PDA

View Full Version : GOP looked for ways to punish Wisconsin Democrats



Roger Perry
03-24-2011, 09:09 AM
By SCOTT BAUER
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/032411wisconsin.jpg (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/39917/032411wisconsin) Massive protests in Wisconsin

Everything from taking away computers to denying a year of service in the state retirement system was considered to punish the 14 Wisconsin Democrats who fled to Illinois for three weeks to block passage of a bill taking away union bargaining rights, newly released emails show.
Members ofRepublican (http://www.gop.com/) Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald’s staff bounced ideas off one another and the Legislature’s attorneys for days about how to penalize the Senate Democrats for leaving and pressure them to return, according to records released Wednesday byCitizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_for_Responsibility_and_Ethics_in_Washingt on).
The watchdog group obtained the emails from Fitzgerald’s office under Wisconsin’s open records law.
The emails show Fitzgerald’s staff members were as worried about the public relations campaign as they were actually figuring out a way to get the Democrats to come back.
“I would just be somewhat cautious in whatever we do so that it doesn’t end up creating sympathy for the Dems,” Tad Ottman, a Fitzgerald aide, wrote to his chief of staff John Hogan on Feb. 20.

Senate Republicans approved a number of sanctions during their absence, most notably voting to find the missing Democrats in contempt and ordering police to compel them to return. The emails show that Fitzgerald’s staff knew the state constitution barred them from actually arresting the senators other than for committing a crime or acts of treason.
“It now seems that monetary penalties and removal of privileges may be our only recourse,” Fitzgerald legislative aide Rob Richard wrote on Feb. 20, citing the constitutional prohibition on arrest.
The Senate voted on March 3 to find the Democrats in contempt and ordered the sergeant at arms to use police force to compel the senators to return. Fitzgerald said at the time that while the action was technically not an arrest, under Senate rules police could force absent members to return.

Fitzgerald said Wednesday that troopers were only sent to assist the Senate sergeant at arms, who was looking for the Democrats, and never were expected to be asked to make an arrest.

If the troopers were sent out to find the troopers and the troopers took them into custody would that not constitute an arrest???? Or could it be construed as kidnapping as I am sure the senators would have been forced to do something against their will.;-)

“I say we not only make it hurt for them, we have to make it hurt for their staff as well,” Richard wrote on Feb. 20.
One idea Ottman suggested in a Feb. 20 email was cutting the size of each Democratic senator’s staff by one person “since one person from each of their office is failing to show up for work (the Senator).”
That idea and several others, like reducing or taking away per diem payments and denying a year’s service in the retirement system, were not pursued. Richard pointed out in the same Feb. 20 email that taking away a year of retirement service likely would engender a court fight.
The emails also show there were discussions about what would happen if the Democrats returned unexpectedly. Fitzgerald’s chief of staff Hogan asked the Senate chief clerk in a Feb. 21 email what would happen if a Democrats showed up in the Capitol but not on the floor of the Senate.
“Then I assume we compel them back to the chamber via Ted/Trooper/TV cameras,” Hogan wrote, referring to sergeant at arms Ted Blazell. “We should just be ready with a procedure in case it happens.”

Compel them as in kidnaping or forcing them to do something against their will????
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/39917

Ken Bora
03-24-2011, 09:56 AM
Against their will??????
They ran for office.
They asked for the job, probably asked a lot.
And then they did not do the job, they ran away and hid.
If you hire somebody to mow your lawn and they sit across the street and watch the grass grow.
Do you let them sit there?



.

Roger Perry
03-24-2011, 10:12 AM
Against their will??????
They ran for office.
They asked for the job, probably asked a lot.
And then they did not do the job, they ran away and hid.
If you hire somebody to mow your lawn and they sit across the street and watch the grass grow.
Do you let them sit there?



.
I would not send out the police to take them into custody. They were also elected to serve the people and if they did what they did to protect the people they serve what is wrong with that? The Republicans wanted to ram rod through a law that the people the senators represented did not want passed into law.

Ken Bora
03-24-2011, 10:25 AM
The Republicans wanted to ram rod through a law that the people the senators represented did not want passed into law.

And so instead of doing that job, if as you say the specific folk in the specific districts WANTED them to do.
To which I would read as being on the floor debating and challenging and re-writing and compromising and promising.
You know, all the things our elected lawmakers are paid to do………
They RAN AWAY AND HID.
If I was one of those specific voters I would be very mad.
They should be flogged on the pubic square.




.

Roger Perry
03-24-2011, 10:44 AM
And so instead of doing that job, if as you say the specific folk in the specific districts WANTED them to do.
To which I would read as being on the floor debating and challenging and re-writing and compromising and promising.
You know, all the things our elected lawmakers are paid to do………
They RAN AWAY AND HID.
If I was one of those specific voters I would be very mad.
They should be flogged on the pubic square.




