20 Comments
Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Susan Walsh / AP
President Barack Obama waves after delivering his State of the Union address on Capitol Hill in Washington on Wednesday, Jan. 27, 2010. Vice President Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi applaud.
Published Friday, Jan. 14, 2011 | 2:05 a.m.
Updated Thursday, Jan. 13, 2011 | 9:43 p.m.
There are many traditions associated with the president’s annual State of the Union address, from the parade of congressional glitterati to the well-rehearsal rebuttals to the drinking games television audiences play with the commander-in-chief’s go-to buzzwords.
But this year, Democrats are pushing to turn one of the most longstanding traditions on its head.
They want to end the 200-plus-year practice of lawmakers sitting by party when they receive the president’s remarks.
Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado, who proposed the change, pointed out there’s nothing in the nation’s founding documents that suggests lawmakers must, or even should, sit separated by political persuasion when the president addresses the body.
“Perhaps by sitting together 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,” he said in a letter to his colleagues in the House and Senate.
The suggestion has been received warmly by Democratic leaders.
“We need to look for more ways to be bipartisan,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. “It’s important for our country that we all stand together as Americans and this could be one way to demonstrate that.”
Washington has been backing away from its own displays of partisanship in the last few days as lawmakers grapple with an attack made on one of their own, Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot in the head Saturday when a gunman opened fire on a town hall meeting she was holding in Tucson, killing six and injuring 13 others. She is recovering.
“A gesture like this won’t make partisanship disappear, nor should it,” said House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer. “But this gesture...should help end the political theater of repeatedly seeing one side of the aisle rise in applause, as the other sits still.”
Republicans haven’t objected and are indicating they will be perfectly happy to go along with the plan.
But in the end, this may just turn out to be a test of how very informal — and potentially endemic — the divisions in Congress are.
Lawmakers are not assigned seats for the State of the Union address, save for House Speaker John Boehner and Senate President Joe Biden — yes, that’s the VP’s official job, remember — who will sit behind the president as he delivers his speech, and the other party leaders who will accompany the president in the traditional procession through the House chamber: they get seats in the front.
That means there may be a fair amount of self-segregation.
It has been tradition for the parties to be separated in the House of Representatives based upon political parties. Now there's an idea that the sitting should be all together. It is about time. Truly "We the people" means everyone is together. I hope they do it.
good idea.
As a symbolic gesture it's fine but with the deep divisions and polar opposite agendas separating the two parties, it will have little impact on their relations towards each other. The demonization of each others platforms, proposals and legislative initiatives will continue unabated. Both parties hunger for power & control and they aren't about to forgo their quests because of a "cosmetic" change nor, I believe, do we want them to. If you are a Republicrat, do you want them vote for bigger government or higher taxes? I think not. If you are a Dumbocrat, do you want them to repeal "Obamacare?" Again, I think not. I don't think we'll be seeing them playing, "Patty-cake, patty-cake, bakers man," for too very long.
A fine idea. Another good idea would be to ban applause until the end. I think the speeches I have watched in the past would all have been at least half-an-hour shorter with applause held until the end. Just a thought.
Just maybe, this would be a positive move for Congress (it cannot hurt). On another positive note, I would like to see the large number of negative Las Vegas Rednecks post on Fox Noise (which is dedicated to them) and leave this site which is dedicated to intelligent debate.
Nice dig Tryhonesty. Thank you for again proving the fact that the Progressive's are allowed to take digs across the aisle while telling others not too.
Great comment, Area51. "tryhonesty", did you not realize what you were writing in that post? That's just too funny.
Are there any Democrats left in the House?
They don't want America to see how few of them there are.
Go for it! Will it change the paradigm? No, but every step in that direction is a step closer to the objective.
Good gesture...
But sadly gesture is gesture and in the end they will still remained divided by political and ideological difference.
So the Democrats are further working to divide themselves. Playing right into the Republican's hand. I am so glad I'm with the independent affiliation. BOTH parties have proven their unwillingness at getting along with others as well as members of their own parties. They care about their own damn agendas. They could care less about the American public.
Agreed, geenab65
For the past four years the Democrats have been shutting-out the GOP in Congress. And now they want to mingle with them? Why? I hope the GOP tells Udall and the rest of the Democrats to shove it! When the liberals use terms like "bi-partisan" and "cooperation", what they really mean is "capitulation". I hope the GOP has learned its lesson about where capitulation with the enemy of America has gotten us!
To tryhonesty: Yeah, it's just like you liberals to not want the "other side" to be heard. Why? Because you can't compete with honest, truthful, factual, patriotic debate. The typical liberal M.O., since they can't compete with conservativism, is to try to shut it up. This past week has vividly demonstrated the liberal mind set as they vociferously politicized the Tucson massacre. The last I heard, "tryhonesty", the First Amendment had not yet been completely destroyed by liberalism.
Please stop the "enemies" language Mr. Hopkins. We are not enemies. We may be deeply divided, but we are all Americans. And this continuing attempt to demonize other Americans will not bring us together.
If you want to make a point, how about some evidence, or critical argument, instead of calling one side unpatriotic.
How about giving us a definition of liberalism? Do you know that Adam Smith and others were called liberals in the 1800's?
Turn off Fox News, and read a book.
More of the same garbage. Hundreds of thousands of unemployed people getting bigger by the day, millions on food stamps and millions of homeless children getting bigger by the day and they are worried about sitting next to each other? My country that I founded is not being run currently the way I and the other founding fathers intended!
To WoodySez1: It was your king, Obama, who called conservatives "the enemy" in his campaign speeches. So, don't give me your criticism.-----"Liberalism" has changed over the years. It no longer relates to "liberty". Indeed, today it actually denotes "tyranny" and is synonymous with "progressivism". Have you been living in a closet?-----------You libs sure like to attack FOX NEWS, don't you. You can't bear to hear the truth. Your king and the other LIBERALS in DC are desperately trying to shut-up the opposing points of view. TYRANNY is what your king, the Hugo Chavez wannabe, promotes.
Don t do it republicans! It s a trap!
If you sit with them the democrats will secretly inject you with a KGB designed mind control drug that causes short term tourettes syndrome that will make you(upon hearing Obama say the activation word in his speech)scream; "I lied!" over and over.
The Horror.. the Horror. . . .
This exercise is to cover the non-support for the progressive agenda, it wouldnt look good for the majority to be shown sitting on thier hands.
Woody: You mean like when President Obama said, "We need to punish our enemies and reward our friends?" Or when President Obama said, "If they bring a knife we bring a gun?" Or Ron Kanjorsky saying that Rick Scott, "should be haved and shot?" Or when Allen Grasyon stood in the well of Congress and said, "the Republicans health plan is die soon?" Or just about anything that escapes from Keith Olberman's pie hole? Or Ed Schulz' book entitled "Killer Politics?" Obama's words were well crafted but the libs need to start backing them up with deeds.