Discover more from The Latest from Seton Motley
DC Democrats Won't Let Anything Be Anything But Partisan Anymore
The Red Is Unrepresented -
Per the Democrats We have previously noted the irony. The current hyper-partisan nature of DC - is largely the result of a bipartisan project. Well - unilaterally partisan by both Parties, anyway. Because both Parties LOVE to gerrymander Congressional districts: “We have…spent the last five-plus decades – gerrymandering the daylight out of Congressional districts. To the point where maybe 50 of the 435 – are at all competitive in general elections. “The vast majority of races that now actually matter – are the inter-Party primaries. Where every candidate tries to out-ideologically-pure their inter-Party opponents. “And after the primary winners skate to easy general election victories, they must retain said purity while in office – else they’ll be dumped in the next primary. “Lather, rinse repeat for half a century – and you end up with a hyper-partisan House of Representatives.” Then again, the “good old days” of DC bipartisanship - were fairly terrible if you wanted anything remotely resembling less government: “(T)he DC definition of ‘bipartisanship’ has long been: “‘Republicans forsake all their principles - and cave to whatever Democrats are currently demanding.’ “Which is how we have spent the last five-plus decades. Which is how DC has grown has monstrously huge as it has.” How bad has all of this hyper-partisanship gotten? DC Wastes WAY Too Much Time on Bills Everyone Knows Can Not Become Law: “(T)he less-government-desiring Republican voter base - is finally fed up with this ever-expanding-government nonsense. “And the Socialism-desiring Democrat voter base - is clinically insane and (thus) steadfastly impervious to facts. “Giving elected officials even less room to maneuver towards actual bipartisanship. Even if they wanted to do so - which most do not. “And you can’t blame Republicans for not wanting to do so – given the one-way rigging of “bipartisanship” to which they have long been subjected. “Which is why we no longer in DC get legislation. We get Legislation Theatre. Elected officials proposing bills that have zero chance of becoming law – but look really good on stage to their respective bases.” There are occasional attempts at bipartisanship - almost always led by Republicans. Democrats - inherently ideologically opposed, and driven by their loony base - almost always…demure. To wit: “GOP House Members Offer Trio of Net Neutrality Bills: “‘Republicans…are offering up at least three versions of legislation that would reimpose network neutrality rules, but without doing so under Title II common carrier regs they argue are a relic of the monopoly (dial-less, black) phone based Title II common carrier rules.’ “The bills would impose the Net Neutrality principles – to which both Republicans and Democrats fairly recently agreed. “That is, before the Democrats’ Socialist base – demanded the Title II government takeover of all things Internet. “Net Neutrality v. Title II: Explained: “‘At its core, net neutrality means treating Internet traffic fairly and equally. While (Trump FCC Chairman Ajit) Pai agrees with the basic tenets of net neutrality, upholding them does not mean the FCC needs to regulate broadband under 1934 rules designed for the telephone monopoly….’ “‘Title II undermines broadband competition. In the five years after the FCC first proposed Title II (2010–15), investment dropped somewhere between $160-$200 billion relative to what it would have been projecting forward from 2005–10, when net neutrality alone was the baseline for investor expectations.’ “In other words - you can have Net Neutrality…without the draconian Title II Democrats are now demanding.… “The Republican Net Neutrality bills - reflect recent bipartisanship. The Republican bills - sound like compromise…. “Except Democrats - will have none of it….” Another issue - on which there was even-more-recent bipartisanship - is rural broadband connectivity. Meaning - how can we bring online more of the (dwindling number of) people who live in the sticks and can not connect. How recently bipartisan? This is from May 3: Bipartisan Bills Introduced to Correct Tax Law Hindering Rural Co-op Broadband And this from May 8: House Passes Bill To Coordinate Broadband Growth: “The U.S. House of Representatives passed bipartisan legislation on Wednesday aimed at revving up broadband deployment….” But that bipartisanship - is SO last week. Republicans would prefer to rely at least a little upon private Internet providers. Republicans are (most unfortunately) not opposed to government Internet providers - they just want to include private providers in the mix. Since private Internet providers have spent the last quarter century spending $1+ trillion building out the Internet from “What’s that?” - to 1/6th of our entire $18+ trillion economy. And because government Internet providers - have an endlessly long history of failing utterly and spectacularly. Broadband Boondoggles: A Map of Failed Taxpayer-Funded Networks: “For decades, local governments have made promises of faster and cheaper broadband networks. Unfortunately, these municipal networks often don’t deliver or fail, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill. “Explore the map to learn about the massive debt, waste and broken promises left behind by these failed government networks.” Again - WHY do Republicans want ANY government Internet? If it is in the interest of bipartisanship - it ain’t working. Again. Because ANY private sector - is WAY too much private sector for Democrats. Yesterday, House Democrats announced this: Top Democrat Launches Rural Broadband Task Force Amid Infrastructure Talks: “House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) on Monday announced the creation of an all-Democrat task force on rural broadband…. “The group of 17 House Democrats aims to ensure federal funding for rural broadband is spent ‘effectively’….” Yes, because we all know a federal government spending $4.5 trillion per year - is nothing if not “effective.” Again - check back on that government broadband map. At least as bizarrely: “(T)he new coalition(’s)…members include lawmakers representing rural districts, as well as some progressive leaders like Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA).” You know who represents a LOT of rural districts? Republicans. Have you checked the 2016 Presidential-vote-by-county map? Nevertheless - ZERO Republicans are represented on the House Rural Broadband Task Force. And unlike far too many DC denizens - I have been to rural America. In fact - I live there. You know who absolutely does NOT represent rural America? “(P)rogressive leaders like Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA).” Yet hardcore Leftists made it on the House’s Rural Broadband Task Force. But again - not a single Republican did. Because rural broadband bipartisanship - is SO last week. And because the only good bipartisanship - is bipartisanship that can be used against Republicans. This first appeared in Red State.