We are approaching Barack Obama’s State of the Union address, and in the spirit of “unity” and “healing,” there is an effort underway by some legislators in Washington for “bipartisan seating” of Congress at the annual speech. Make no mistake, the idea is the direct result of the unsubstantiated claim that “vitriol” and partisan (read that as “right wing”) rhetoric caused the violence in Tucson. As a result, Sen. Scott Brown, who will take part in the new seating arrangement, said that “people need to move past the itty-bitty letter” at the end of his name that signifies he’s a Republican. My question is this… Does that itty-bitty letter matter?
As reported by the Boston Herald, Brown spoke a Martin Luther King Jr. breakfast in Boston and said:
“That’s the type of attitude we need to have not only in Washington but here in our local political system where people need to forget about the little itty-bitty letter behind my name and other people’s names and just kind of get going and get our jobs going and do what’s best for this state and this country.”
The idea of the bipartisan seating arrangement was proposed by Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) as a “symbolic act to tamp down the bitter political fighting between the two parties.” In a press release, Udall said the current partisan seating serves “to symbolize division instead of the common challenges we face in securing a strong future for the United States.” Hmmm… why don’t we all hold hands and sing kumbaya in the process?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not for division for the sake of division. But I’m also not for fake unity either. I guess I’m just irked by Brown’s statement about the itty-bitty letter. To me, it does matter, and it should.
Brown noted in his MLK speech, “Some of my best friends are Democrats. We go out and try to work things through and try to move our country forward.”
Question… and this goes to everyone who writes in saying that we all need to “work together” so that we can “get things done”… What does “move our country forward” mean? There IS a difference between someone who believes in lower taxes, less spending, and small government that someone who believes in higher taxes, more government control, and increased spending. If “moving our country forward” means higher taxes, then I’m not for it. If it means cutting wasteful programs so that hard-working Americans can keep more of their own money, than I am for it.
I would rather have grid lock than bad legislation all in the name of “getting something done.”
Again, I realize his comment was made in reference to the bipartisan seating idea. But it touches on larger issues. The seating idea was the result of trumped up “outrage” by the left and the media at conservative rhetoric. The whole idea of “working together” is a feel good term for passing big-government legislation.
I want that itty-bitty letter to mean something. Sure… hold hands and sing during the State of the Union address. That’s fine with me. But when it’s done, can conservatives please act like conservatives and help lower taxes and bring our runaway federal government under control? Thanks!