I’ve been living in northern Virginia, and working in and around Washington, DC (including Maryland and Virginia), for eleven years now. Ever since I’ve been here, this has been an on again, off again topic of discussion by politicians and media types. Their license plates on their cars proclaim, ‘TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.’ Yet, they choose to live there.
When Washington, DC was first formed, it was a ten mile by ten mile square carved out from Maryland (2/3 north of the Potomac River) and Virginia (1/3 south of the Potomac). Then, for reasons related to the slavery issue and the fact that almost all of the federal government was built up north of the Potomac, by a 1791 amendment to the 1790 Residence Act which created the District of Columbia, the Virginia portion was retroceded back to Virginia, after many hurdles were overcome, in 1847. If one looks at a current map, you can still see the original ten by ten mile outline, as the western boundary’s of Arlington County, VA and Alexandria, VA together, along with Washington DC, on the Maryland side of the Potomac, reflect the original shape of the federal district.
There have been many attempts made to retrocede back the current non-federal areas of the district to Maryland, ranging from all of it, to carving out the federal properties as a federal district (e.g., White House, Capitol, Supreme Court, adjacent federal office buildings, mall/monuments, military posts) and returning all other land to Maryland. In Virginia, this situation already exists where the Pentagon and Arlington Cemetery are federal properties within the retroceded area, formerly part of Washington DC.
This would give full voting rights to the vast majority of current residents, as Maryland residents. They would gain the vote for the two Maryland US Senators, voting representation in the US House, along with voting for a president. Currently, district residents vote for three presidential electors to the electoral college and have a non-voting representative to the US House.
While there have been legislative attempts to restore voting representation in the US House, this would still not afford the residents with a vote for senators. The statehood initiatives are almost too ridiculous to fathom. Large states like California, New York, Texas and Illinois will not ultimately go for this. Why would a state with tens of millions of residents ever agree to giving a city, with a population of 650,000, the same US Senate representation, of two U S Senators, as they have?
To me, the only answer is to retrocede the residential and commercial areas back to Maryland. They would then pay Maryland taxes and vote in Maryland elections. Just as Virginia residents of Arlington County and Alexandria City/County have since 1847. As an aside, the federal district license plates would be federal government plates and the residents, of whatever they want call the new Maryland city/county, would have Maryland plates.
To achieve retroceding the non-federal government areas back to Maryland would require overcoming may hurdles, some legislative, some local, some constitutional. Then, Maryland might not even want it. There is a good Wikipedia page that covers this topic, with links to related topics, at: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_retrocession
Senator Ted Cruz speaks about the Islamic terrorist attack in Orlando, FL, from the Senate floor, 6/16/16.
When a magazine, I had once respected, assembled a cabal of self-proclaimed ‘conservative’ national writers to contribute essays, for a special issue with the cover proclaiming, ‘Against Trump,’ I learned to what extent these persons would go to propagate their, ‘Pied Piper’ delusions.
For me, National Review is now amongst the periodicals I will never trust again. I seriously doubt that even William F. Buckley, Jr., founder of National Review, would have approved of such a one sided attack issue against so many GOP voters, as Mr. Buckley was more pragmatic in his conservative perspective, in my opinion.
Back in the mid-ninties, another ‘conservative’ publication sprung up. The ‘Weekly Standard’ sold itself as a mainstream conservative voice. I had subscribed for a year, early on. After just a few weeks, I came to realize that this was just another collection of self-aggrandizing writers. On too many occasions, I found the Weekly Standard to not be conservative. Rather it seemed to be a justification of the status quo of the center. I never renewed that subscription.
This latest Twitter proclamation by William Kristol, founder of the Weekly Standard, about securing an independent candidate, is the coup de grâce. This confirms my suspicions about Kristol, that he is just another inside the ‘Beltway’ hack that is really about increasing circulation and not the welfare of our country.
I’m sure he is bright enough to remember 1992 and the affect Ross Perot’s independent candidacy had on that election. Yet, he bashes Donald Trump and advocates a divisive alternative that could hand the election to the Democrats.
If the Democrats succeed in the November presidential election, which would ensure a liberal majority on the Supreme Court, that would nullify all of the ‘conservative’ arguments against Trump. Donald Trump has said, on numerous occasions, he would be looking for constitutional conservatives as Supreme Court nominees, if elected.
There are many that I used to go to for perspective within the conservative relm. But, after the last few months, I question their judgement and therefore their opinion on any number of subjects. Dana Loesch, Katie Pavlich, Michael Medved, Glenn Beck, Mona Charen, L. Brent Bozell III, Mark Levin, Erick Erickson, William Kristol, Megan Kelly and even Thomas Sowell, et al, generate opinions I may never take seriously again. They are so invested in one ideology, that they are aghast when someone like me goes off their ‘conservative’ reservation and thinks for themselves.
