"This measure, if it is worth pursuing, ought to be pursued in a legal and appropriate way," McConnell said.

If.

Like it or not (and like him or not, which I don't), McConnell never said it was worth pursuing.  He surely thinks it isn't.

He's saying that its proponents should pursue a Constitutional amendment, rather than legislation.  It's a legitimate position, and it doesn't require anything from him.

He's just trying to stop legislation.  That'd be funny if they changed their position on it for him and then he started complaining more.  They'd stretch what he said and yell "flip flopper!"  Although I wouldn't mind having "New Columbia" get two senators for us in there.  Not a bad deal.  

Somebody should present an amendment granting statehood to DC and Puerto Rico.

Talk about shifting the balance of power- can you say "Four new safe seats for Dems in the Senate?" I knew you could!

If the GOP would go for statehood perhaps Democratic leadership could propose statehood for another of the U.S. territories that would have potential for GOP representation in the House and Senate. That could be a compromise that would not tip the balance in the Senate and would at long last allow DC residents full representation.

And even more, given that McConnell has more than $4.3 million on hand as of the end of the first quarter and his personal net worth is valued at somewhere between about $1.8 million and $4.1 million, he should commit to invest a significant amount of money -- certainly in excess of one million dollars, either from campaign or personal funds, or some combination therein -- to fund an effort to push a sufficient number of states to ratify such an amendment.

Wait, so he should donate a little over 1/10 of his net worth (4.1+4.3) just to prove that he believes in the cause of DC statehood?

I think it's right for you to demand that he introduce the legislation if he truly supports,  and you're spot on that he should be forced to push hard for it. But come on--when we make demands, let's make them reasonable ones that might actually be met. That's good because when they are met, future demands will be taken more seriously, and if they aren't we can say we asked for something reasonable which they wouldn't give. That puts them in the wrong, not us.

Yeah, every time a Senator says they would support some bill or another, they have to either spend millions of dollars trying to get it passed or else be a hypocrite.  That's reasonable.

I have always thought DC Statehood arguments were silly and not reality based.

Yes, people in DC need to have a vote in the Senate and House.

But it would make more sense to annex DC to MD or VA , exempt DC proper from certain state security arrangements (as it has special needs) and go about it that way.

DC to MD, which geographically makes sense, guarantees no more hope of GOP winning in MD EVER.

DC to VA firmly turns VA purple.

As for people talking about territories...

There are five: Guam, Puerto Rico, Samoa Islands (Or American Samoa), Northern Mariana Islands and US Virgin Islands.  

The thing about taking each place into statehood, is that
1. Their poverty levels are much higher.  Our federal government would spend a lot to create jobs to build housing, welfare programs, etc.  
-What the European Union does is they take one country in at a time and lift the economy slowly.  I agree with that ordeal.  Let them vote on joining and pick one up at a time, integrating their economies.  

2. some have been waiting longer than others, it would be somewhat unfair to put Puerto Rico in first, but we have to start somewhere?  I know.  It's just something to consider.  

I'm guessing like others have said, we can get DC that extra seat without the senate fillibustering it.  If we integrate Puerto Rico, that's roughly two senate seats and six house seats based on population.  I couldn't tell you the rest, but I'm sure they are as partisan as Hawaii is.  

The problem with getting Puerto Rico in, is they are afraid they'll lose their culture.  So they are split between commonwealth and being a state.  About half want federal funding without being a state.  That probably isn't going to happen, that's why their becoming a state is taking so long.  They still have hope for just being commonwealth instead.  

Why would you go through the constitutional amendment process to grant D.C. statehood, which requires the approval of three-fourths of states, when all you need is to pass a statehood bill, which requires simple majorities in both houses?

You do not need a constitutional amendment to make DC a state.  A simple magority vote by congress can do that.  You may need an amendment to grant DC representation without making it a state, that is what the fight is over.  The DC Vote bills proponents (myself included) believe Congress has the statutory authority to give DC representation, McConnell doesn't.  The bluff would be called if a constitutional amendment was introduced to do what this bill does and grant DC a House member without making it a state.  They can make it a state any time without an amendment.

Michael C is correct that a simple majority is all you need to make DC a state.  Read the Constitution, there is nothing that declares how large the District has to be (or even that there actually has to be one - it only says that IF there is one, Congress will have responsibility for it).  Half the District was retroceded (the half south of the Potomac) back to Virginia in the 1840's.  (for History buffs, recall whose plantation was in that portion of the District, which land now makes up Arlington National Cemetery, and you see why retrocession occurred).

The upshot is that Congress can pass a bill reducing the "District" to the White House, Congress, and the Supreme Court buildings, and make the rest of the land into the state of "New Columbia."  All legal, all simple.

As for practicality, the DC population is larger than Wyoming, and less than 40 years ago, it was larger than 13 states.  So BS arguments that it is "too small" is just that - BS.

FYI - Congress did pass a DC statehood amendment in the late 1970's (I believe 1978) but it was ratified by only a handful of states.

McConnell is clearly not sincere re: DC statehood.  That's a laugher.  Instead, he is trying to change the subject.  The subject is a vote in the US House.  Sure, DC should be a state.  In the words of Justice Douglas in Baker v. Carr "legislators represent people not trees."  But statehood can only happen is Dems are stronger in Congress or if Republicans like McConnell ever sincerely believe in no taxation without representation.  Any serious move toward statehood would have to address issues related to Maryland & Virginia as well.  McConnell is not serious about anything except keeping DC taxpayers from having ANY voting representation.