
DC is far more just another US city than it is a Federal seat. The only reason to deny that many people a vote, is because of the (likely accurate) perception that they'd be, largely, liberal.
I disagree. To be a Federal seat is the raison d'etre.

I have no concern whether Washingtonians are liberals or ditto-heads. If they live there, it is by choice, and they must respect the special status of the District.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-02-2009, 01:00 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: DC voters ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Willard View Post
I disagree. To be a Federal seat is the raison d'etre.

I have no concern whether Washingtonians are liberals or ditto-heads. If they live there, it is by choice, and they must respect the special status of the District.
If they live there, it may be because they were born there. They may not want to leave their homes in order to participate in the democratic process of the country of their birth. The vast majority have no direct link to the Federal Government.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-02-2009, 01:14 PM
Simon Willard Simon Willard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The sylvan exurbs west of Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,328
Default Re: DC voters ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
If they live there, it may be because they were born there. They may not want to leave their homes in order to participate in the democratic process of the country of their birth. The vast majority have no direct link to the Federal Government.
Oh, come on. This is silly stuff -- you can't vote as a child. At 18 you become an adult, you leave your parents' house, and you gain the right to vote -- outside the District.

But you're missing the main point. To live in DC is to be linked to the Federal Government. Americans across the continent see DC as a special place. If you DC residents don't understand that, someone has failed you in your early education.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-02-2009, 01:17 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: DC voters ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Willard View Post
Oh, come on. This is silly stuff -- you can't vote as a child. At 18 you become an adult, you leave your parents' house, and you gain the right to vote -- outside the District.

But you're missing the main point. To live in DC is to be linked to the Federal Government. Americans across the continent see DC as a special place. If you DC residents don't understand that, someone has failed you in your early education.
Simon, we disagree about what's silly. You making a specious argument that denies an important right to a large number of people.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-02-2009, 01:43 PM
Simon Willard Simon Willard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The sylvan exurbs west of Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,328
Default Re: DC voters ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
Simon, we disagree about what's silly. You making a specious argument that denies an important right to a large number of people.
You may call my concerns "symbolic", but not "specious". Like the flag and the constitution, DC is one of those concepts that binds us together as one nation. The District is enormously revered in the American mind. When that ceases to be true (and there is always a lot of discomfort in the heartland about the power of "Washington"), it will be to the detriment of the Union and those who favor a strong central government.

By the way, what's next? Why don't you want two Senators? Why don't you want a DC governor and state house? How about a star on the flag? Don't forget the state quarter!
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-02-2009, 02:01 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: DC voters ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Willard View Post
You may call my concerns "symbolic", but not "specious". Like the flag and the constitution, DC is one of those concepts that binds us together as one nation. The District is enormously revered in the American mind. When that ceases to be true (and there is always a lot of discomfort in the heartland about the power of "Washington"), it will be to the detriment of the Union and those who favor a strong central government.

By the way, what's next? Why don't you want two Senators? Why don't you want a DC governor and state house? How about a star on the flag? Don't forget the state quarter!
Certainly "symbolic," I'll give you that. But arguments such as
Quote:
Americans across the continent see DC as a special place.
(how is this relevant to the voting rights of US citizens?)

or
Quote:
The District is enormously revered in the American mind.
(people certainly do revere the Capital, as such, meaning the federal buildings, the monuments, etc..., but those are a small part of the city, and arguing that the specific status of the city-at-large would have an effect on that reverence is un-evidenced, at best. And, see above.)

or
Quote:
If you DC residents don't understand that, someone has failed you in your early education.
(You're treating an argument as a premise, here.)

certainly seem specious to me.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-02-2009, 02:21 PM
Simon Willard Simon Willard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The sylvan exurbs west of Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,328
Default Re: DC voters ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
and arguing that the specific status of the city-at-large would have an effect on that reverence is un-evidenced, at best.
OK -- on this one point -- I'll admit to you that I'm stretching the argument.

Also, I have just learned that there is a DC quarter in the works.

However, you conveniently fail to answer my "slippery slope" question -- how about Senators?

Let's also note that DC is not unique in it's restriction from participation in Federal elections. There are a number of little islands... And 4 Million Puerto Ricans.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-02-2009, 02:30 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: DC voters ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Willard View Post
OK -- on this one point -- I'll admit to you that I'm stretching the argument.

