Just noticed that the nameplates in front of each speaker do not have a party designation on them.

[hisownpetard]

Is this customary? I wouldn't be surprised if that was Obama's idea, to de-emphasize
the political aspects of this discussion and keep the focus on the points of discussion.

Any thoughts?

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. That's very bipartisany

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. I noticed that too...

No idea if there's any precedent for it.

No titles either, beyond Senator or Representative.

I suspect it's to de-emphasize the political aspects as much as possible.

To give everyone a voice.

[liberal N proud]

3. All trying to promote bipartisanship

He is telling them and the country they is neither Democrat or Republican in doing what the country needs.

[hisownpetard]

7. That's exactly what I think. Nice touch - although the Repubs don't deserve it!

[onenote]

4. not sure that a meeting like this is "customary"

In Congress, the nameplates in front of each member at a hearing do not have a party designation.

[hisownpetard]

5. Thanks - wasn't sure about that.

[onenote]

8. to clarify

while reps and senators are not identified by party on their nameplates at hearings, the order of seating is set up so that members of the majority party sit together on one side of the chairman and members of the minority party sit together on the other side, so its pretty obvious who is a repub and who is not.

[vaberella]

6. I liked it. It pushes bipartisan to the forefront. But you can tell affiliation b/c of TPs.