U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
January 06, 2012 08:31 PM UTC

Udall's "Kumbaya" Seating PassГ©?

  • 28 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

The Hill’s Josiah Ryan reports:

Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) is urging members of Congress to take a “date” from the other side of the aisle again to President’s Obama’s State of the Union address this year.

“I don’t propose this so much that [I think] our approval ratings will rise, but it’s a way to create an environment to work together,” Udall said on Thursday, as reported by the Denver Post. “Sometimes, function will follow form.”

Udall was reflecting on Congress’s dismal approval ratings, hovering at around 10 percent, and the partisan atmosphere certain to prevail as the elections draw near…

Last year, what Ryan describes as the “acrid atmosphere” in Congress after the shooting of Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords prompted Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado to call for bipartisan seating for the State of the Union address. It was a popular idea then, but we can’t help but wonder what the intervening year of all-out partisan combat in both chambers of Congress–and between the chambers–has done to that veneer of bipartisan comity.

Perhaps it’s more obviously a veneer now? And if so, maybe Sen. Udall should be finding something more substantive to do? “Bipartisan Date Night” for the State of the Union sounds swell, but it would be even better if voters had a sense that Congress was actually focused on doing real things to help the country, as opposed to symbolic feel good crap to conceal what everybody knows: this is a Congress that nobody trusts to get anything done.

Sen. Udall’s not the problem, but faking comity where there is none won’t solve it.

Comments

28 thoughts on “Udall’s “Kumbaya” Seating PassГ©?

  1. Uh huh.

    If he thinks that’s a realistic result of date night, I’ve got some swamp land in Florida I’m dying to unload.

    Call me Mark. You got first dibs.  

  2. Short answer… Yes.  

    Long answer.  Is he kidding? Everything positive that Obama and the Dem leadership have done lately has been the result of dropping the whole will you GOPers please be nice back if we’re really, really, really nice to you nonsense.  

    Note to Udall:  They’re not now, nor have they ever given the slightest hint of becoming, interested in holding hands and singing “kumbaya” back.  Once, to try to make a point was one thing. At this point it’s just very weak sauce. And, no, indies and moderates couldn’t care less about this stunt, either.   What people want is to see somebody fighting tooth and nail for the survival of the middle class. Gloves off.

    1. It’s not enough to just point out that Paris Hilton and Communists are more popular than Congress.  Congressional approval before this Congress was about 30%.  Now, it’s 11%.  You need to close the circle and point out that the GOP has been the main source of our discontent with Congress (e.g., unprecedented use of filibuster, creating a debt ceiling “crisis”, general obstructionism, etc.).  Otherwise, independents will think that both parties are equally at fault.

      1. bull about extremists on both sides make you want to hurl? I join you in urging Bennet and all Dems to forcefully and publicly reject that view and place the blame squarely where it belongs after years of Dem attempts, always rejected, to reach meaningful compromise.  Giving the Rs everything they absolutely insist on, by the way, doesn’t count as meaningful compromise and refusing to do so doesn’t count as an equivalent degree of intransigence.

        1. which has already happened anyway, so why not just play total hardball ?  What is there to lose ? Call out the shitbags and let the chips fall where they may.

              1. Is to let me make the cuts in a thoughtful manner. But that’s not how Congress works. While I’d prefer the cuts were more on the pentagon side, there’s many in America who would like to see fewer on the pentagon side so I think we hit a fair balance between the two sides.

    2. I think Udall’s gesture is commendable, but the responses from partisan Democrats like BlueCat prove it’s also foolhardy. Pols, Republicans are not why this won’t matter, Democrats are. Or at least, they both are equally.

      1. The only thing making the gesture foolhardy is that it was to the Republicans. Has there ever been a worse excuse for a political party in American history?

        1. that treating them nicely has absolutely no positive effect.   They don’t need to be invited to sit and hold hands, they need to be punched in the balls.

          They will understand that.  

          1. They take it in a completely different direction from the inch you gave them, run right past most of the ordinary members of their own party in the process, and cry “partisanship” if anyone mentions that they were only offered an inch.

            1. Forget it ArapG.  Every poll shows the public knows who deserves the most blame. The Borg’s old “These are not the droids you’re looking for” trick  worked for long time but not anymore.

                1. I was referring to the use of the technique by the Republican Borg. Starting with Reagan, they have been quite successful with it.

                  Should have been more clear.  Here goes… Every poll shows the public knows who deserves the most blame. The GOTP Borg’s use of the old Jedi mind trick, “These are not the droids you’re looking for”, worked for long time but not anymore.

                  Sorry for sloppiness and wouldn’t want to upset either Trekkies or Star Wars Nerds. Count me as a Trekkie.  Star Wars should have quit while it was ahead, before the silly and mainly very poorly acted later additions. Not that acting was ever  the strong point. Uh-oh, there I go upsetting the Star Wars crowd!  

                  1. REEEEEEeeeeeally….

                    I have nothing but scorn and obloquy for the later Star Wars prequels, that is true.  On the other hand, to the best of my recollection not a single one of them involved whales.

                    1. the better acting and writing came in. And of course, setting the bar by Star Wars movie’s wooden acting and dialogue standards and Captian Kirk’s over the top acting in the mainly space babe of the week Trek Classic, that wasn’t all that difficult to achieve. Hope Sir Alec made bundles of money!

                    2. I’m mainly talking the TV show although some of the movies (especially the most recent one) were really good too. Where Star Trek excelled was the writing. Not in all of them but a lot were good and some were some of the best shows of any kind.

                      Even in the original series. A lot of what made it stick was that some of the episodes were some of the best TV out there. The City on the Edge of Tomorrow (written by Harlan Ellison) is incredible.

                    3. because it dared to examine some philosophical issues and question some of our society’s cherished beliefs.

                      Star Wars, even with its self-proclaimed underpinnings of mythological quest ala Joseph Campbell, was little more than 1950’s John Wayne cowboys and Indians and those morality tales, made high-tech in space — an essentially plotless excuse for 1970’s special effects wizardry at a time long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away where it was almost commonly accepted for Disneyesque robots to be flaming gays, but the good-guy human beings had better all be smoking hot, heterosexual, Force believing, patriots.

                    4. For instance, just watched an old episode of Next Gen that explored the claims of culturally different adoptive vs biological families in a very satisfying way. It could have been told in the setting of any time or place. Well written.  Well acted. No special effects fireworks needed.

                      Another good eposode explored torture from both the moral point of view and from the point of view of efficacy as well as the effect on the torturer as well as on the victim long before the Bush administration introduced the American public to the concept of good old John Wayne, white hat America as a torturing regime.  This kind of exploration is much more to my taste than the wooden histrionics of the Star Wars young people’s space opera.  Probably still great fun for the 14 and under crowd, though.

  3. If I had more time today I would write a longer essay on why social signals like this matter. Recently on This American Life there was an episode called, “Nemeses”. One of the segments was about secret dinner meetings between abortion opponents and supporters. These meetings did not result in “kumbaya” where they come to some grand agreement to settle the issue, indeed both sides actually  became more polarized because they actually had to give more thought to their own positions in order to talk with opponents rather than supporters. However they did come to see each other as human and could disagree civilly. The rhetoric changed and the vitriol changed just because they started talking to each other.

    Will sitting together solve anything by itself? Heck no. But if liberal and conservative leaders socialized with each other rather than just their own group, it would help.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

53 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!