Also, I have just learned that there is a DC quarter in the works.

However, you conveniently fail to answer my "slippery slope" question -- how about Senators?

Let's also note that DC is not unique in it's restriction from participation in Federal elections. There are a number of little islands... And 4 Million Puerto Ricans.
I don't know about Senators - I don't think that going the full monte here is necessarily the fairest solution. I'd be happy be to absorb the district back into Maryland.

I'm also 100% for Puerto Rican statehood - they've been taken into the Union - they should have the full array of rights granted to most other citizens. You can extend that argument to all of the little islands and whatnot - tie them together in one geographically dis-contiguous political unit, absorb some into Hawaii or another convenient sink, whatever ad-hoc solution creates the fewest issues would be fine to me. In for a penny...
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-02-2009, 02:47 PM
tigerinexile tigerinexile is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1
Default Re: DC voters ?

Re Puerto Rican statehood -- Congress tried to give it to them.

But they keep on voting it down:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_...us_referendums

Who knows, maybe next time people will finally vote in favor...
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-02-2009, 02:58 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: DC voters ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tigerinexile View Post
Re Puerto Rican statehood -- Congress tried to give it to them.

But they keep on voting it down:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_...us_referendums

Who knows, maybe next time people will finally vote in favor...
You're right. I was asserting what I think is fair - if they, collectively, don't want it, then, that's another issue.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-02-2009, 02:37 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: DC voters ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Willard View Post
However, you conveniently fail to answer my "slippery slope" question -- how about Senators?
Is this like opposing same-sex marriage and using the suggestion that if legalized, it will lead to bestiality?

Slippery-slope arguments are unconvincing.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-02-2009, 04:45 PM
Simon Willard Simon Willard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The sylvan exurbs west of Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,328
Default Re: DC voters ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
Is this like opposing same-sex marriage and using the suggestion that if legalized, it will lead to bestiality?

Slippery-slope arguments are unconvincing.
Yeah,actually I was thinking DC voting would lead to bestialty. ;-)

Actually, I agree that slippery-slope arguments are unconvincing. But I'm trying to make a serious point: If it's unfair that DC residents can't vote, why isn't it unfair that they have no Senate representation? Where does the "fairness" come from?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-02-2009, 04:47 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: DC voters ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Willard View Post
If it's unfair that DC residents can't vote, why isn't it unfair that they have no Senate representation? Where does the "fairness" come from?
Good question! They are a district, aren't they? Also, regarding congressional representation - unlike residents of Guam, et al, they pay federal taxes in DC.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!

Last edited by AemJeff; 03-02-2009 at 04:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-02-2009, 05:04 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: DC voters ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Willard View Post
Yeah,actually I was thinking DC voting would lead to bestialty. ;-)
Well, you know how that town is just filled with people who say that all those other people love pork.

Coincidence????

But seriously ...

Quote:
Actually, I agree that slippery-slope arguments are unconvincing. But I'm trying to make a serious point: If it's unfair that DC residents can't vote, why isn't it unfair that they have no Senate representation? Where does the "fairness" come from?
Points taken. I would say that the "fairness" comes from "no taxation without representation." I would also say that we are not talking a binary choice here, that either DC stays the way it is or else it has to get everything the several states have, immediately. I don't see why DC having a voice (in the House) isn't a good first step, and why we can't deal with that now, and address the next steps next.

[Aside] To drift to your argument above, I do want to mention that it's my view that there are lots of people who live there who really don't have a realistic choice of leaving. I'm talking both the poor and those who have to be there if they want to be involved with the government, the media outlets that are based there, the lobbying groups, etc. These latter are all conducting the people's business, and we should thank them for that (the obvious crooks aside, of course), not tell them, "Hey, you don't like it? Move!" [/Aside]

There's a second element of fairness here, too. As I understand it, to make this thing happen, the deal includes another seat for Utah, to offset the almost certain additional Democratic vote the DC seat would represent. Apart from Nate Silver, I can't see why anyone would have a problem with this, from the point of view of fairness.