One outcome of all the ‘NeverTrump’ advocates, that have been writing as such, is now I have more time to read material by opinion writers that are wise enough to accept that a large majority of primary voters have selected their ‘presumptive’ nominee and are pivoting their attention to what will be faced in the general election. I’m not sure I will ever read anything by those writers again without thinking about what their deflated egos led them to. Political suicide, for at least some of them.
My conclusion is that they are all pro-Hillary Clinton, or at least pro-Democratic Party, to some degree. It appears they are looking to continue their carrers, many of which were built up during the Clinton presidency, in the ninties. This might explain their ignoring and insulting so many Republican primary voters.
The 2016 Republican Presidential Primaries have certainly had many twists and turns on the way to a ‘presumptive nominee.’ Yet, unlike most primary seasons, in recent years, there continues to be a faction of politicians and voters that either flat-out refuse or are apprehensive to support the presumptive nominee, this time, Donald Trump.
There are some talking of starting up a third party, others that talk of switching to the Libertarian Party candidate and others that claim they would support the Democratic Party candidate over Donald Trump. These ‘Republicans,’ many that claim to be conservatve, are playing a dangerous game with continued socialism, the system/ideology they claim to want to stop.
Well, I do not empathize with those Republicans that did not have their choice, of the sixteen other candidates, make it to ‘presumptive nominee’ status. Over the years, I have had some of my primary choices lose or drop out before I could vote for them. In each case, except 1976, I have supported and voted for the eventual nominee.
Going back to 1972, I was 19 years old and was registered independent. Therefore, I could not vote in a party primary in CA. Between the conventions and the general election that year, I had my epiphany about the dishonesty of the Democratic Party after seeing McGovern tell differing positions on several different topics, each night on the news, depending on who he was giving a speech to. He sounded like Nixon if he was talking to a Chamber of Commerce. Then he sounded like Bernie Sanders does today, when talking to a labor union or at a college campus. He was lying to someone or everyone. I found Nixon’s message to be consistent and that is an attribute that I perceived a leader should have. But then, after a couple of years, the first president I had voted for resigned. Nice impression, like what’s the point of voting.
In 1976, I was in Air Force technical school, near Denver, Colorado, and as California was my home state, I recall giving up trying to vote in that circumstance. I learned a lesson from that when Carter was elected. Serving during his presidency was probably similar to what those serving now are experiencing, under Obama. Parts shortages and a feeling that your leadership cares more about social engineering than the primary mission.
When 1980 came around, I had already seen Ronald Reagan’s November 13, 1979 televised announcement that he would be seeking the Office of the Presidency (https://youtu.be/fAtYMD-H2UY). After seeing that, there was nothing that his primary opponents, George H. W. Bush or John Anderson could have said to make a difference.
Again, in 1984, Ronald Reagan was the choice and was unopposed in the primaries.
1988 was a different story. I already thought of G.H.W. Bush as a bureaucrat turned politician and was looking for a more conservative voice. I thought that voice was Jack Kemp. However, by the time of the CA primary, Mr. Kemp was no longer running. Bob Dole and Pat Robertson had also dropped out by then. The lie G.H.W. Bush told, during his convention nomination acceptance speech, sealed our fate in 1992. Only two years after his, ‘read my lips, no new taxes’ pledge, he made a deal with the Democratic Party controlled Congress which raised taxes and cast him as untrustworthy.
When 1992 came along, incumbent George H. W. Bush was damaged enough that a few serious candidates would make primary runs. The two most notable were Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot. Buchanan hammered away at the the Bush tax increases and by the time his campaign was suspended, he had over two million votes. Ross Perot opted to run as an independent, after dropping out, and was a contributing factor of the Bush loss in the general election.
For the 1996 Republican primaries, several candidates threw their hat in the ring. Two candidates I was interested in were Steve Forbes and Pat Buchanan. I had moved from CA to GA the previous year and was able to vote on March 5, dubbed, ‘Super Tuesday.’ Following Super Tuesday, both Buchanan and Forbes suspended their campaigns. Bob Dole won 46 contested caucasus and primaries and became the nominee to go against the incumbent president. Ross Perot ran again, this time as the newly formed Reform Party candidate, but did not have much impact on the outcome this time around.
The 2000 Republican primary slate started out with several candidates. Steve Forbes started a strong second to George W. Bush in Iowa and tied him in Alaska, Forbes dropped out after weaker showings in New Hampshire, then Delaware. John McCain won seven primaries but dropped out on March 9th, after winning only four of the thirteen primaries held on March 7th. The establishment again had their candidate in George W. Bush.
In 2004, the Republican Party did not have any serious challengers to the incumbent president, George W. Bush. He was again the party nominee, winning 56 contests.