.

there would not have been a debate because the Republicans had the majority, they just needed 1 Democrat there so they had a quorum and could ram rod the bill through and have it passed into law. The article posted was about what the Republicans tried to do not about what the Democrats did.

Ken Bora
03-24-2011, 10:53 AM
I feel the voter would respect the backbone required to go into a fight they knew they would loose.
More
Than the ability to make reservations at a motel 6

If indeed the specific voters in the specific districts were against the state they live in finally making the sacrifices necessary to live within it’s means……
Then those run and hiders could have made hay during the next campaign. Even a semi-qualifies speechwriter would make Alamo type comparisons. “We fought the loosing fight for you!”
But who but the most stupid will hire a feller who’s campaign slogan will be “Re-elect me ‘cause when the going get tough you can count on me to run away!”




.

road kill
03-24-2011, 10:59 AM
I feel the voter would respect the backbone required to go into a fight they knew they would loose.
More
Than the ability to make reservations at a motel 6

If indeed the specific voters in the specific districts were against the state they live in finally making the sacrifices necessary to live within it’s means……
Then those run and hiders could have made hay during the next campaign. Even a semi-qualifies speechwriter would make Alamo type comparisons. “We fought the loosing fight for you!”
But who but the most stupid will hire a feller who’s campaign slogan will be “Re-elect me ‘cause when the going get tough you can count on me to run away!”


.


DEMOCRATS!!!!!:D

(Ken, you should know by now logic is wasted on Roger;-))


RK

M&K's Retrievers
03-24-2011, 11:10 AM
I would not send out the police to take them into custody. They were also elected to serve the people and if they did what they did to protect the people they serve what is wrong with that? The Republicans wanted to ram rod through a law that the people the senators represented did not want passed into law.

Ha Ha Ha, another one of RP's jokes. Isn't it? You don't really believe that BS do you? The only way for them to do the job they were elected to do is not show up? What a concept. Let me get this straight. Fill out a resume, ask and campaign for a position, get hired, accept compensation for the job and then fulfill your duties by not coming to work. Yep. Sounds like liberal thinking to me.

Uncle Bill
03-24-2011, 11:13 AM
I feel the voter would respect the backbone required to go into a fight they knew they would loose.
More
Than the ability to make reservations at a motel 6

If indeed the specific voters in the specific districts were against the state they live in finally making the sacrifices necessary to live within it’s means……
Then those run and hiders could have made hay during the next campaign. Even a semi-qualifies speechwriter would make Alamo type comparisons. “We fought the loosing fight for you!”
But who but the most stupid will hire a feller who’s campaign slogan will be “Re-elect me ‘cause when the going get tough you can count on me to run away!”




.

Like an old steer, you keep trying Ken. But when it comes to logic, even you must realize you are talking to an airhead. Your last line says it all. That's how the Rogers of this country get their Dimmycrats in.

But, now that you have tried, you will eventually come to agree with UB's #1 edict for BB posting...."Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."

Plus in Roger's case, my #2 also fits the occasion..."If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong."

Syrupy regards.

UB

Roger Perry
03-24-2011, 11:21 AM
I feel the voter would respect the backbone required to go into a fight they knew they would loose.
More
Than the ability to make reservations at a motel 6

If indeed the specific voters in the specific districts were against the state they live in finally making the sacrifices necessary to live within it’s means……
Then those run and hiders could have made hay during the next campaign. Even a semi-qualifies speechwriter would make Alamo type comparisons. “We fought the loosing fight for you!”
But who but the most stupid will hire a feller who’s campaign slogan will be “Re-elect me ‘cause when the going get tough you can count on me to run away!”




.
I would say that the democratic senators slowed down the process so the people of Wisconsin knew and understood what was going to happen to them.

road kill
03-24-2011, 12:01 PM
I would say that the democratic senators slowed down the process so the people of Wisconsin knew and understood what was going to happen to them.

They did know.

That is why WE elected the Republicans.


They represent us!!!
By the GUTLESS act of cutting and running (which is what your ilk does---cowardly) the Crybaby whiney hippy Democrats disenfranchised our votes.

It is a pathetic desperate tactic that is showing America what you progressives really are about.

