Discouraging Poll on D.C. Statehood

[journalist3072]

A recent poll conducted by the Washington Post, concluded that 58% of Americans nationwide do not support the idea of statehood for our nation's capital. Democrats and younger Americans were more likely to support statehood for the District of Columbia.

I believe what's at work here, is that many people outside the nation's capital, simply aren't educated about the issue of statehood for D.C., and why it's so important.

D.C. residents pay federal taxes just like every other American citizen. Yet, they do not have adequate representation in the Congress. They have no United States Representative or Senator to write to, in order to express their views on the issues of the day.

You know all those commercials produced by various advocacy groups, that ask you to write your Congressman or Senator regarding a particular issue or bill? Well, the residents of D.C. don't have that option.

In short, they are being taxed without representation.

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, an entity of the Organization of American States, found that, because of the failure to provide D.C. residents with the opportunity to have representation in Congress, the United States is in violation of a 1948 international human rights agreement. This finding received very little attention from the MSM (main stream media).

The challenge is to educate the American public on this issue, and make it a priority for the United States Congress.

Not surprisingly, George W. Bush has indicated he does not support D.C. residents having adequate representation in Congress. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that D.C. is overwhelming Democratic (the horror of it all)!

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/dcwire/2006/03/dc_statehood_popular_as_dirt.html

http://www.dcvote.org/trellis/media.cfm?mediaID=647&year=2004

[Der Blaue Engel]

1. I have never understood how the government can justify this

and why so many people think it's okay.

[TahitiNut]

2. Why not cede it back to Maryland and Virginia?

It'd certainly make Maryland far more Democratic and it wouldn't hurt Virgina. :shrug:

[stevietheman]

7. That's my position as well.

The idea that little D.C. should be a separate state makes no sense to me.

At the same time, the people who live in D.C. have the right to representation in the House and Senate. So, fold them into an existing state.

[TahitiNut]

8. The only thing that rationalizes DC being a state is that the population

... is almost 20% larger than the population of Wyoming, which is smaller than the population of any other state's Congressional Districts.
In my opinion, however, that's merely a good reason Wyoming shouldn't be a state - and still be a territory. :evilgrin:
After all, most of the lands are federal anyway. That'd be 3 less electoral votes for the right wing, too.

[Bukowski Fan]

3. The most disconcerting thing

is that the Democrats who work in our city have largely disregarded this issue. People don't support this because they don't understand it, because it hasn't been brought to their attention. Federal Democrats know better but still have remained inactive on the issue. Which is strange considering how far left-leaning the District is.

The sole explanation as I see it is that DC is largely poor, very poor. The District can be best described as a microcasm for the nation as a whole. With a small area, cordoned off by a large wooded forest, that consists of the rich, and a large swath of concrete jungle where the poor reside and struggle for basic city services. Although this situation has been improved over the last decade, the areas showing the greatest improvement have been co-opted by the yuppie gentrifiers, spurning huge condos where once low income and section 8 apartments stood.

Before I get on a rant (too late!!) it's a form of class war that the Democrats have been inexplicably raging on their own base, leaving us, the residents of DC, to be ruled by the likes of Sam Brownback of Kansas.

Recently, there has been talk of making the DC presidential primary the first in the nation. This would certainly help our cause, but it is a long way away from being accepted, even in the party which has ruled this city's local government since its inception.

[newyawker99]

6. Hi Bukowski Fan!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Nutmegger]

4. Don't they have delegates?

I mean, these people can't vote but it was always my understanding that these folks have someone to write to and the delegates will bring that up.

Not that that matters, it still sucks. Statehood for DC!!!

[journalist3072]

5. One Delegate with basically no authority

One of the first things that Newt Gingrich did in 1995, was to strip D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton of the very little power and authority she has as the D.C. Delegate.

She can now only vote "in committee." Which means that in effect, she really does not have a final say on legislation that effects her constituents.

But really, the point is that as federal taxpayers, D.C. residents deserve what others get: Representatives and Senators, not Delegates and "Shadow Senators."

[TahitiNut]

9. She's one of the sharpest knives in the drawer, too.

When I consider that she's got no vote on the floor, but assholes like J. D. Hayworth or Duncan Hunter do have votes, steam starts coming from my ears. :grr: