Audio: Race-mongering Rep. Diane Watson channels Ray Nagin
Tipster JP passes along audio from a Black History Town Hall meeting last night held by Congressional Black Caucus leaders at Howard University in Washington, D.C.
California Democrat Rep. Diane Watson, in discussing D.C. representation, channeled New Orleans Mayor Ray “Chocolate City” Nagin. Partial transcript:
Did you know your representatives can not vote? They can only vote in the committee as a whole. So what you’re going to have to do is declare the District [of Columbia] something like a state so they can have a proportional representation who vote. But that would give this district two senators and there are a lot of people on that floor who don’t want to see that occur because if there’s a chocolate city, this is it.
Here’s the audio:
In other words: The White Men and Women in the US Senate are blocking proportional representation for D.C. to keep black–”chocolate”–people out.
She really believes this poison. And she sat there at Howard University spreading it to black college students.
Commenter greenfairie: “D.C. has been called Chocolate City for years because of its large black population. But the usual agitators use race as the reason why D.C. doesn’t have statehood.” Yep.
I remind you that Rep. Watson is the same racial demagogue who attacked Ward Connerly for marrying outside his race:
“He’s married to a white woman. He wants to be white. He wants a colorless society. He has no ethnic pride. He doesn’t want to be black. I said that.”
Watson is supporting Hillary Clinton, but I have a feeling she’d get along swimmingly with Michelle Obama.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Neocon News » Evil mystery persons (probably Republican) don’t want to see black people in the Senate
- The City Square
- Race-baiting moonbat Congresswoman pulls a Ray Nagin « Crush Liberalism
D.C. has been called Chocolate City for years because of its large black population. But the usual agitators use race as the reason why D.C. doesn’t have statehood.
“He’s married to a white woman. He wants to be white. He wants a colorless society”
And here I thought a “colorless society” was MLKs’ dream.
I called Michelle Obama a ‘black elitist’ and this woman is no different. To spew this stuff out to kids (especially black kids) is the reason things do not move forward. Racism belongs to the Democratic Party and the majority of its black constituents. They just can’t seem to grasp the fact that we have the best country in the world. They would rather spend their time tearing down in the name of diversity. SCREW THAT!@!!!
Yep.
First of all, Washington’s nickname is in fact Chocolate City. The name came from the funk band Parliament. Come on, Mrs. Malkin, you live in the Metro area. You should know that.
Furthermore, she’s absolutely right. If Washington, DC were 65% white instead of 65% black, we would absolutely have full voting rights. Republicans have traditionally blocked DC voting rights because they know that the extra representative and senators would never be Republicans. The party that claimed to love democracy when they voted to invade Iraq has repeatedly spit in the face of my fellow DC residents who want some say in what taxes we pay and what wars we’re sent to. The GOP should be ashamed of itself.
The best solution is probably to have DC (except for federal property) absorbed into Maryland. Maryland is already deep blue so it wouldn’t mess with the politics too much.
My apologies for the Parliament thing. I didn’t see the picture you attached to the link.
Weeeeee got the funk. Gotta have the funk!
Does everything in life have to be one big conspiracy? Black people have made leaps and bounds compared to many years ago, but you wouldn’t know it listening to Rep Watson… A woman who undeniably has had many successes in her life. How about a pep talk about how wonderful it is to see so many black people in college pursuing a higher education. Instead they get spoon fed this tripe about how still the white man is trying to keep us down. That the struggle continues. Unbelievable.
Oh and I didn’t realize that I married my white husband because I wanted to be white. Here I was thinking that it was because of the love we have for one another. Thank you for opening my eyes Diane.
Friggin’ idiot. She says “He wants a colorless society” as if there is something terribly wrong with the notion.
I think a perfect reason for NOT allowing DC representation is the fact that they reelected Marian Berry - first to city council, then again to Mayor.
If that’s not evidence of either uninformed or uncaring voting - I don’t know what is.
And he got reelected back to City Council (Ward
after the police found powder cocaine in his car!
But with all due respect, since when does the quality of who we vote for matter? Democracy isn’t judged by the quality of the candidates we elect. Democracy is about having our fundamental civil right to elect whoever the Hell we want. Plenty of corrupt morons have been elected (and reelected) to city, state, and national positions throughout different parts of the country
(I also despise Marion Barry, but unless you live here, it’s impossible to appreciate the work he’s done for the poorest parts of the city. Heck, he even took a bullet from a Muslim terrorist group. That’s got to earn some credit around these parts.)
Waaa Waaa Waaa, poor us. Look at how we’ve been held down and oppressed. We can’t get ahead in life. It’s all whities fault.
/sarc - but I’m sure that’s really what’s running through her head.
