Skip to comments.State of the Union Address Bipartisan Seating
Posted on 01/14/2011 5:28:09 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan
Michaud Calls for Bipartisan Seating at State of the Union Address - Says it's a small, but important and symbolic step
WASHINGTON, DC - Today Congressman Mike Michaud added his name to a letter led by Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) that will be sent to House and Senate leaders next week asking for a show of bipartisanship through a change in the seating at the upcoming State of the Union Address.
"Partisan seating arrangements at the State of the Union addresses serve to symbolize division instead of the common challenges we face in securing a strong future for the United States," state Michaud and his colleagues in the letter. "But now the opportunity before us is to bring civility back to politics. It is important to show the nation that the most powerful deliberative bodies in the world can debate our differences with respect, honor and civility. We believe that it is not only possible, but that it is something that nearly all members of Congress truly desire. To that end, we suggest setting a small, but important, new tradition in American politics."
During the annual address, Democrats and Republicans traditionally sit in blocs on opposite sides on the floor of the House of Representatives.
Michaud and his colleagues continue in the letter: "Beyond custom, there is no rule or reason that on this night we should emphasize divided government, separated by party, instead of being seen united as a country. The choreographed standing and clapping of one side of the room - while the other side sits - is unbecoming of a serious institution."
The full text of the letter:
Dear Majority Leader Reid, Speaker Boehner, Minority Leaders McConnell and Pelosi:
We, the undersigned members of Congress, believe that partisan seating arrangements at the State of the Union addresses serve to symbolize division instead of the common challenges we face in securing a strong future for the United States.
As we all know, the tenor and debate surrounding our politics has grown ever more corrosive - ignoring the fact that while we may take different positions, we all have the same interests. This departure from statesmanship and collegiality is fueled, in part, by contentious campaigns and divisive rhetoric. Political differences will always generate a healthy debate, but over time the dialogue has become more hateful and at times violent. But now the opportunity before us is to bring civility back to politics. It is important to show the nation that the most powerful deliberative bodies in the world can debate our differences with respect, honor and civility. We believe that it is not only possible, but that it is something that nearly all members of Congress truly desire. To that end, we suggest setting a small, but important, new tradition in American politics.
At the State of the Union address, on January 25th, instead of sitting in our usual partisan divide, let us agree to have Democrats and Republicans sitting side by side throughout the chamber. Beyond custom, there is no rule or reason that on this night we should emphasize divided government, separated by party, instead of being seen united as a country. The choreographed standing and clapping of one side of the room - while the other side sits - is unbecoming of a serious institution. And the message that it sends is that even on a night when the President is addressing the entire nation, we in Congress cannot sit as one, but must be divided as two.
On the night of the State of the Union address, we are asking others to join us - House and Senate members from both parties - to cross the aisle and sit together. We hope that as the nation watches, Democrats and Republicans will reflect the interspersed character of America itself. Perhaps by sitting with each other for one night we will begin to rekindle that common spark that brought us here from 50 different states and widely diverging backgrounds to serve the public good.
With respect and admiration,
© Copyright 2002-2010 by Magic City Morning Star
I refuse to watch the Cretin. I will read his speeches, but I never watch him. I saw him speak in 2004 at the DNC convention and decided then he was one I REALLY didn’t like. For good reason, his speech is full of subliminals. They are pretty darned obvious when you read what he is repeating off TOTUS. When you read what the cretin is saying.... yea... losts of fluff and little substance. What substance there is, is invariable disturbing.
That’s a good idea. I like it. Sit quietly and listen politely until the POTUS is finished.
Don’t do it!! They are trying to play Republicans like a fiddle. They just want to pretend. DON’T DO IT!!
How about Patriots in the hall where the speech is given, and politicians in the basement across the street. That ought to
throw a scare into the teleprompter.
I think Boehner should say something like - “Wow, what a great idea! But we wouldn’t feel right taking credit for such a novel idea. Tell you what, next time you guys are in the majority, we’ll be happy to consider non-partisan seating.