And that you are herded by the UNION BOSSES!!!!


stan b

pat addis
03-24-2011, 12:13 PM
to every one who is whineing about them ram rodding this bill through how do you think the health care reform bill got passed not 1 single rep. voted for it. who said elections have consequences and didn't seem to care about what any one else thought they wouldn't even let any one read the bill. remember we have to pass it to find out whats in it. i also think it's funny all those absent dems. from wis. and ind. came to il. where the dems. passed a tax hike to bail out our state. it was told that it was temporary but how many times have you heard that crap it will never happen. the only thing they are good at is raising taxes it's no wonder that there is no jobs in il. sorry for the long post but i'm tired of people trying to make them into heros

Byron Musick
03-24-2011, 12:20 PM
If we allow our representitives to bail everytime they understand they are going to lose, then we are allowing a loss of representation, loss of freedom, and loss of our VOTE..

I think those folks should not only be fired, but arrested as well.. JMHDAO

code3retrievers
03-24-2011, 12:26 PM
I would not send out the police to take them into custody. They were also elected to serve the people and if they did what they did to protect the people they serve what is wrong with that? The Republicans wanted to ram rod through a law that the people the senators represented did not want passed into law.

Then they should have stayed and voted against it. That is how democracy works. If the people don't like it, they can vote them out the next time around. Elections have consequences.

Typical liberal response " I don't like the outcome so I will subvert the rules".

Roger Perry
03-24-2011, 12:55 PM
Then they should have stayed and voted against it. That is how democracy works. If the people don't like it, they can vote them out the next time around. Elections have consequences.

Typical liberal response " I don't like the outcome so I will subvert the rules".

And what did you think of the "R's" wanting to put an end to the fillibuster law to serve their own purposes???????

Senate Republicans' Bid to Destroy the Filibuster Option, And Push Through Ultraconservative Federal Judges:</SPAN>
It Seems Likely the "Nuclear Option" Actually Will Be Used

By JOHN W. DEAN (http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/dean)Friday, Apr. 08, 2005
A new political campaign is underway. It was launched this week.
On one side are the Bush White House and Senate conservatives. The White House seeks to pack the federal judiciary with ultra-conservative judges and justices. Ultimately, the goal is to place far-right justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. (Given the age of several justices, and the poor health of the Chief Justice, one or more vacancies are expected at the end of the current term, in June.)
Toward this goal, Senate Republicans - now enjoying a 55-45 majority due to the 2004 election -- are campaigning to end filibustering of such nominations. This would require a Senate rule change - an option that is referred to candidly as the "nuclear option" and euphemistically (by Republicans) as "the constitutional option." If such a change is sought, it will likely happen when one or more of Bush's pending judicial nominees return to the Senate floor this month
Ironically, it is the conservatives who seek to obliterate the Senate's two-hundred- year-old tradition of unlimited debate. Indeed, they are avid about it: On April 4, an assembly of conservative organizations held a briefing at the National Press Club -- doubtless meant to keep the pressure on Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.
http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/dean/20050408.html

road kill
03-24-2011, 01:01 PM
And what did you think of the "R's" wanting to put an end to the fillibuster law to serve their own purposes???????

Senate Republicans' Bid to Destroy the Filibuster Option, And Push Through Ultraconservative Federal Judges:</SPAN>
It Seems Likely the "Nuclear Option" Actually Will Be Used

By JOHN W. DEAN (http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/dean)Friday, Apr. 08, 2005
A new political campaign is underway. It was launched this week.
On one side are the Bush White House and Senate conservatives. The White House seeks to pack the federal judiciary with ultra-conservative judges and justices. Ultimately, the goal is to place far-right justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. (Given the age of several justices, and the poor health of the Chief Justice, one or more vacancies are expected at the end of the current term, in June.)
Toward this goal, Senate Republicans - now enjoying a 55-45 majority due to the 2004 election -- are campaigning to end filibustering of such nominations. This would require a Senate rule change - an option that is referred to candidly as the "nuclear option" and euphemistically (by Republicans) as "the constitutional option." If such a change is sought, it will likely happen when one or more of Bush's pending judicial nominees return to the Senate floor this month
Ironically, it is the conservatives who seek to obliterate the Senate's two-hundred- year-old tradition of unlimited debate. Indeed, they are avid about it: On April 4, an assembly of conservative organizations held a briefing at the National Press Club -- doubtless meant to keep the pressure on Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.
http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/dean/20050408.html

Hey, Roger, are you aware that one of your GUTLESS "Flee Baggers" has proposed a bill to stop future flights of fright from the WI Senate to avoid votes?

That's how ashamed of the GUTLESS, COWARDLY effort he is.


But you tell us all about it.:rolleyes:


(my bad)



stan b

code3retrievers
03-24-2011, 01:53 PM
And what did you think of the "R's" wanting to put an end to the fillibuster law to serve their own purposes???????