Ummm…. when you seperate yourself out as a group, and ask for special treatment, how can you complain when people treat you differently?
As to the idea of DC not being a state because its Black? HUH??? You do know its not been a state since the US was founded??? That its written into the Constitution, for VERY good reason, as to why its not a state?
I despair at the lack of historical knowledge sometimes exhibited by posters…
Ward sunglasses is supposed to be “Ward 8″
The problem with that, Rusty - other than being just a baseless opinion - is it wouldn’t explain why DC wasn’t granted Senators during the long years when non-black folks were the majority. (Unless you want to claim racial discrimination against white folks, of course.)
DC has always been a special administrative district, those wanting to live in a state have a number of states/commonwealths very nearby to which to move.
She also is Vice Chairman of the Congressionl Progressive Caucus the socialist arm of Congress that is associated with the International Socialist Organization, 25 of the 43 members of the Cngressional Black Caucus are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, her racial rehtoric does’nt suprise me for these facts alone. It is nothing more than Indoctrination and an attempt to pit the races against one another. More race baiting what a suprise.
Of course she’s supporting Hillary. OBama is mixed.
I mean, not being able to have federal representation is kind of the definition of “oppressed.”
Of course. But that time has long since past. And the GOP and states with Republican legislatures continue to block an amendment that would give 550,000 American citizens the fundamental right to representation.
There is no acceptable reason that anyone has ever presented to me why I shouldn’t be able to have a say in the formation of our laws. It’s a right many (and I assume almost everyone writing here) takes for granted. Tell me why I shouldn’t have a say.
That’s the second best solution. The best solution is to teach the residents how to read the Constitution. Then those who have a deep and abiding desire to vote in congressional and senatorial elections can move to Virginia or Maryland.
Please. This is the worst of the worst.
1. Moving is difficult and expensive. Many people here are extremely poor and don’t have the option of leaving.
2. It assumes that the right to vote is something that should be earned instead of an inherent right.
3. So, in order to get voting rights, all 550,00 of us should pack up and move to Bethesda? That strikes you as a reasonable solution.
As for the adminsitrative zone argument…that was thrown out the window the second we achieved home rule. This is, save for a few buildings and bases, our land now.
The Constitution is wrong. It’s happened before. But the Republicans on the state and federal level refuse to fix the problem. Because they know the new member(s) will be Dems. Which proves to me beyong a shadow of a doubt that those people don’t give a damn about democracy or fundamental human rights.
I know I’m leaving a lot of comments, but I absolutely won’t stop. I’ve gone seven years without a vote in Congress and I don’t think any of you can appreciate how awful and ridiculous that is.
My job is here and I don’t have a car, so moving to Alexandria or Rockville is not a feasible option. I guess I didn’t know that there was an assets test for representation.
Dude, where did you earn your law degree?
Holy carp, Rusty!!
The whole basis of our county, the backbone, the reason we exist is wrong. By its very definition, the constitution can’t be wrong. Think and then type.
And, if not having representation is oppresion, then I must be oppressed, too, as by the time my primary comes around (March 4th) all I’m left with is a RINO to vote for. Yipee - I can now claim oppression!! Look at me, I’m a victim, it’s all someone else’s fault.
“DC has always been a special administrative district, those wanting to live in a state have a number of states/commonwealths very nearby to which to move.”
Nope, Rusty, just those who complain about how terrible their existence is - if it’s so bad, they have options. Or they can continue to claim helpless victim status, if they choose that route. (BTW, Bethesda isn’t the only option.)
But you failed to address my point that a non-black majority in DC was never given Senators, statehood, whatever. According to your argument that could only be due to racism against white folks.
Yeah - and Tookie Wilson wrote children’s books - but that didn’t get him much love in the end, now did it?
Just how the Dems know that most hispanic minority illegal aliens will vote Democratic - so they want them here - which proves to ME that those people don’t give a damn about US Citizen rights or our country’s sovereignty.
Ain’t they all a bunch of sweet petunias?
Which is why it’s been amended 26 times. Including the 23rd Amendment giving DC presidential voting rights.
The Constitution was wrong not to outlaw slavery. And it was wrong not to apply to people of color and women. To say that the Constitution can’t be wrong is to say that its writers were infalliable. Which is nonsense.
Ach! 27 amendments, not 26.
I do believe there are a great many people who work in DC and live elsewhere and utilize the public transporation system - like the trains.
They do it in New York & Chicago too.
California Democrap Rep. Diane Watson, another hyphenated American who’s purpose is divide us as a country.
No statehood for DC.
