in the wrong era. Soundly refuting
liberals online since 2000. NOTE: That is NOT
me pictured at left. :)
| WSJ | World: Europe Girds for Greek Exit |
0 |
| Shark Tank | Developing: Wasserman Schultz On Verge of Being Cancelled at Temple Israel |
0 |
| T’graph | 0 | |
| NYT | Policy: Romney Calls Education ‘Civil Rights Issue of Our Era’ and Urges Shift |
0 |
| RCP | Campaign 2012: Why Tuesday’s Democratic Primaries Matter |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Diplomacy":
"People are saying what in the world is going on with North Carolina, we look like Mississippi." - NC Gov. Bev Perdue (D) on the passage of Amendment One, 5-11-12
Stupidity blooms as some DC lawmakers suggest ‘bipartisan seating’ at SOTU
I don’t think I can emphasize my eye-rolling enough. Via The Hill:
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaksa) has joined Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) in spearheading Udall’s effort to have bipartisan seating at the State of the Union, Murkowski’s office announced Friday.
In a letter to members of Congress today Murkowski and Udall propose Republicans and Democrats sit together during the State of the Union address. Currently, the tradition is for Democrats and Republicans to sit only with members of their party during the presidential address. The proposal comes after an earlier one by Udall where the Democrat and Republican leadership would sit together during the presidential address.
So far, 21 senators and nine members of Congress of both parties have endorsed the proposal.
In the letter, dated Friday, Murkowski and Udall write that sitting together would cultivate bipartisanship.
“On the night of the State of the Union address, House and Senate members from both parties outhgt to cross the aislie and sit together,” the senators write. “As the nation watches, Democrats and Republicans should reflect the interspersed character of America itself. Perhaps by sitting with each other for one night, we will begin to rekindle that common spark that brought us here from 50 different states and widely diverging backgrounds to serve the public good.”
I concur with AllahPundit on the reasons why this is an absolutely craptastic idea:
[...] The Republicans onboard thus far are Murky, McCain, Kelly Ayotte, the Maine sisters, and House GOP whip Kevin McCarthy. If you’re inclined to oppose this, you’ve got plenty of arrows in your rhetorical quiver. For starters, practically the only fun part of the SOTU is watching the two sides of the chamber applaud or not applaud in response to the president’s speech to show where they stand on what he’s saying. If the seating is mix-and-match, you lose that. Second, as Daniel Halper notes, the parties don’t sit apart because they can’t stand each other’s company, they do it because they have heartfelt differences on policy. No sense in obscuring that fact when those differences are bound to reemerge, occasionally in a heated way, sooner rather than later. And third, by making an ostentatious show of civility after the shootings, you’re arguably validating the narrative that a lack of civility was some sort of contributing factor to them. I think that’s less of a concern after The One’s speech, which provided some cover to separate the issue of “tone” from the fact of the murders, but it’s there if you want to see it.
The bottom line is that you’re going to have more Democrats on board with this idea, because they don’t want to be embarassed on national TV anymore than they were after their “shellacking” last November. Having Republicans and Democrats sitting together, as AP notes, would lessen the spectacle of the partisan applause lines during President Obama’s speech; on the other hand, having the parties sit separately, as has been traditionally done, will remind people how big Democrats lost last year – which Udall and other lefties who’ve signed off on this silly idea obviously don’t want. As to the Republicans who have indicated they’re on board with this? Well – look at the names. Most of them won’t be a shock to any of you.
These are the types of grandstanding games I look for Democrats to play over the next couple of months. Doing things “in Gabby’s name.” Hiding behind tragedies and victims for political gain is, unfortunately, one of the things this party does best. And ideas like this, if you’re a Republican who declines to participate, give Democrats the opportunity to question why anyone wouldn’t want to do this “for Gabby” – with the clear insinuation being that if you don’t, you’re coldhearted. We’ve all been down this road before. So far, one GOP House “leader” (McCarthy) has given signs that he’s fallen for it. Considering Boehner’s political savvy, I’d be surprised if he did as well. If he does, it’ll be a big disappointment but hopefully not a sign of things to come.
Here are the signers, BTW:
Twenty-one senators and nine members of the house have signed the letter as of Friday afternoon and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has suggested he is open to the idea. Senate signers are as follows: Sen. Begich (D-Alaska), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif), Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Sen. Kristen Gilibrand (D-N.Y.), Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), and Udall for the Democrats and Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alska, and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Alaska) for the Republicans. In the House, all nine signers are Democrats. They are Bishop, Carney, Cohen, Matheson, Michaud, Pingree, Richardson, Ross, and Shuler. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), who caucuses with the Democrats, has also signed the letter.
