I Have Mixed Feelings About This Intermixing Of The Parties At The SOTU.......

[global1]

I don't know if anyone has commented on this here at DU yet. I haven't seen a post like this - but I'm not on all the time and may have missed it. So sorry is I'm repetitive.

Here's my take on this:

In past SOTU's I commented about the segregation of the parties and said that they should be intermixed at the event. I didn't think the lines of demarcation served the nation well.

This year, however, I have a different perspective on it. I think the intermixing is an advantage to the Repugs.

We all know that the Repugs have been the party of 'NO' the last two years. We've been making that point every chance we got. We all know that the Repugs and their talking heads spread vitriolic language and we've been making that point as well.

So what a better way to illustrate that more openly than at the SOTU address. When the President makes a statement and you see the Dems applaud or give him a standing ovation and the camera's pan to the Repug side of the aisle and they are stoic and sitting - it serves to illustrate that they are being uncooperative and very vividly makes that point.

With them all being intermixed this year - it seems to me that the Repugs get a break from that and it will look to the public like there is cooperation between the parties.

Very few people that watch the SOTU ever watch CSPAN and see the proceedings and as such they won't get an accurate representation that the Repugs will still be the party of no.

And we all know that the MSM doesn't help the situation when they do their analysis of congressional proceedings.

I would appreciate any other thoughts on this. Am I being to cynical here?

[eleny]

1. Frankly, I like seeing the separation of church and state

[JustAnotherGen]

3. Wish you could rec a response!

And wholeheartedly agree with both you and the OP!

[Motown_Johnny]

5. .

[glinda]

12. Agree.

[blondeatlast]

32. There went my spit for the morning!

:rofl:

[Motown_Johnny]

2. It is easier to tell who is yelling garbage if you keep them divided (IMO)

I like the clear separation of the parties because the people watching can see who stands up to applaud at specific comments.


Intermixing confuses things. I think the differences should be made clear at every opportunity.

[leftstreet]

4. I hadn't heard about this. So they're all going to sit together?

How bipartisan-y!

[Donnachaidh]

6. I think the pukes just want to play their nasty little games, without the spotlight

People are going to be watching this year, and they know it. Who's to say they won't heckle AGAIN? The heckler was easier to spot with the two sides separated.

I think they should be forced to keep to their *section*. The Democrats should not give these psycho brats *cover* by agreeing to the proposed change.

[global1]

7. Actually I Think This Was Suggested By A Dem Senator.....

I think I heard that Sen. Udall proposed this seating arrangement. I think it gives the Repugs cover.

[Desertrose]

8. Why am I not surprised somehow....

*sigh*

[eleny]

20. Yelling out wouldn't be so easy when you're surrounded

[CTyankee]

24. That was my take, too. It seems like the repukes act in concert like a gang

of schoolyard bullies. Sitting next to decent people might just take that advantage away from them and they wouldn't get the same encouragement. For one thing, they would get dirty, outraged looks from the Dems around them.

[Donnachaidh]

35. it can also be covered up quickly if sitting with a group of like-minded friends

I personally don't believe all the Dems in Congress are 100% in agreement with Obama. :shrug:

[AC_Mem]

9. Trying to find the good in this...

Perhaps the positive feelings/energy toward the POTUS from the democrats will rub off on the GOPer who is sitting next to them.

It might be a little difficult for a Republican to sit there and boo when they don't have their co-bullies surrounding them.

I really think that positive energy diffuses negative energy and that this could be a good thing. We need to have a little more hope, even when it seems like the situation is darned near hopeless.

Annette - who will be watching

[cali]

10. the freeps are foaming at the mouth about it.

[mopinko]

22. well, then

it can't be all bad, can it?

[sharesunited]

11. Mix 'em up. General George H. Thomas.

[Vinca]

13. The whole idea is as phony as they come.

In the grand scheme of things, it will make zero difference in Washington. I agree with the OP that the Republicans are likely to benefit since it will masquerade their nastiness.

[asjr]

14. It is all for show.

[Skidmore]

15. It really doesn't matter...

congress, as a whole, acts worse than an unruly class of high school kids complete with cliques and prom kings and queens.

[proud2BlibKansan]

16. I honestly don't care where they sit

But Joe Wilson might be less likely to jump up and yell something rude if he is sitting next to Democrat. So maybe it's a good thing? :shrug:

[JoePhilly]

19. I think the Dems will still stand and cheer, and the GOP members will sit on their

hands.