I believe the Federal Government should be housed in a state free geographical location because of encumbrances the State of Washington D.C. might impose. But how about making if a city free zone as well. No permanent residence and perhaps limited commercial facilities, such as illegal immigrant camp grounds. The D.C. gangs could be relocated to other criminal tolerant cities such as Houston, L.A., and S.F. Current buildings would be replaced by things of national interest, or not. We would all be better of and D.C. would be a source of pride and not corruption and murder. The chocolate Subculture is deadly and for sure not worthy to be a City State.
In the many decades of having lived in DC,I have repeatedly heard this garbage. Watson’s motives have absolutely nothing to do with improving the lot of black folks. Rather, it is her and other race-hustling poverty pimps’ thirst for immense power. Where black socialists reign, blacks suffer under Third World-style government.
Ok. Fine. I actually lived in Bethesda for two months in between houses. I hated it there.
My right to vote should be absolute. It shouldn’t depend on where it’s most convenient for me to live. If you’re suggesting that I should sacrifice my quality of life to vote, you are sorely mistaken.
Can anyone think of another democracy where the people who live in the capital aren’t given representation.
I would have more voting rights living in Venezuela or Pakistan than I do in DC. And that’s not a problem? That’s not a national embarrassment?
Rusty, the constitution still isn’t wrong. When you look at the historical context, they did what they thought was right at the time. You’re using what my mother always called 20/20 hindsight. Yes, the constitution has had to be revised and fine-tuned, but that doesn’t mean it was inherantly wrong. I’m not saying the writers were infallible, because they weren’t. No one is. But I stand by my reasoning that the constitution can’t be wrong. Because it’s what our whole society is based on - we were created out of it, it is our founding document.
Okay, I view it like this. I don’t agree with a certain law, I think the law should be changed. But the law isn’t wrong, it technically can’t be. Because it’s the law. However, if down the road, we realize it’s not working or it’s stupid (like prohibition) then we change the law. But while it’s the law, it’s not wrong.
Also, let’s remember that many people do not have the same opportunities to move that I do. Don’t underestimate the extreme poverty east of the Anacostia River.
Rusty - what you’re missing here is the fact of self-determination.
YOU choose to live in a district which has not had these voting rights since the inception of our Country.
YOU choose to sit there and gripe about it instead of doing something.
Here’s a thought - if YOU and most everyone else who could - would move OUT of DC - they may be forced to change the rules just to get people back into the district for tax purposes….
So you hated it Bethesda - move somewhere else! Buy a car! Do something, just quit your griping and liberal babble of “I’m being suppressed!”
Sure, Republicans are to blame for DC not haveing voting rights. The Dems NEVER had a chance to fix it?
Study your history Rusty. I know you are only 25yo, so I can provide you with some good material to start with HERE and HERE
If the truth be known, and if the truth is something you would be interested in, Democrats have kept blacks from voting for decades making it almost impossible right up to the 70’s. But who cares about facts - right.
Where is my pitchfork - I see a straw man.
There, I fixed it for ya.
Bill Of Rights
Article. II.
Section 1.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representatives from each State having one Vote; a quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Constitution
AMENDMENT XII
Passed by Congress December 9, 1803. Ratified June 15, 1804.
Note: A portion of Article II, section 1 of the Constitution was superseded by the 12th amendment.
The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; — the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; — The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. –]* The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
*Superseded by section 3 of the 20th amendment.
AMENDMENT XXIII
Passed by Congress June 16, 1960. Ratified March 29, 1961.
Section 1.
The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as Congress may direct:
A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.
Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
amigoneus, semantically I agree with you. But there’ no doubt that parts of the Constitution have been (for a democracy anyways) mind-blowingly unjust. And there are people, almost exclusively Republicans, who don’t want to fix something horribly unjust because of political considerations.
Which is totally counter-intuitive to how a free society is supposed to work. Mrs. Malkin often makes the barb “Don’t question their patriotism.” Well, how can you do anything but question the patriotism who don’t want 550,000 citizens to be equal.
The Constitution is wrong because it gets amended?
1+1=2 is wrong because of trigonometry!
Straw man!
Sorry Michelle, that was much longer than I thought, probably could have gotten away with 23rd amendment.
And these Southern Democrats are now what people like to call “Republicans.” You know as well as I that party affiliation switched in the 20th Century. Liberals were Republicans until the latter half of the 20th Century.
The right to vote is not dependent on those external factors. It’s a civil right, not a civil liberty. Meaning that it’s something that we inherently, as human beings, are owed.
And that doesn’t change if I move to Rockville.
I live in a cheap house by two Metro stops and 4 bus lines in a crime free neighborhood. I am trying to make a good life for myself while still being around friends. I should sacrifice that to vote? No one else has to make that sacrifice. Just me?