That said, I am not unsympathetic to the argument that this may not be Constitutional. It's clearly another case of justice and fairness being non-synonymous, but I do think there's merit to the preference for doing it by the letter of the law. (Which is easy to be lofty about, since I don't live there, I grant.) So, legally, I won't (and can't, by lack of training) argue for DC getting representation, but in every other sense, I think it's decades overdue.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 03-02-2009 at 05:08 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-02-2009, 05:17 PM
Simon Willard Simon Willard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The sylvan exurbs west of Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,328
Default Re: DC voters ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
[Aside] To drift to your argument above, I do want to mention that it's my view that there are lots of people who live there who really don't have a realistic choice of leaving. I'm talking both the poor and those who have to be there if they want to be involved with the government, the media outlets that are based there, the lobbying groups, etc. These latter are all conducting the people's business, and we should thank them for that (the obvious crooks aside, of course), not tell them, "Hey, you don't like it? Move!" [/Aside]

There's a second element of fairness here, too. As I understand it, to make this thing happen, the deal includes another seat for Utah, to offset the almost certain additional Democratic vote the DC seat would represent. Apart from Nate Silver, I can't see why anyone would have a problem with this, from the point of view of fairness.
Sorry, but I think you're inverting the logic. It's precisely because they are conducting the people's business that they are excluded from the vote.

As for the Utah thing - that's a canard. I don't want Utah to have any more representation than they are entitled to under the Constitution based on population.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-02-2009, 05:20 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: DC voters ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Willard View Post
Sorry, but I think you're inverting the logic. It's precisely because they are conducting the people's business that they are excluded from the vote.

As for the Utah thing - that's a canard. I don't want Utah to have any more representation than they are entitled to under the Constitution based on population.
Okay. Guess we'll just have to disagree.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-02-2009, 06:10 PM
cragger cragger is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 632
Default Re: DC voters ?

You asked above where does unfairness come from if DC residents are not allowed to vote. Surely it comes from the very idea of democracy - one person one vote, each with an equal voice in determining how we are governed.. There is nothing in this concept that is dependant on where one might live. No?

Your suggestion that because some people in DC are doing the nation's business they (all) should be excluded from the vote is proposing a political theory distinct from traditional concepts of democracy that is quite unique to my knowledge. Senators, reps, presidents, mayors, governors, they all get the vote now. Does this prohibition only apply to "little people"? Or should elected officials and everyone else who works for the government "doing the people's business" be also excluded? The police, public works employees, the military?
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 03-02-2009, 10:18 PM
Simon Willard Simon Willard is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The sylvan exurbs west of Boston Massachusetts.
Posts: 1,328
Default Re: DC voters ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cragger View Post
You asked above where does unfairness come from if DC residents are not allowed to vote. Surely it comes from the very idea of democracy - one person one vote, each with an equal voice in determining how we are governed.. There is nothing in this concept that is dependant on where one might live. No?

Your suggestion that because some people in DC are doing the nation's business they (all) should be excluded from the vote is proposing a political theory distinct from traditional concepts of democracy that is quite unique to my knowledge. Senators, reps, presidents, mayors, governors, they all get the vote now. Does this prohibition only apply to "little people"? Or should elected officials and everyone else who works for the government "doing the people's business" be also excluded? The police, public works employees, the military?
First, I don't know why you bring up the subject of pure democracy, because I'm sure you agree the idea that each person has an equal voice in government is quite far from the US system, right? Geography is built-in. How many people vote for those two Wyoming Senators?

As for your main point, I am not advocating excluding the little people, but I am advocating excluding the District of Columbia. In our representative democracy, decisions at the Federal level are not made by the little people; they are made by representatives of states and congressional districts. To have a representative of the Federal district itself goes against the very purpose of having a Federal district. In that case, we should just give up on the whole idea and make New York our capital city. It's the great population center, and this would bring the power of the Federal government closer to the influence of that population.

When my local NPR radio station has a contest, they always say "employees of this station are not eligible". Think about it. Why would they make a such a show of treating their employees so unfairly?
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-03-2009, 12:04 AM
cragger cragger is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 632
Default Re: DC voters ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Willard View Post
First, I don't know why you bring up the subject of pure democracy, because I'm sure you agree the idea that each person has an equal voice in government is quite far from the US system, right? Geography is built-in. How many people vote for those two Wyoming Senators?