Looks to me like Boehner didn’t even make it past the State of the Union Show before bending over and grabbing his ankles.
Mikes a homo, probably wants to sit next to some Republican he has taken a liking to.
I called my local representative and told the gal
who answered the phone to pass a message on to Vern...
DO NOT AGREE TO BE A PART OF THIS TOUCHY FEELY CRAP
WE WON, THEY LOST... if they don’t want to have the
viewers see just how many more (R)’s there are compared to (D)’s
then it’s just too bad... keep the left on the left, right on the right.
Not just no...HELL NO
Just let em try...and watch all the republicans sit on the right. The libs just want to blur the lines.
That way the imbalance between Rs and Ds won’t be as obvious.
If the Congress and Senate want to make an improvement which truly symbolizes unity and maturity, then let them sit in the traditional manner and avoid partisan displays of emotion on either side by holding their applause until the speech is over.
Unless they are willing to do that, then mixing up their seating is a childish exercise in musical chairs.
They should wear the left over Together We Thrive shirts.
You just stated the goal of the dems..to hide their massive losses...how cunning..and the republicans are so guileless...and that is a kind way of saying they are so stupid.
The other lib female judge would..Ginsburg..and the lib male judges would..
G. Edward Griffins Tips For Delegates
Submitted by JohnGalt300 on Tue, 07/01/2008 - 18:15
in Daily Paul Liberty Forum
Here are some strategies collectivists use to control public meetings.
HOW COLLECTIVISTS USE THE DIAMOND TACTIC TO SWAY PUBLIC MEETINGS AND HOW TO THWART THEM
by G. Edward Griffin
In the 1960s, I came across a small training manual distributed by the Communist Party that showed how a small group of people as few as four could dominate a much larger group and sway the outcome of any action taken by that group. It was called the Diamond Technique. The principle is based on the fact that people in groups tend to be effected by mass psychology. They derive comfort and security from being aligned with the majority, especially if controversy or conflict is involved. Even if they do not like what the majority is doing, if they believe they are in the minority, they tend to remain silent and resigned to the fact that the majority should rule. This being the case, the Diamond Techniques is designed to convince the group that as few as four people represent the majority. Here is the strategy:
1. Plan ahead of time what action you want the group to take: nominate or oppose a candidate, support or oppose an issue, heckle a speaker, or whatever. Everyone on your team must know exactly what they are going to do, including contingency plans.
2. Team members should arrive at the meeting separately and never congregate together.
3. Team players should arrive early enough to take seats around the outside of the assembly area, roughly in the shape of a diamond. They must not sit together.
4. The object of the tactic is place your people around the perimeter of the audience so that, when they begin to take action, those in the center will have to do a lot of head turning to see them to the right, then the left, then the rear of the room, then the front, etc. The more they turn their heads, the greater the illusion of being surrounded by people in agreement with each other, and the more they will be convinced that these people represent the majority opinion. I have seen this tactic used by collectivists at numerous public meetings over the years, and I have participated in it myself on several occasions when confronting collectivists in their own tightly held organizations. It works.
The only way to thwart the Diamond Tactic is to always be prepared to match it with your own team. Never take a meeting for granted, especially if something important is scheduled to transpire, such as nomination of officers. Even a simple gathering to hear an important speaker can turn into a nightmare if opponents send in hecklers. So, always plan for the worst and be prepared to spring into action with comments from the floor such as: I want to make it clear that these people do not speak for me. I am in total opposition to what they stand for. In fact, I would like to ask them to identify themselves. Who are you? Why did you come to this meeting? What is your agenda? If comments such as this are heard from three or four people around the outside of the room, the meeting will be very exciting, but the tactic will be defused.
Using the Delphi Technique to Achieve Consensus
How it is leading us away from representative government to an illusion of citizen participation....
“but you were not so convinced or even disagreed, would you, too, rise out of a sense of politeness?”