And the poorest of the poor can’t just up and move. Are they just SOL? You’re honestly advocating an assets test to vote. Which is horrible and unpatriotic and wrong.
The problem is that not all people see the same things as unjust, Rusty. So whose unjustices are correct and whose are incorrect? For example, some people think it would be unjust to get rid of so-called social programs like welfare, chips, and social security. I think it’s unjust that they’re taking my money against my will to give to people who do things I don’t agree with. So who’s right and who’s wrong? It all depends on perspective.
Also, you seem like you’re a smarter guy than to make comments such as
You and I both know that blame falls on both sides of the aisle. You find me a politician who doesn’t do things for political considerations and I’ll, well, you’re never going to find one
Yes. Was it not wrong in 1919 that women didn’t have the right to vote? Of course. So it got amended. Just like it’s wrong that I can’t vote. But Republicans won’t let that change happen.
Good one Michelle, how true, how true. Just what this country needs, a racist as the 1st Lady(loosely used term).
The multicultural elite are the first ones to use excuses based in racism to further their agenda. This is because the press gives them a free pass on making such statements. Can’t have statehood, racism, can’t win primaries, racism. Can’t beat the right on the issues, racism, racism, racism.
So I guess this is a matter of taxation without representation. Correct? Well, what about representation without taxation (i.e. people on well-fare shouldn’t have the right to vote if they are not contributing to society)? You never really hear Big Al and “Reverend” Jessie beating that drum. Things run both ways, and if you are worried about taxation without representation then you should be equally concerned about the leaches that are voting themselves handouts from the public coffers.
Fair enough. Who knows what Democrats would do if DC were 90% Republican instead of 90% Democrat. But the facts as they stand are that Republicans are preventing people from achieving voting equality. That’s never acceptable.
Not having federal representation is unambiguously wrong. That it’s happening to a city that’s filled with people who have been historically oppressed is just icing on the cake.
Couldn’t agree with you more, RR.
Rusty, Rusty, Rusty….
The basic uproar here is not that DC residents shouldn’t have the right to vote…..
It’s that advocates for that cause that use racist verbage will never get you anywhere in this fight. It will always emote negative reactions from the majority of Americans.
As to your “Republicans will never let that happen” - you missed an earlier poster’s reference to missed opportunities.
There have been many opportunities for a Democratically-held congress in conjunction with a Democrat President - and yet you still have the status quo.
Were you griping out loud back then?
If I was alive I would have been. And that was before the radical political realignment. This was when the unconsciousably evil Strom Thurmond was a Democratic Senator and George Wallace was a Democratic governor. Apples and oranges.
Bingo!
It is just easier to cry foul on the Repub’s.
Nice try Rusty. The idea that the democrats of yesteryear are the Repubs of today is just one more straw man you have set up. Like I said, study your history and get your facts straight and come back and make your same argument.
Diane Watson is a crazy person, who when she was a CA State Senator, said much more offensive stuff than this, and did so much more often.
She was also involved in a scandal a week back in her state senate days.
Watson is not quite as bad as Barbara Lee or Maximum Maxine Waters or Cynthia McKinney or Julian Bond, but she’s close. Very close.
So much for Republicans who only want to stand in the way.
30,
…but why bring facts into the debate?
It is a sad truth that the views of Diane Watson are not uncommon at all. Those views, also embedded in Obama’s Trinity Church, by the way, actually rail against integration. They espouse a separatist ideology, clinging to the belief that no advances for people of color are possible unless they pursue separation rather than integration.
You see it time and time again, from the “diversity” training at Delaware State (white people are inherently evil racists and black people cannot be racist by virtue of a lack of power), to the mission statements of “black” churches like Trinty, to the rantings of Louis Farrahkan.
A more recent example is the diatribe by a black MIT professor published in a London newspaper, arguing that Martin Luther King was a sellout and that blacks need to resort to violance to achieve their ends. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jan/17/barackobama.uselections2008
Racism in America is alive and well, but these days it is coming from an entirely different direction.
Soap,
Momentary lapse in judgement…. It won’t happen again.
Hmmm. OK by the Constitution (aka, the rules of the game) vs. wrong by Rusty. I’ll take OK by the Constitution every time.
The rules were written long before the “city (was) filled with people who have been historically oppressed.”
I read “The Constitution was wrong not to outlaw slavery.”
Actually dimbulb, slavery was outlawed when a bunch of white men in the US Congress in 1855-1860, argued that under the Constitution, slavery was legally as well as morally wrong. Oh a hundreds of thousands of white men gave their lives so that slavery would be outlawed. Read some history or take a civics class idiot.
Ahhh, but who is behind the “oppression?”
