No Labels Takes Out Ad In New York Times Advocating For Prom Seating At State Of The Union

No Labels -- an organization that earnestly believes that all of America's problems are being caused by a deficit of niceness among Congresscritters -- really wants them to agree to bipartisan seating at the upcoming State Of The Union address. In fact, it's a matter of such pressing, high-priority importance that the group took it upon itself to place a full-page ad in The New York Times -- half of which is dominated by the word "Duh!" -- insisting that this happen.

The rest of the ad reads as follows: "Make Congress sit together. Not on opposite sides of the aisle, but actually together. Then they might work, together. And here’s another no-brainer...do it for the State of the Union."

Yes, the whole bipartisan seating plan. Who among us can't remember that time in 2011, where in the wake of the Gabrielle Giffords shooting, your members of Congress, reaching for a way to prove to America that they really got it, man, agreed to set aside one, tiny, little, inconsquential difference and sit next to one another at the State of the Union, instead of sitting among their respective caucuses. Pretty soon, various lawmakers were asking each other out, as if it were junior prom, and the news filled up with story after story about who was taking who as their "date."

The plan was a terrific success, because if you recall, Congress totally didn't get bogged down months later in a pointless dispute over the debt ceiling, in which America's credit rating wasn't at all held hostage by a gang of lunatics who thought it was eminently reasonable to threaten the entire global economy with the imminent default on America's debt. Yes, we can all remember how the episode proved once and for all that prom seating at the State of the Union could successfully prevent a right-wing psychotic break that led to a downgraded credit rating and a delay in economic recovery.

No Labels' call for bipartisan seating comes after Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) called for more bipartisan seating arrangements. And truly, there could not be a better representative of the No Labels ethos of "everyone please be nice to each other" than Joe Manchin, the lawmaker so dedicated to mature political discourse and personal civility that he appeared in a campaign ad in which he literally shot a bill he didn't like with a gun. "It basically sends a strong signal to the people of America that we can not only work together but we can start by sitting together and sharing that type of camaraderie," said Manchin, whose idea of sending a strong signal is best exemplified by that time he fled Washington to attend an important Christmas party in order to avoid having to vote on the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell or the DREAM Act.

At any rate, that's No Labels: advocating for the bold ideas that have already been attempted and which didn't work anyway.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not?]

Earlier on HuffPost:

Comments

[ifquilt]

10:48 AM on 01/13/2012

This theory works at all levels of society. People behave better when they are forced to sit with the supposed enemy.a The catch is it won't work on those with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (which is many of them) because they are already are better than everyone else and they don't care what people think or who they hurt, they just want to be in charge.

[bondcliff]

10:16 AM on 01/13/2012

It is a great theory and I would support abolishing Party's altogether, but as it stands today, having the Congress sit amongst their adversaries would just confuse them. They would have to decide on their own when to rise and applaud an idea or sit on their hands. Sheep need clear direction from the border collie whips.

[SisterAnn]

07:07 AM on 01/13/2012

'No Names' would be a big step to a one party government. They would have even more power.

They can't get it straight where to sit and who to sit with. Don't depend on Congress to vote on the No Labels idea....they would block it.

[bondcliff]

10:21 AM on 01/13/2012

Think of the clever bumper stickers. "NO Names for the Do Nothings"

[Colleen Myers]

06:57 AM on 01/13/2012

What a waste of time... they will do whatever they want, not matter where they sit. To have them sit together is just a show.

[Jim Milks]

06:15 AM on 01/13/2012

The real problem is that bipartisan seating during the State of the Union just fakes the appearance of bipartisanship. If people want more bipartisanship when it counts during legislative sessions, they need to reform the way Congressional districts are drawn so that there are very few "safe" districts, where incumbents, if they become too extreme, can be defeated. That is the only way to really bring bipartisanship back to Washington.

[Juda Farmer]

02:20 AM on 01/13/2012

"could successfully prevent a right-wing psychotic break that led to a downgraded credit rating and a delay in economic recovery."

So while they advocate bipartisanship. They had no trouble throwing a partisan dagger in....

