The Three Ring Congress

I assume most of you are Packer fans. Suppose the seats to tomorrow’s game were allocated 50/50 to each team, you picked up your ticket and drove to the game. After settling into your seat you learn a bears fan was sitting on either side of you.

Welcome to the State of the Union address. Congresspeople on both sides are promoting that they sit by someone of the opposite party. So far about 60 members have signed on to take part. What a crock of do-do. This will be the ultimate symbolism over substance maneuver Congress will have concocted to date. To put this idea in perspective, why was it not suggested in 2009 and 2007 after the Democrats kicked the Republicans’ butts ?

Rumor has it that those participating will be arriving in a very small car and all will exit at the same time.

Comments

  1. I think it’s about solidarity for that one congresswoman who won’t be making the SOTU, you know.

  2. Politically, it makes no sense for Republicans. When the Dems own everything, they ram through whatever they want showing no hint of bipartisanship whatsoever. But now, after they need to try to appease an electorate who is starting to grasp that the modern day Democratic party is one of the most unbipartisan parties ever, they want to use this sort of symbolism to try to trick people into thinking they may have changed their ways. It is a sham.

    Additionally, how does sitting intermingled show solidarity for Giffords? Everyone knows that both Democrats and Republicans are praying for her and wish her a speedy recovery. How does sitting on separate sides or bunched together change that one iota?

  3. my son and i attended the GB/CB games a few years ago at soldiers field as a late decision. we were able to get tics and had great seats with CB fans in front of us. they were very cordial. maybe not so at this game.

    in sports basketball team opponents line up after the game and exchange greetings, tennis players the same, and in most other sports good sportsman is visible. athletes believe they have much at stake to win. pols should take a hint.

    Lincoln did it.

  4. The Lorax says:

    Ryan, the idea was to show solidarity and to bring down the tone of rhetoric and vitriol. Tip O’Neil used to say, “After 5 o’clock, we’re all friends.” We don’t have that anymore and this is one way that our representatives want to show to themselves, their colleagues, and to the American people that they aren’t so divided.

    Is it a largely symbolic move? Yes. But symbolism matters.

  5. I think the idea that the rhetoric in this country is at some sort of record high is a myth. Political rhetoric during the Civil War or during the Civil Rights debate or during Vietnam was MUCH more vitriolic than today.

    Or what about during the War in Iraq… all the “Bush lied, people died” nonsense? Why did we not need symbolism showing how we were all unified then, only now, when it is politically advantageous to the left?

  6. Please don’t interpret this as being unconcerned for Ms. Giffords. Of course I wish her well.

    But.

    Forget the idea of toning down the rhetoric. When the emperor has no clothes, I’ll say so. I won’t use foul language. I will call ’em naked when it’s necessary.

  7. times change. people change. ideas change. hats off to those who change for the good of all. for the sake of the youth of America and to set a good example, at least TRY to get along. remember its “for the people”, and not for personal grudges. Cindy helps by offering up subject matters that needs thoughtful consideration.

  8. But Randy does a better job, lately. (Cindy’s hibernating!)

  9. Randy in Richmond says:

    Along with this theme it will be interesting to see how many Justices of the Supreme Court attend tonight’s SOTU address. After last year’s politicizing and direct comment on one of the Court’s decisions by President Obama during the speech, there will most likely be at least several Judges not in attendance. They are not required to be there. In fact their attendance, or lack thereof, will be in direct conflict with the symbolic dating game by some in Congress. I predict Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, and Breyer will be there. Alito is in Hawaii ( I suspect by design). The others have not announced their intentions but I wouldn’t hold my breath on their attending.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/24/chief-justice-state-union-alito-begs/

  10. Thanks for the link. That article had some interesting quote from the justices.

  11. the u.s. supreme court sets the standards about protocal and the lower court judges should feel safe in following their lead. however that has not been the case. more and more the supremes are participating in partisan events, giving speeches, having family involvement in partisan ventures, postering towards one party or another and crossing the ethical line created by their predecessors on the big bench. if a lower court judge engaged in similar partisan activities it would be curtains. judges have to live by the rule of the appearance of impropriety. as part of our government that appearance is to respect public officials whatever their philosophical differences are. in wi. judges cannot endorse partisan candidates, donate to partisan candidates or attend partisan rallies, to mention a few. the u.s. supremes are setting the pace and it is not good for the independent judiciary. judicial philosophy is another subject for another time.