Sounds like the story of the little boy who cried wolf. Simply because a race of people were maligned in the past doesn’t necessarily mean that every grievance today is racially motivated. And you do nothing for your argument by continuing down the path of “well it happened in the past.”
Today, the prospects for the success/failure black people rests squarely with them. Enough finger pointing and enough with this divisiveness.
To # 58,
Actually, a bunch of white men gave their lives to maintain the territorial integrity of the United States of America. Lincoln said it himself, if he could maintain the Union, even while maintaining the institution of slavery, he would do so. Not arguing your point about the moral conundrum many in Congress found themselves in (even though the majority of them still believed unequivocally that African-Americans were inherently inferior) the slavery question did resonate in their mind. We agree on that. Nevertheless, if you believe that the Civil War was launched with the primary objective to end slavery, you’re chasing a red herring.
Who remembers “Ressurection City?” I believe it got it’s name, when some Democrat Party leaders went on a tour of the tent city, and one of them exclaimed, “Jesus Christ!”
It is amazing to hear the liberal’s on this blog once again “preach” about people’s rights. Apparently, the NEA and other teacher’s unions have been doing a fine job rewriting history, and teaching that in our public schools. How convenient is it for these neo-lib children to forget that the Democrat Party was in control of congress for forty years (not to be confused with Moses in the wilderness for forty years), and during all that time, they had neither the will, foresight, or where-with-all to fix these “racial maladies” that Republican’s now get blamed.
Too easy.
Seriously, whether or not DC residents should have Federal representation is a separate issue from the race-baiting engaged in by this woman.
Personally, I love DC, and if I lived there I’d be peeved if someone tried to make it part of Maryland. Virginia, maybe…
The whole “traitor to your race” thing has been said before, by whites to whites. It’s as sickening now as it was then.
PS - Marion Berry improved DC? I thought it was all those private developers who bought up those fabulous brownstone burned-out crack houses and turned them into expensive condos.
#51 On-my-soap-box:
I gotta say, soap, you have patience.
What’s it like, essentially arguing with a prosecutor at a witch trial?!
I wanna have where I live be a state!
I wanna have where I live be a state!
I wanna have where I live be a state!
I wanna have where I live be a state!
I wanna have where I live be a state!
Man, that’s getting old.
Here’s a suggestion:
Try to change the Constitution.
If that doesn’t work, get over it, suck it up, and get on with life.
Unfortunately, life is sometimes, even often, unfair.
But, of course, it’s unfair that life can be unfair, isn’t it?
In order to get Representation, you have to be an illegal alien.
Rusty, if you are not allowed to vote how then does Marion Barry come to power, come to power, and to wit: The Council of the District of Columbia is the legislative branch of local government established by the District of Columbia Home Rule Act of 1973″ enacted by Congress and ratified by District voters. The Council is composed of a Chairman elected at large and twelve Members–four of whom are elected at large, and one from each of the District’s eight wards. A Member is elected to serve a four-year term. (History of Self-Government in the District of Columbia). Do you here vote.
Sounds to me D.C. is a state within a country already. But then such would not be aligned with privilege normally afforded people of The Subculture.
I am always amazed at the brazenness of liberals when it comes to cries of voter suppression and disenfranchisement when they reasonably expect the affected people will vote to support liberals and their causes, but then actively work to suppress or disenfranchise those (like military serving overseas) whose votes are likely to run counter to their goals.
Cherry-picking the provisions of the Constitution or blatantly ignoring it for political gain is unseemly at best.
Hey Rusty, if it will make you feel better to have a target, I personally don’t want you to have a vote and am quite glad you chose the only location in the US that allows me to so easliy oppress you.
Man I feel better.
#67 DanMan:
Good one!
LOL!
That deserves a rim shot!
#60 berkeleythurm, Lincoln didn’t launch the Civil War. The seccessionists in South Carolina did by firing on the federal fort Sumpter. Abolitionism was an extremely powerful factor in the formation of the Republican Party. While it was not the most important factor to Lincoln, he was not pro-slavery. Slavery could not have been abolished without war; and without Lincoln’s and the Republican’s willingness to fight that war there would have been no abolition.
Sample generic vote: “And the vote was 8 yeas, and 2 nays.”
Spokesmen for the losing Democrat Party’s position lamented; “We don’t have representation on this issue! As long as there are people who are actually WILLING to vote against our position, our side will never get heard!”
Is this the position the neo-libs are taking regarding representation?
[S]he turned me into a newt…I got better.
I am not ignoring the Constitution. I want to change it.
And, 30, congratulations on finding an exception: a GOP legislator who wanted to help the District obtain the rights we deserve. But I could have saved you the trouble and mentioned Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA). He’s been a champion of DC voting rights for years. (Although his legislation offering us a voting rep and an extra at-large rep in Utah is pretty clearly unconstitutional. It’s amendment or nothing for me).
