Sen. Mark Udall made national headlines last year with his idea that lawmakers abandon the tradition of sitting with their own party during the president’s State of the Union address.
Some dubbed it “date night.”
“I’m an old mountaineer, and I think the aisle that divides us has become as high as a mountain,” Udall, D-Colo., said then. “I think we all agree that if we can’t sit together in an important night like this, how are we going to face big challenges?”
As it turns out, it’s much easier for Congress to sit together than it is for them to work together.
So 12 months later, given the congressional approval rating, the skeptic in me thinks it should be called “singles night.”
But Udall is still at it.
On Thursday, according to The Post’s Allison Sherry, he and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, suggested permanent bipartisan seating at the State of the Union.
In a letter, they called it “one small way to bridge our partisan divide and to encourage members to find solutions to our nation’s problems.”
Earlier Thursday, the mixed-company idea made its way to the Colorado Capitol, where Democrats mingled with Republicans as they listened to Gov. John Hickenlooper’s State of the State address.
Rep. Dan Pabon, D-Denver, pitched the idea.
“It’s important for us to take every opportunity to spend time with each other, breaking down partisan walls. The more comfortable we are with each other, the better we’ll be at coming together to get things done for the people of Colorado,” he said in a release.
When I first read of the idea, my reaction was: “Hooey.”
The partisanship among the 535 members of Congress, who can’t even pass a budget, is crippling. With most eyes on November, it’s hard to envision anything getting done before then.
That’s not the case for the 100 members of the Colorado General Assembly, where 80 of 100 lawmakers last year voted “yes” on the state budget.
My concern with Pabon’s plan was that if it became the headline from the State of the State, it would leave the casual viewer of the Capitol with the wrong impression of the state of our politics.
Yes, there are political differences and those can and do make headlines — but there is not nearly the same kind of discord here as there is in the nation’s capital.
Having spent considerable time watching the statehouse in recent years, I felt as though it was a solution looking for a problem.
What Colorado (and Washington, for that matter) needs now is kinetics on key issues, not optics surrounding seating charts.
For my money, that means looking for action from those lawmakers who have demonstrated a willingness to buck their party on key issues and those who are term-limited.
It means looking for politicians who are principled and not interested in playing games.
As an example, I give you Sen. Keith King, R-Colorado Springs.
King will not be seeking re-election this year because, under new legislative boundaries drawn by Democrats, he is now in the same district as Minority Leader Bill Cadman, R-Colorado Springs.
Rather than engage in a divisive primary, King opted not to run again.
While he has every right to be angry at Democrats, King was anything but on Wednesday. “While I think the outcome of the process is unfair, I plan to continue my service to my district and the state with integrity and honor,” he told his colleagues on the Senate floor.
To me, the actions of that one senator set an example far beyond anything lawmakers do when they choose their seats. I’d like to see the leaders in the state House and Senate (not to mention our congressional delegation) follow it.
Follow Curtis Hubbard on Twitter @curtishubbard