As for your main point, I am not advocating excluding the little people, but I am advocating excluding the District of Columbia. In our representative democracy, decisions at the Federal level are not made by the little people; they are made by representatives of states and congressional districts. To have a representative of the Federal district itself goes against the very purpose of having a Federal district. In that case, we should just give up on the whole idea and make New York our capital city. It's the great population center, and this would bring the power of the Federal government closer to the influence of that population.

When my local NPR radio station has a contest, they always say "employees of this station are not eligible". Think about it. Why would they make a such a show of treating their employees so unfairly?
I bring up the subject of democracy since that is after all the theory upon which our government is founded. The screwball electoral college system we have, and the non-proportional senatorial representation is just the result of a power play by the smaller colonies at the time of the formation of the US. You are pointing out a flaw in our electoral system and using that as a justification for another flaw. I must admit I'm mystified as to what principle you think that represents that we should follow.

Equally so with your insistance that that the fact of living in the capital should disqualify one from an equal share in determining the course of government, and why you apparantly think that is uniquely so at the federal level. Should that hold as well at the state level, the citizens of Atlanta having no vote in Georgian elections? The folks who live in county seats? Whats the difference?

It seems you shift between arguing that those who "do the nation's business" should not have a vote, to saying that whether one should be able to vote and how much voice one should have should depend on exactly where one lives to claiming that those who live in the national capital should be disqualified "just because".

Other democratic nations get along fine by observing democratic principles and not denying the citizens of their capitals the right to vote. What special principle, what special "purpose of having a Federal district" is served by denying those citizens the vote, and how and why is that principle more important than the fundamental democratic principle of one person one vote?

And per your last point, are you really basing your ideas of how to run a democracy on radio station contests? Thats a short road to the "crank" list.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-03-2009, 06:14 PM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: DC voters ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cragger View Post
I bring up the subject of democracy since that is after all the theory upon which our government is founded. The screwball electoral college system we have, and the non-proportional senatorial representation is just the result of a power play by the smaller colonies at the time of the formation of the US. You are pointing out a flaw in our electoral system and using that as a justification for another flaw. I must admit I'm mystified as to what principle you think that represents that we should follow.
we have a republic, not a democracy. the "flaw" you see is a design feature. the people that founded this country were rather terrified of what "mob rule" would look like, so they put a lot of barriers in the way. Originally, Senators were elected by state legislators, not by "the people". you should read some of the debates that were happening at the time to get some perspective on this.

as for D.C. - Simon Willard expressed most of my views. Proximity is important. the closer you are to decision makers, the more likely it is that you will be heard - its not that hard to figure this out, really. That is why D.C. is the way it is. no state gets the obvious power advantage that comes from having the capitol in your state. giving them federal representation is simply a terrible idea - and that whole utah idea sounds like the poster child for why "bipartisanship" can often be the worst option - two bad ideas instead of even one good one.

but, I would be all for the residents of D.C. not paying federal taxes. that seems like the fairest option since they don't get representation ( and shouldn't).
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-03-2009, 06:28 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: DC voters ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by popcorn_karate View Post
Proximity is important. the closer you are to decision makers, the more likely it is that you will be heard - its not that hard to figure this out, really.
Don't kid yourself, pk. There are hundreds of thousands of people living on anonymous streets in the NE, say that are about as far away from the decision makers as you can get, physical proximity notwithstanding. This is the problem with denying the vote to residents based on that principle. The vast majority of the people affected have nothing to do with the argument and are far more vulnerable to the harm inflicted, and much less able to do something about it.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-03-2009, 07:37 PM
cragger cragger is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 632
Default Re: DC voters ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by popcorn_karate View Post
we have a republic, not a democracy. the "flaw" you see is a design feature. the people that founded this country were rather terrified of what "mob rule" would look like, so they put a lot of barriers in the way. Originally, Senators were elected by state legislators, not by "the people". you should read some of the debates that were happening at the time to get some perspective on this.

as for D.C. - Simon Willard expressed most of my views. Proximity is important. the closer you are to decision makers, the more likely it is that you will be heard - its not that hard to figure this out, really. That is why D.C. is the way it is. no state gets the obvious power advantage that comes from having the capitol in your state. giving them federal representation is simply a terrible idea - and that whole utah idea sounds like the poster child for why "bipartisanship" can often be the worst option - two bad ideas instead of even one good one.
PK -