It’s like when people say Massachusetts voters are liberal or fundamentalist Christians vote Huckabee. Of course there are exceptions. But the overwhelming majority of MA is liberal, Huckabee’s base remains the evangelical movement, and the GOP is deadset against giving people the right to vote just because they’re Democrats. It’s shameful. If spreading democracy were really all that important to the GOP, I’d have a voting member of Congress.
So you were pro-slavery in 1855. Anti-women’s suffrage in 1918. Anti-alcohol in 1925 but pro-alcohol in 1942. The Constitution is a great starting point, but it’s not divine. If the Constitution is disenfranchising 550,000 people, something is wrong.
If it sounds that way to you then you must be deaf. Every single city law must be approved by the Federal Congress. Name another state that has to deal with that. Senator Brownback threatened to remove all District funding if our tax code recognized same-sex couples. Name another state that would have to deal with that hurdle.
Also, name another state where its citizenry gets no say in federal laws. You can’t.
A heavily Democratic Congress passed the DC Voting Rights Amendment in 1978. The states refused to ratify it. Please note that out of the 16 states that ratified the amendment, almost all of them have reputations for being extremely liberal or Democratic (WV, LA at the time).
So to say that Dems didn’t make an honest effort is false.
I refuse to resort to such platitudes when it comes to voting rights. If the First Amendment applied to every state but New Hampshire, “deal with it” or “life’s unfair” wouldn’t cut it. Civil rights are too important to apply to some but not to all.
I don’t hear anyone dismissing the lack of rights for Iranains or Cubans because life is unfair.
I guess that pretty much catches me up from my lunch break.
The position of all in DC (including our small Republican minority) is that anything but Congressional representation is a clear act of disenfranchisement.
I’m coming in late here, but I read that some people here feel the Constitution was wrong not to outlaw slavery? Sorry, people, it’s obvious you don’t know the history of the Convention and how hard it was to put 13 independent and jealous “countries” together to form a nation. Sure, they could have outlawed slavery and we would have had 13 different countries, all primed up and ready for the European powers to pick us off as they please….which they were waiting to do. Please read about why they didn’t outlaw it and instead approved an 1808 ban on the slave trade, before coming in here and preaching on a moral high chair. The District was set up as a Federal zone (the federal triangle) simply to house the gov’t offices. It has expanded since then, of course, but one of the reasons why self-government and, especially statehood, has been turned down, is the failure of the D.C. government ever to govern itself properly. All previous governments have been dismal failures, requiring Congress, every time, to intervene. At any rate, D.C. doesn’t qualify as a state. Now, you all want D.C. as a state, I suggest amending the Constitution. Then it’s legal. However, D.C. has a long history of voting democratic (why, I don’t know). They would vote for Pol Pot if he was running…they don’t care. A new blue state would have to be balanced with a new red state, if they want conservative votes. Hmmm. Missouri Compromise again? Personally, having them go back to Maryland, since the original agreement was a lease, is fine with me.
If they dont like their situation, why dont they move somewhere else?
No need to thank me it wasn’t difficult find. And all I needed was to find one example to poke a hole in your theory that all Republicans want to do is stand in the way. I won’t bother with the rest of your post as you are just rehashing ideas that others here have addressed.
The saddest thing about Rusty’s statement that the Constitution is “wrong” is that there are many activist judges who would nod their heads at such a sentiment.
Even if Republicans stopped “blocking” an amendment (which requires a 2/3 majority, by the way), you would still have to get 2/3 of the states to agree to water down their national influence by letting in more senators. Good luck with that.
Watson is for Hillary because Obama is half-white. This leads to a twist of thought by Watson and others of her ilk after we elect our first “black” president, if Obama wins.. “It doesn’t really count because he isn’t black enough. You whites are still all racists”. It’s already been established that if he loses it is because whites are all racists. Isn’t this called a lose…lose. Where is Rodney King when we need him?
Part II:
I am just around hashing it out with Rusty waiting for dakine to come and tell us about being an attorney and how stoopid I really am whilst using his dictionary to prove his point and, lest I forget, to give us the word for the day.
Well, actually, if you really want to get technical on Constitution wrongs, you might be surprised to learn that the Constitution itself, was illegal. The whole idea was to amend the “Articles of Confederation”, not have some politically minded people come out with a whole new form of government. Imagine today, if some politicians came together, debated in secrecy, came out with a whole different idea of government, then submitted it to all the states, ignoring Washington. It would be pretty weird, to say the least. Hmm. With the country the way it is today, it may not be altogether wierd . LOL.