Im all for them sitting together though. Its just a manifestation of the real problems with our Govt. when they divide the parties and wings of the parties. Blue Dogs, Tea Parties, etc. Its not about the people anymore, on EITHER SIDE! Its about being elected and electable, to the sides that both have wedged out.

[blukazoo]

06:48 PM on 01/12/2012

Maybe if they sit near each other, they'll start holding hands and singing kumbaya...never going to happen.

[rtgmath]

06:44 PM on 01/12/2012

Actually, I am all for Truth in Labeling. Congressmen should have to wear placards around their necks listing their major donors.

Well, even though that can't happen, the concept of "no labels" is a bad one. Labels help us make choices. Declaring principles and advocating policy is the same as wearing a label. Labels on cans can tell us if there are ingredients in the product that aren't healthy, and labels on the candidate tell us how unpalatable their views really are.

I am a Christian, and I am a Liberal. I believe if Conservatives and Fundamentalists were accurately labeled, they would not be so widely accepted.

[Juda Farmer]

02:23 AM on 01/13/2012

Who would be their counterparts on the Liberal side? Your not suggesting that only the Republican party has these fanatical elements, are you? Do you find every Democrats views "palatable"?

[SisterAnn]

07:14 AM on 01/13/2012

Nothing good can come from bipartanship. Those who are ruining this country for the rest of us should bear the label, "Betrayers'.

[rtgmath]

07:32 AM on 01/13/2012

Over the years, Republicans and Democrats have moved steadily to the Right. So the Democratic radical fanaticism of many years ago hardly exists any more. On the other hand, Republican liberals are now extinct and Republican moderates are nearly so. There is far more to fear from Republican radicals than the most radical of today's Democrats.

[walkerhds]

11:06 PM on 01/13/2012

imagining your idea carried to its logical conclusion. 535 members of Congress, and 9 members of the Supreme Court arriving wearing suits that look like NASCAR fire suits.

I like it.

[marta76]

05:49 PM on 01/12/2012

Joe, honey, you are my senator and you are new in town. Nice idea but even if it happens it's a farce as is everything else in Washington.

[JRsNana]

05:41 PM on 01/12/2012

Who cares where they sit? I mean really. Go in and find a seat. Sit down. Listen. Go home. It's really pretty simple.

[chillmonster]

04:50 PM on 01/12/2012

Yes, bipartisan seating would look better; and I'm sure the American people would appreciate the aesthetics. The gesture, however, would still be all about aesthetics and lacking any real meaning with the current occupants of the seats on the right side of the isle.

I'll assume you've all heard what they say about lipstick and pigs...

[Juda Farmer]

02:26 AM on 01/13/2012

And another one. Do you think every filled seat on the left side of the isle, would be meaningful?

Always the right, never the left is that it? No rich people looking out for their bottom lines, on the left side? No corruption or pork barrels on the left side? Your right about the right side, but do you really believe all thats left is right? Pretty sad.

[chillmonster]

07:52 AM on 01/13/2012

I'm not talking about corruption and pork barrel spending. This is about willingness to work across the isle for the good of the country. This gesture would be meaningless on the right because they care more about beating President Obama than they do about improving the lives of working people.

[mdmccormick]

04:21 PM on 01/12/2012

I like labels but think they should be bought and paid for and true servant of the people, of course the true servant of the people would be far away from their peers with this seating.

[bleak]

04:18 PM on 01/12/2012

I was confused by the headline. I thought they were switching to highchairs and car seats.
Bibs may be a good accessory also.

[sophiajim]

04:07 PM on 01/12/2012

It makes no difference where the party of no seats they still just say no all year. Just wait if the right gets elected this year all the crying that will go on if the dems say no to any thing. I just see the tears coming down Boehner cheeks

[pecosdog]

04:06 PM on 01/12/2012

No labels? Why? I think we need to label the rightwing obstructionists for what they are. I like them right where they are, made to actually sit and pout as one when the prez talks about things that the country is behind him on. I like watching them sit and pout in unison.