To the editor:

I could not be drawn away from hearing what President Obama was going to explain to the country last night. The speech was very good, in my opinion. Not everything was there, and we could not expect that.

BUT I was distracted to observe who stood or who sat at the times of applause. How often did both sides of the aisle stand for the same point? To my observation it seemed that both sides stood together more often the farther into the speech the president went. Maybe we all can celebrate any dismantling of the serious partisanship of the last decades.

I was disturbed to realize that my attention focused on how often the split or concurrence happened. My representatives in Congress and Senate are there not as party people! I am more concerned that I believe each vote is the result of the best judgment for us and our country (realizing “for us” is not always the same as “for USA”).

Could Congress dilute the partisanship by intermingling the 435 representatives and 100 senators, without regard for the party which contributed to them being in office? It would be plausible to seat them by seniority, or by height, or by Social Security numbers, or by a lottery. (Most states rely significantly on lotteries).

Looking for representation, not partisanship.

Don Conrad,
Lawrence