Ah, I live 30 miles out of the city and commute to Farragut West everyday. What’s not feasible about METRO from Alexandria or Rockville?
Also, why’d you move somewhere that denies you a right that you are so obviously passionate about?
Actually, 3/4 of the states. And you’re right. Many are motivated by their own self-interest at the expense of the 550,000 voiceless Americans in the city.
Which is unambiguously immoral.
I am not going to address that anymore. I’m glad you can afford to move to a different state. I wish that all the people of DC had the same opportunity.
Who said they didn’t make an honest effort? Not me. I said they had forty years to make a difference, but they didn’t. You cite one episode as an “honest effort?” Now, who’s not being honest? How many votes were there in those forty years, and you can cite one unpopular attempt at an amendment? It obviously had flaws, otherwise, don’t you suppose it would have been ratified?
The last time I looked, the “District of Columbia” was part of a state, which already has representation. But, I suppose, like many liberal positions on race and hate crimes, you want DC to have “super protection” by giving them double representation in the senate.
Why are democrats so loathe to play by the rules? By the way, Rusty, no one here would ever force you to think differently, and no amount of discussion will convince you. You think you are here as a thorn in the side of the conservatives on this site, when in all actuality, you are probably more of a source of entertainment, something in which liberals excel!
#71 On February 26th, 2008 at 2:46 pm, On-my-soap-box said:
“[S]he turned me into a newt…I got better.”
Who are you, who are so wise in the ways of science?
College.
It’s still a right that applies to all regardless of borders. It should apply to me as much as it should apply to Virginians and Murlanders.
I’m “working” over by McPhereson Square. You yell out your window and I’ll yell out of mine and see if we can hear each other.
Fair enough answer. I just yelled “Bush lied babies died!” You hear it?
I’m actually over at 1900 Penn. “working” for the “Evil Empire”. We should have a beer sometime. You know the Bottom Line?
I don’t. I must admit I’m not a fan of most of the bars around here. If I’m going to a happy hour I walk to one of the circles (Dupont or Logan) or take a bus to Mt. Pleasant/Columbia Heights.
Here it is again:
Try to change the Constitution.
If you fail:
take a deep breath;
pipe down;
suck it up;
get on with life.
If you want to try again, by all means do so.
Often, in life, others disagree with you.
And, believe it or not, sometimes, the others who disagree with you are not wrong.
So, please, spare us the complaining.
And, what came over me?! Pardon my manners!
Would you like some cheese with that whine?
#77 On February 26th, 2008 at 2:54 pm, PalmettoLaw said:
‘…“blocking” an amendment (which requires a 2/3 majority, by the way), you would still have to get 2/3 of the states….’
I thought that a Constitutional amendment needed to be ratified by 3/4 of the states.
Since Rusty would probably vote for all things that are totally Liberal regardless of the damage caused,I’m not sorry if he chooses to live where he does and then whines about it.
Why Ms. Watson:
I do believe you are race peddling. Perhaps, you’re also a purveyor of reverse racism… you know giving opportunities to blacks because they’re, uh, black or denying the same opportunities to whites because, they’re uh white. Gosh, blacks don’t have grudges…. I’m really feeling the love.
Perhaps, Washington, D.C., being the cesspool of ineptitude that it is, is not worthy of representation. And no, it’s not because it’s a Chocolate City, it’s because it’s a district not a state. Oh, and give my love to Mayor Nagin…. I think he needs a hug after being outed as the most ill-prepared, inept Mayor that New Orleans has ever seen.
Sorry that the downtown establishments are not up to your standards. I understand, it just isn’t cool enough down here with all the grownups. It’s sort of like the “kids table” tucked away in the kitchen at Thanksgiving. The kids think it to be the most awesome thing ever at first but eventually they desire to move up to the “big table” in the dining room. How many more Thanksgivings before you’re ready Rusty?
So,
Is it also your contention that all the territories of the US should get representation in Congress before they become a state?
Should Convicts and felons have the vote?
Should illegal aliens have the vote?
There are many who do not have the “Right” you are so eloquent about.
Ooooh snap. Frankly, the fanciest happy hour I go to is a gay bar Halo. It’s very breeder friendly and is buy-one/get-one until 9pm. Great deal for martinis.
Otherwise I just prefer a cold beer and a jukebox.
To be honest, I didn’t even know there was a bar (The Bottom Line) by that deli (Park’s Deli?).
Romeo, all American citizens should have that right. Illegal aliens do not apply. I believe that felons and ex-cons should have the right to vote, but that’s a different debate.