As they say, stay tuned.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
And yet they called reading the Constitution aloud a “stunt.” Bah.
I note that Oly Snowe has been moved from Maine to Alaska.
Someone should finish that and make her from Siberia; hence ineligible (except under Obama rules).
The only reason these people want to do this is that it further weakens the right; it’s just another way to get rid of tradition, hence history, hence making it easier to rewrite history in a liberal/leftist mode.
I’m sure that the party of evil has nothing but the most altruistic motives in promoting this.
I’m all for bipartisan seating: Dems on one side, GOP on the other – just like always. What’s the problem?
What if each member held a red or blue card, and waved them furiously in opposition to (red) or in support of (blue) Obama’s rhetoric…
Do they still do ‘the wave’?
It would be the perfect metaphor for what ails our country: a one-party government locked arm-in-arm defying the will of the people. This is just political posturing substituting for honest debate. The voters are upset across the liberal-conservative spectrum for the same reason: our government is no longer responsive and accountable to the electorate. We have a right to be upset and civility (which is not exactly lacking among us grassroots Tea Partiers) will return when the constitutionally-guaranteed process is restored.
Global fascism where corporations merge with governments to erase nations and borders presents a very bleak future for the world. America has been and remains the last best hope against such efforts yet we seem to be the HQ.
They have won so far because of the money and the complacency of voters numbed by a good economy. Voters are no longer complacent. They are increasingly abandoning both parties, first to being independents and eventually gravitating to the Tea Party.
The Tea Party demonstrated in 2010 that it can successfully confound the big money. That means we can win and the establishment knows it. Thus the shrill “incivility” among the elites as they falsely accuse conservatives and the Tea Party of everything vile and repulsive to what we stand for. They are desperate. A third-party candidate is suddenly a real threat.
I can understand the democrats wanting someplace to hide. Sitting among the Republican majority will allow them to melt into the masses and hide from the electorate. Of course when they give a standing ovation by themselves it will be like a Green Bay Cheesehead cheering among a sea of Bears fans.
Should they decide to do this, the deserved response would be for a group of Tea Party “rebels” to disguise themselves in firemen’s attire, enter the chamber during the middle of the speech and open up with a high pressure water hose. Don’t discriminate on which party or member is doused.
Maybe these elitist “representatives” will finally get the message – quit with the symbolic crap, get to the peoples’ business or get the hell out.
Republicans: Don’t you dare cower and be brow beaten into not repealing Obamacare because a lunatic was not properly admitted to a mental institution by connected parents and negligent local law enforcement. You want particpate in this overly emotional seating stunt? Go ahead, who cares. If you let this whole charade change why you were sent to Washington, which is to repeal Obamacare, then you are all cowards.
My question…are the member of the SCOTUS going to show up? I think there was a question as to whether it made sense, especially after last year’s spectacle.
Message to COngress: Go ahead and try to blend together….we know who you are and we are going to watch you very carefully…we don’t need any cameras to be focused on you, we will judge you by your actions. Our actions at the ballot box are what count….and what have they learned from that? NOTHING!
No matter where they sit, we can still see the jackass butts sticking up in the air, and WE WILL REMEMBER in 2012. Period, end of story.
Terrible idea. Very bad for the GOP who need to define themselves as “changed.” It benefits Obama and maybe the Dems.
Please correct listing: Olympia Snowe is from MAINE!!
Ah, the power of symbolism!! Kumbaya, easier to pass the peace pipe, yada, yada, yada. Would they have assigned seats? Would Barbara Boxer be surrounded by Republicans? “This side of the aisle” has become a part of the English language – keep things as they are.
The real purpose is this: the Democrats do not want the TV cameras showing a majority of the House sitting on their hands while Obama reads his Teleprompter. They want it to look like the entire chamber is on its feet when he hits his applause lines. That’s much easier to do when you disperse your people, instead of concentrating them.
As usual for the left, it’s all image and no substance.
On the other hand, maybe if they are interspersed the cameras won’t be able to go quickly to some Repub who blurts out loudly, “That’s a lie!”
It’s too bad decorum has gotten so sterile and emasculated. Listening to the TOTUS-reader-in-Chief is almost like listening to the Saturday morning story on radio by the public librarian.
They need to sit separately for the exact reason GWR says: the jackasses should be able to be identified as they applaud each new nail in the socialism coffin they want to bury us in.