The Hidden Agenda in the Kumbaya State of the Union Seating Plan

I mentioned this story the other day, but here's a refresher:

A proposal by Senator Mark Udall, D-Colo., for bipartisan seating during the annual State of Union address is picking up support. The plan, that would sit Republicans, Democrats, and Independents should-to-shoulder during the President's address, is getting the thumbs up from both sides of the aisle and even right down the middle.

Senators John McCain, R-Ariz., Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and a host of other Democratic and Republican Senators have signed on to the effort.

Several House members, including House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md., and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, R-Texas, agree with the plan too, though McCarthy hasn't formally signed the letter.

In a long-standing tradition during the president's speech to the joint session of Congress, party lines are literally drawn right down the House Chamber's center aisle with Republicans sitting on one side of the speaker's podium and Democrats on the other. However, with no actual rules stipulating who sits where, it's completely up to members whether or not they integrate the two sides.

Why do you think Democrats are suddenly so eager to mix everybody up in the House chamber? The reason is pretty simple. It's not about everybody showing some special form of unity, it's about not showing America how small the Democrat minority is now. When it becomes obvious that the Dems occupy the smallest part of the floor that they have in years it's going to be more than a little embarrassing. Mixing everybody up will dilute that imagery.

Don't do it, Speaker Boehner. Even after 9/11 the GOP and Dems remained on their respective sides of the chamber. Why should we suddenly find unity after a nut kills six in Tucson if we wouldn't do it after terrorists killed 3,000, including nearly 200 in Washington D.C.?