This woman is a racist. She has no proof to back up what she says, but she’s allowed to say it without challenge. I wonder if anyone can find out if she’s ever sponsored a proposal/bill to try and amend the Constitution regarding DC? I just hope that all of the students in attendance at Howard University didn’t fall for it.
Why is it black politicians and black leaders can say or do something completely ignorant and nobody within the black community will say, “That’s wrong”?
It is difficult to sympathize with people who blindly defend the most extreme and blatantly wrong actions/comments coming from their so called leaders.
The game of blaming government, blaming white people, blaming anybody and everybody else for problems they face in life is wearing pretty thin.
Rusty:
What a bunch of bunk! Yes, let’s blame the same “offenders”…. not that any of it’s true or anything. Darn, those good ole boys don’t want to do right by those dang poor black folk. This is like that Sausage character using a linked lynching photo to imploy that the GOP was for segregation/slavery when it wasn’t the least bit true.
Might I suggest that you and your Washington pals just secede from the union like Vermont? Please take all of Washington, D.C. with you…. I’m sure you’ll feel much better about not being “represented” and I know my wallet will feel much safer.
Oh, and have you updated your membership in the Troll Liberation Front? Lgm could use another friend.
…and you forgot dogs. Dogs should have a right to vote. They can inherit fortunes which require them to pay taxes…
Since when are there 550,000 silent voices? A grave yard comes to mind. Because there is no Senator, they have no voice? I can honestly say my Senators do not represent my voice most of the time.
I vote but my Reps do not hear me screaming: LET THE PROCESS WORK INSTEAD OF FORCING McCAIN DOWN MY THROAT!!!
I feel better now.
Straw man.
emjem,
ROFL
Is the Jon Cary in the very back (on the left of course)?
self-edit: imploy = imply.
Box:
Do you mean the one saluting or the one with the drumsticks? Either would apply.
Still haven’t gotten an answer to this have ya?
Set aside all the arguments about race or which party is more at fault, and (as Rusty said) ask yourself a very simple question:
Is there any good reason why 550,000 American citizens should not have representation in Congress?
The only real argument I have seen in this thread is that the Constitution does not allow it. Well, plenty of constitutional law scholars would disagree with this and note that DC has been treated as a “state” for constitutional law purposes many many many times in the past. But okay, I’ll grant you the argument that, as written, it is unconstitutional for DC to have a rep.
That said, I would assume that all of you would wholeheartedly back such an amendment and would encourage your representatives and state legislatures to pass the measure?
Who will sign on right now?
Rusty:
How so? Where is your evidence? Something is very, very lacking in your history if you think that Republicans are keeping you down. The historian in me sees you for the ignorant American who trumpets “what’s owed me” when it’s not even a fact. A baseless opinion on your part. Either dig up the evidence or again this statement is shameless conjecture on your part. You know, the type that Ms. Watson used and which you’re responding to.
I will sign today on one condition:
That I can be guaranteed that not a single illegal alien will have the “right” to vote and can be kept from voting. Okay, that is two.
As far as I can tell, I have absolutely no representation in federal or state government. I never miss an election here in California but so far I’ve been unable to make a shred of difference because everybody who is elected is prone to steal a major portion of my income (40% to fed and state!)
I’m not a fan of McCain but did I have a choice in the primaries? Nope
It is lonely being conservative even in Orange County.
I think you would fit in nicely here in California, Rusty
Congress did pass a Constitutional amendment, if you remember, back in 1977. It wasn’t ratified. You have to convince the rest of the country too.
Graysonret, if you notice the 16 states that ratified that amendment, all are traditionally liberal or were heavily Democratic at the time.
And I blame Republicans because the Democrats had their shot and passed an amendment that wasn’t ratified. Republicans decided 550,000 disenfranchised people was worth it if the disenfranchises were going to vote Democrat. They could have gone a long way into convincing states that a principled stand was the way to go. Instead their sin of omission is one of their great moral failures.
Rusty, just move and shut up about it already. # 104, emjem24, isn’t it funny how he never has any back up. He can’t back it up and he knows it.
Rusty - I clicked on your name and noticed your blog is why.i.hate.dc. Life is short - maybe it’s time to move. Seriously. And don’t say anything about the commute or your job. Get a new job, take the metro. There are solutions. Honestly. My first job out of college was 100 miles round trip. A day. It can be done. There are always options in life. You’re just choosing not to take them.
Yes, Rusty. Isn’t that the beauty of the system? No one group can decide for everyone. 3/4 must agree. That’s what makes the system work and keeps it going today. It does negate “moral hysteria” that the Founders were so worried about. You have to convince most people that what you propose is good for the country. Apparently, at the time, it wasn’t. Passing some Congressional law won’t work, as the democrats want. It isn’t the people in D.C., that politicians are concerned with; it’s how much