2008 started with a relatively large crop of candidates. However, there were many early withdrawals of the most significant challengers in January and February. Mitt Romney’s February 7th announcement at CPAC, that he was withdrawing a week before the DC, Maryland and Virginia primaries, was all John McCain needed. McCain had the nomination wrapped up by March 4th. The establishment had their candidate.
For the 2012 Republican Presidential primaries, the first candidate to declare, back in mid April 2011, ended up as the Libertarian Party’s nominee. Most other candidates dropped out either before or just after the Iowa and New Hampshire contests. This left two conservatives, a moderate and a libertarian as candidates. At the end, Mitt Romney, the moderate, became the nominee.
And now we have the ongoing 2016 Republican Presidential primaries. With the largest field of major party candidates in memory, seventeen in all, it was impossible for any one candidate to gain traction with a majority. But, as the field began to dwindle, two candidates emerged as the frontrunners. Eventually, Donald Trump broke through 50%, leaving him as the last active candidate and declared, by the Chairman of the Republican National Commitee, as the ‘presumptive nominee’ of the party on May 3rd.
Including the year before I was born, the track record for ‘establishment’ liberal to moderate Republican nominees in the general elections, going back to 1952, has seen both success and failure. Successes include Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956, Richard Nixon in 1968 and 1972, George H. W. Bush in 1988 and George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. On the other side of the coin, Gerald Ford lost in 1976, George H. W. Bush lost in 1992, Bob Dole lost in 1996, John McCain lost in 2008 and Mitt Romney lost in 2012. The only truly successful president we have had was Ronald Reagan, not a favorite of the ‘establishment,’ as a center-right candidate who finally broke through with Republican voters on his third attempt in 1980.
While those that have declared ‘NeverTrump’ predominately claim to be conservative, and are still talking about running a third party candidate, either as an independent or Libertarian, these anti-Trump, ‘NeverTrump,’ voters had better take a long hard look at 1992. Many self proclaimed conservatives went with Ross Perot after he dropped out of the Republican primaries. The net affect was to hand the presidency to the Democratic Party candidate, Bill Clinton. With this knowledge in hand, the ‘NeverTrump’ voters appear to me to be Hillary Clinton supporters and aren’t simply out to derail Trump. They are really after a liberal Supreme Court in conjunction with a big spending administration. These people are no conservatives, but rather are fools.
Trump’s winning percentages follow, through the Indiana primary, shown with the number of active candidates (there may have been suspended campaign candidates still on most states ballots). Losses to Ted Cruze and John Kasich are not shown. Trump’s winning percentages have gone up as the number of opposing candidates has gone down.
The information source was the New York Times election page at: http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results
Update: May 10, 2016 election:
Nebraska-61.4%; 1 active candidate, 5+ on the ballot
West Virginia-77%; 1 active candidate, 6+ on the ballot
Through May 3, 2016
Indiana-53.3% 3 candidates
Delaware-60.8% 3 candidates
Maryland-54.4% 3 candidates
Mississippi-47.3% 3 candidates
New York-60.4% 3 candidates
Arizona-47.1% 3+ candidates
Pennsylvania-56.7% 3+ candidates
Rhode Island-63.8% 3+ candidates
Connecticut-57.9% 3+ candidates
Michigan-36.5% 4+ candidates
North Carolina-40.2% 4+ candidates
Louisiana-41.4% 4+ candidates
Florida-45.7% 4+ candidates
Hawaii-43.4% 4+ candidates
Illinois-38.8% 4+ candidates
Kentucky-35.9% 4+ candidates
Missouri-40.0% 4+ candidates
Massachusetts-49.3% 5+ candidates
Vermont-32.7% 5+ candidates
Georgia-38.8% 5+ candidates
Arkansas-32.8% 5+ candidates
Alabama-43.4% 5+ candidates
Nevada-45.9% 5+ candidates
Tennesee-38.9% 5+ candidates
Virginia-34.7% 5+ candidates
South Carolina-32.5% 6 candidates
New Hampshire-35.3% 6+ candidates
I am growing extremely tired of Republicans that didn’t get one of the other 16 failed candidates as the 2016 Presidential nominee. For those of you that really don’t know what Donald Trump’s positions are, and haven’t bothered to find out, Trump’s positions are found here: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions
Speaker Ryan said that Donald Trump needs to unify the party, yet Ryan himself is standing in the way of unification. Maybe, after he meets with Donald Trump next week, he will find more ‘conservatism’ in Mr. Trump’s positions than he is expecting. Time will tell.
Tara Ross asks, “Do you understand the Electoral College?”
For me, there are only two things worth watching on any NBC channel. NASCAR and F1 coverage. Other than that, everything else they do seems to be DNC or CPUSA certified. Regressive politics, lost in a 19th Century mindset, using 20th Century Alinsky tactics, in the 21st Century.
keep looking »