Playing Politics with the State of the Union address

It has been noted recently that lawmakers, mostly Democrats, want to have a kumbaya moment at this week's State of the Union address. Rather than sit apart by political party as usually occurs, they want Republicans to partner with Democrats in a show of overall unity in the wake of the shootings in Arizona.

Why does this effort sound so very hollow? The Democrats have shown, time and again, that they are not interested in any real harmony, but, rather, want what they want and will pull every level they can to get it. Faking a let's-all-just-get-along attitude demeans rather than elevates practical politics. For there are differences among the people, and the differences matter. No amount of pretending changes the fact that certain lawmakers are really right, and others really wrong, in what they support. Is it truly good politics to dampen that truth?

It would seem that what the left is doing is playing the game, pure and simple. You can bet that if the GOP refuses en masse to engage in the plan, they will be accused of partisanship. Even if they do work within it, rest assured that at some point it will be whispered that they really only did it to look good. Yet isn't the very idea partisan, seeing as the Democrats are more interested in it than the Republicans? In light of how badly they were beaten in November (the only reason they kept the Senate was that not enough of them were up for election) it is easy to see that all they are really doing is attempting to get some of the glow of the election to fall upon them too. It's all simply partisanship on a more slick level.

The Democrats do not want to sit with Nancy Pelosi and be tainted by her failed leadership. In the end the best idea is that Republicans should sit where they want (together, ideally) and further display the unity needed to, we'll say it, combat Obamacare and Obamanomics. The President's speech this week ought to clearly define who means what. Even if only symbolically.