I was and am saying that disproportional representation is a flaw. And that despite the elitist views you note regarding the original method of selecting Senators, we have somewhat more nearly approached the democratic ideal by changing things so that they are now selected by the citizens. There were a lot of things in our political history that we shouldn't be proud of and have changed to more closely approach ideals. We don't keep slaves anymore, women can vote, people without wealth and land ownership can vote, the changes are significant and for the beter. I am saying that perpetuation of the flaws of the present is not justified simply by citing some flaws of the past.

There are after all principles of political philosophy that underlie democracy. Some are articulated in the founding documents which assert the equality of all men, not dependant on point of residence. Again I ask, what overriding principle and what overriding good governs the denial of participatory rights to a subset of citizens?

Your claim that the common citizens of DC would somehow have outsized influence on the government if enfranchised begs for some backup. The folks who run and work in the hotels and restaurants of DC, maintain and clean the federal buildings would have more influence than Texas oil tycoons, Detroit auto executives, New York bank presidents? Just because of their proximity? Do you have any evidence to back up this rather surprising assertion? Or as to why this alleged problem is unique to the federal level? Is there significant evidence that citizens of Albany dominate New York politics, or those of Lansing dominate Michigan?

Given that the disenfranchisement of the citizens of the capital city is unique to the US federal government among the various democratic bodies politic, US states and other nations alike, and that no principle of political philosophy can be articulated to justify this, there is a pretty heavy burden of evidence that must be borne by those who maintain that some special harm would come their participation in their own governance, beyond the obvious gripe by some that they might not vote in a preferred fashion. The simple assertion that "giving them representation is a terrible idea" is no more persuasive than asserting that "giving Texans representation is a terrible idea".
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-04-2009, 06:04 PM
Tara Davis Tara Davis is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 193
Default Re: DC voters ?

Everyone, I think I have the perfect compromise:

Shrink the district.

Keep the federal campus, including Capitol Hill, the White House, the embassies, and the housing for legislators... all that stays exactly where it is.

Take the massive acres of residential and commercial blocks in DC, and make them go back to being part of Maryland. Just call it "the city of Columbia, MD" or something along those lines.

This way, current life-long DC residents will have full representation as members of one of the 50 states, and our federal government will continue to exist as a separate entity.

Done.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-05-2009, 07:47 AM
willmybasilgrow willmybasilgrow is offline
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 142
Default Re: DC voters ?

I suppose you don't live in the District? Maryland does not want us, and we do not want them. There already is a Columbia, Maryland.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-05-2009, 04:55 PM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: DC voters ?

Sounds great to me.

nice work, Tara.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-02-2009, 12:52 PM
rcocean rcocean is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,077
Default Re: Ann Plays the Race Card

The racism shown by liberals toward Jindal was disgusting. Chris Matthews (famed for his sexist and racist comments) stated " The Republicans had outsourced" their response. This was after contemptuously snorting "Oh, God" when Jindal came out. How many liberals denounced Matthews? Almost none.

Like most liberal men, Matthews can't tolerate independent men of color - or women. To liberals, people of color need to know their place - and stay on the liberal plantation.

Funny how all the liberal sensitivity toward "racism" and "sexism" disappears when conservatives are involved.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-02-2009, 12:57 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Ann Plays the Race Card

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcocean View Post
The racism shown by liberals toward Jindal was disgusting. Chris Matthews (famed for his sexist and racist comments) stated " The Republicans had outsourced" their response. This was after contemptuously snorting "Oh, God" when Jindal came out. How many liberals denounced Matthews? Almost none.

Like most liberal men, Matthews can't tolerate independent men of color - or women. To liberals, people of color need to know their place - and stay on the liberal plantation.

Funny how all the liberal sensitivity toward "racism" and "sexism" disappears when conservatives are involved.
rc shows up once again in a hit&run during an Althouse dvlog, to repeat some partisan slander, and generally show us the overall quality of the Althouse commentariat.

Say "Hi" to Trooper York/Sgt Shulz for us, 'kay?
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.