Hope this can stay up....I like the intention between these two congressmen.

[printdust]

http://www.necn.com/01/17/11/Coburn-Schumer-to-sit-together-State-of-/landing_politics.html?blockID=392935&feedID=4212


Coburn also considers Obama a good friend. They worked on legislation together as senators and for those who can recall it, in Obama's first state of the union,Coburn scissored his way from his seat to the procession and the two men hugged one another. I think there's some genuineness among some of these people on both sides toward doing the right thing. Kind of reminded me of Tip and Ronnie.

 

[printdust]

One hundred and forty six looks and no responses? Agree? Disagree? Shocking that a hated liberal (by the right) and a hated conservative (by the left) could show some sense of unity?

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Symbolic gesture that'll be forgotten about two days later.

Is that a good answer for you?

 

[cranberry]

Excellent photo op!

 

[printdust]

Yeah I guess. We'd rather have polarity up there unless we're getting our way 100 percent of the time.

 

[Boom_70]

Aren't Schumer and Coburn Senators?

 

[novelist_wannabe]

I'm quite certain I took the phrase "making statements with their backsides" out of context ...

 

[Bob Cook]

Yeah I guess. We'd rather have polarity up there unless we're getting our way 100 percent of the time.

If this Schumer and Coburn just sitting together, I'll pass on paying attention, unless they suddenly decide to make sweet, sweet gay love on the floor.

However, if this is a sign that the Republicans are willing to move beyond "Our goal is to make Obama a one-term president" and actually have intellectually honest debates based on positions they have actually taken in the pre-Obama past, then I'll applaud it as I would the sweet, sweet gay love on the floor.

 

[YGBFKM]

Translation: Unity is great as long as the left gets more out of it.

 

[Bob Cook]

Translation: Unity is great as long as the left gets more out of it.

Now you're talking!

Actually, I don't care if the Republicans continue to vote in lockstep unison on bills, though the lame-duck session showed some cracks in that unity. I would like to think that they are doing so because of honest intellectual disagreements, and not because of Mitch McConnell's stated goal of making Obama a one-term president. I mean, sure, EVERY opposition party wants to make the president a one-termer, but like it's like saying you're going to raise taxes -- people know you're going to do it, but don't come out and SAY it.

 

[Boom_70]

It's really going to be a beautiful event. Perhaps all breaking into "We Are The World" after Obama wraps up.

Don't adjust your sets - Boehner is really that orange.

What are the odds that Mark Kelly and The Greens are sitting with Michelle?

 

[Care Bear]

If this Schumer and Coburn just sitting together, I'll pass on paying attention, unless they suddenly decide to make sweet, sweet gay love on the floor.

However, if this is a sign that the Republicans
are willing to move beyond "Our goal is to make Obama a one-term
president" and actually have intellectually honest debates based on positions they have actually taken in the pre-Obama past, then I'll applaud it as I would the sweet, sweet gay love on the floor.

I would also applaud frank and honest discourse regarding the pros/cons of various positions. I think the Dems could engage in a little more submissiveness. The Republicans should stand up more often. Without a missionary statement heading into 2011, we're all going to end up taking it in the rear.

 

[YGBFKM]

If this Schumer and Coburn just sitting together, I'll pass on paying attention, unless they suddenly decide to make sweet, sweet gay love on the floor.

However, if this is a sign that the Republicans
are willing to move beyond "Our goal is to make Obama a one-term
president" and actually have intellectually honest debates based on positions they have actually taken in the pre-Obama past, then I'll applaud it as I would the sweet, sweet gay love on the floor.

I would also applaud frank and honest discourse regarding the pros/cons of various positions. I think the Dems could engage in a little more submissiveness. The Republicans should stand up more often. Without a missionary statement heading into 2011, we're all going to end up taking it in the rear.

Beautiful.

 

[Boom_70]

If this Schumer and Coburn just sitting together, I'll pass on paying attention, unless they suddenly decide to make sweet, sweet gay love on the floor.

However, if this is a sign that the Republicans
are willing to move beyond "Our goal is to make Obama a one-term
president" and actually have intellectually honest debates based on positions they have actually taken in the pre-Obama past, then I'll applaud it as I would the sweet, sweet gay love on the floor.

I would also applaud frank and honest discourse regarding the pros/cons of various positions. I think the Dems could engage in a little more submissiveness. The Republicans should stand up more often. Without a missionary statement heading into 2011, we're all going to end up taking it in the rear.

But aren't we already into 2011 or do you operate on a fiscal year?

 

[Care Bear]

It's pretty easy to change positions early on, Boom.

 

[ChrisRcc]

Jon Stewart: "How many of us have to get shot for Congress to go to lunch together?"

 

[Mizzougrad96]

It's really going to be a beautiful event. Perhaps all breaking into "We Are The World" after Obama wraps up.

Don't adjust your sets - Boehner is really that orange.

What are the odds that Mark Kelly and The Greens are sitting with Michelle?

I would have suggested "That's what Friends are For"

 

[Boom_70]

It's pretty easy to change positions early on, Boom.

Once you commit I don't think the IRS allows for change.

 

[The Big Ragu]

I don't understand why they all don't sit together -- once they are elected that is -- and hug and kiss and squeeze and share Ritz crackers. I understand the making the false distinctions when they are fighting to get elected, so they can pander to people for votes. But once they are in there, isn't it better to be in cahoots, so they can work the lobbyists and special interests from both ends--how about a good cop / bad cop act for the ones that resist? Or is it that they secretly do that (after all, they are all taking money from the same places), yet publicly still put on the dog-and-pony show to pretend that there are really any real differences.

 

[Bob Cook]

I don't understand why they all don't sit together -- once they are elected that is -- and hug and kiss and squeeze and share Ritz crackers. I understand the making the false distinctions when they are fighting to get elected, so they can pander to people for votes. But once they are in there, isn't it better to be in cahoots, so they can work the lobbyists and special interests from both ends--how about a good cop / bad cop act for the ones that resist? Or is it that they secretly do that (after all, they are all taking money from the same places), yet publicly still put on the dog-and-pony show to pretend that there are really any real differences.

The answer might be here:

http://www.economist.com/node/11581447

You've probably heard the term "The Big Sort." It's a theory that we are segregating ourselves more by interests and politics, resulting in the election of more extreme members of Congress in a time when everyone is on permanent campaign mode. So despite what a politician might say, working with the other side isn't a show of strength -- it's a show of weakness. And the more extreme the rhetoric, the better.