[proud2BlibKansan]

21. Just like they always do

Hence, who cares WHERE they sit?

We have bigger battles.

[JoePhilly]

25. Exactly.

I do agree that this arrangement will mute the GOP's angrier responses.

I'm looking forward to the point at which Obama calls on all of them to set an example and denounce all violent rhetoric in their political discourse. The GOP can't do that because its really all they have to work with, lacking any real ideas.

SO when he calls for that, and the Dems jump to their feet applauding, and then look DOWN at the Republicans sitting next to them as if to say "Well?" ... that should result in a few priceless images of GOP members trapped into a no win situation.

[Buns_of_Fire]

26. Put him next to a big, burly Democrat. With a short fuse.

"Good evening, Representative Wilson. It's so nice to meet you. I hope you can get through tonight without any 'overcome with emotion' moments. It would be a shame if I were simultaneously 'overcome with emotion' and beat the crap out of you. I'm sure you agree. Oh, look. The President's here..."

[proud2BlibKansan]

27. Oh that would REALLY help

:sarcasm:

[Buns_of_Fire]

28. You're right, it wouldn't help in the least. I'd just like to see it. :-) nt

[proud2BlibKansan]

33. I wouldn't because then the right will be calling the left violent.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. I think the Chamber should be filled with citizens

While the members of Congress watch on cctv from a nearby venue more suitable for such a large and often unruly bunch. Willing to spring for high def and very large screens, surround sound and even a translator for the Speaker, so he can understand it in his native language, with all those sobbing and sniffing sounds he uses. The UN must have someone. We can even do closed captioning, as so many on the Republican side are obviously having hearing troubles. I just think they feel cramped in there, with both houses and all the other bother, and they just might be better off at the Hilton Gardens with a light buffet, something like that. They look like a rumaki crowd to me.

[cali]

18. who gives a flying fuck? talk about an inconsequential issue.

[stevedeshazer]

23. It is a bad idea. It is enabling behavior. Anyone familiar with a twelve-step program knows this.

The bartender is sitting next to the drunk.

And who decides where the Representatives and Senators sit? Is someone designing a seating chart like that moron who was my seventh-grade science teacher, or should they just sit in alphabetical order?

I think it's just a meaningless stunt.

[woo me with science]

29. I can't believe we are actually getting distracted by this.

:banghead:

[Urban Prairie]

30. "they won't get an accurate representation that the Repugs will still be the party of no"

After all that has taken place politically since the turn of the century, if there are still some people who must have been "living under the proverbial rock" during all this time, then IMO, they are very unlikely to sit in rapt attention all the while President Obama gives his SOTU speech anyway, and most likely they will either change the channel to one that is not covering his speech, or if not, then they will just pop in a DVD movie to watch on their teevees instead.

[Mira]

31. I agree, real is real and that would be giving a visual of "unreal" n/t

[Imajika]

34. This is a silly feel-good idea...

Tactically, it is possible this might create a better environment for the President's SOTU - it may force Republicans to stand up more often and applaud which could make the President's address appear to have far more support in the chamber than it really does. So in that regard, it could be a potential plus for the President. Still, this sort of stomach turning feel-good garbage might also encourage the President to pull his punches during his speech and less likely to attack the radical ideas the newly emboldened GOP has in store for us.

The general idea that we have to "change the tone" is nonsense. There is no evidence the "tone of the debate" had anything whatsoever to do with Laughner's assassination attempt and killing spree. The right wing is NOT going to change the tone, and by pushing this blather we are only boxing ourselves into a position where WE dial back our rhetoric but the right doesn't do a thing to curb their obnoxious blowhards. We are finally adding more and more tough progressive talkers to the body politic - particularly on MSNBC's evening line up and NONE of them should bother "changing the tone" at all. We are playing catch up to the right wing media machine, but are slowly but surely making inroads with the likes of Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann, Media Matters, some hosts on Sirius Left, etc, etc. All this talk of "tempering the rhetoric" only risks putting our team on record supporting this, thus making it harder for them to relentlessly attack the right because it may make them look hypocritical.

So no, this idea we all need to get along and watch what we say is pure drivel. What we need to do is be MORE aggressive in attacking the right and we shouldn't be pulling any punches in doing so in an effort to get along better with them and make the right wing like us.

[Nihil]

36. I see a George Orwell moment coming ...

"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and
from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which."

("Animal Farm")