Senate Republicans' Bid to Destroy the Filibuster Option, And Push Through Ultraconservative Federal Judges:</SPAN>
It Seems Likely the "Nuclear Option" Actually Will Be Used

By JOHN W. DEAN (http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/dean)Friday, Apr. 08, 2005
A new political campaign is underway. It was launched this week.
On one side are the Bush White House and Senate conservatives. The White House seeks to pack the federal judiciary with ultra-conservative judges and justices. Ultimately, the goal is to place far-right justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. (Given the age of several justices, and the poor health of the Chief Justice, one or more vacancies are expected at the end of the current term, in June.)
Toward this goal, Senate Republicans - now enjoying a 55-45 majority due to the 2004 election -- are campaigning to end filibustering of such nominations. This would require a Senate rule change - an option that is referred to candidly as the "nuclear option" and euphemistically (by Republicans) as "the constitutional option." If such a change is sought, it will likely happen when one or more of Bush's pending judicial nominees return to the Senate floor this month
Ironically, it is the conservatives who seek to obliterate the Senate's two-hundred- year-old tradition of unlimited debate. Indeed, they are avid about it: On April 4, an assembly of conservative organizations held a briefing at the National Press Club -- doubtless meant to keep the pressure on Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.
http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/dean/20050408.html

Since you asked- I was not OK with it and I was not OK with it when the dems were considering doing the same for the health care vote.

But I also believe that the dems should have allowed an up or down vote with in the rules for federal judges.

Unlike some on the left here who constantly throw around the word "hypocrite", I am not one. Are you?

dnf777
03-24-2011, 01:56 PM
And so instead of doing that job, if as you say the specific folk in the specific districts WANTED them to do.
To which I would read as being on the floor debating and challenging and re-writing and compromising and promising.
You know, all the things our elected lawmakers are paid to do………
They RAN AWAY AND HID.
]If I was one of those specific voters I would be very mad.[/B]
They should be flogged on the pubic square.




.

Like all things political.........I suspect if you were a WI republican, you WOULD be mad. OTOH, if you were a WI democrat, you would NOT be mad.

Which ox is getting gored regards.....
dave

Eric Johnson
03-24-2011, 03:29 PM
Roger -

The WI republicans raised and discarded all of these proposals. I don't believe any were acted on. Is your highlighting intended to make it appear that they did?

Are you saying that the way of politics should be that the minority party just drags up and leaves and refuses to participate? Candidly, that's not only sophomoric, it's also c*ickens*it.....if I can't make the rules, I'll take my ball and go home.

Eric

road kill
03-24-2011, 03:52 PM
There is always MORE to the story.

He is the MORE!!!

Judge Sumi’s Husband Donated to Three of Badger 14
by Media Trackers
There was already cause for Judge Maryann Sumi to have recused herself in the collective bargaining lawsuit since her son, Jake Sinderbrand is a former employee of the AFL-CIO and SEIU, now more conflict of interests have been discovered.



Judge Sumi’s husband, Carl Sinderbrand donated to the campaigns of three of the “Badger 14″: Dave Hansen, Jim Holperin and Robert Wirch. Additionally Sinderbrand donated to Tom Barrett in his fight against Scott Walker for the governorship.


Judge Sumi’s family has a history of strong ties to unions and a pattern of financially supporting only democratic candidates. This is not the impartiality Wisconsin deserves on the bench.


http://biggovernment.com/mtrackers/2011/03/22/judge-sumis-husband-donated-to-three-of-badger-14/


WOW!!!


stan b

Roger Perry
03-24-2011, 04:14 PM
Governor Scott Walker was bought and paid for by the Koch brothers and is now doing their bidding for them by busting unions.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker: Funded by the Koch Bros.

Wisconsin Republican Governor Scott Walker, whose bill to kill collective bargaining rights (http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/02/wisconsin-middle-east-midwest) for public-sector unions has caused an uproar (http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/02/defunding-democratic-party) among state employees, might not be where he is today without the Koch brothers. Charles and David Koch are conservative titans of industry who have infamously used their vast wealth to undermine President Obama (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all) and fight legislation they detest, such as the cap-and-trade climate bill, the health care reform act, and the economic stimulus package. For years, the billionaires have made extensive political donations to Republican candidates across the country and have provided millions of dollars to astroturf right-wing organizations. Koch Industries' political action committee has doled out more than $2.6 million to candidates. And one prominent beneficiary of the Koch brothers' largess is Scott Walker.
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/02/wisconsin-scott-walker-koch-brothers

caryalsobrook
03-24-2011, 04:20 PM
Ha Ha Ha, another one of RP's jokes. Isn't it? You don't really believe that BS do you? The only way for them to do the job they were elected to do is not show up? What a concept. Let me get this straight. Fill out a resume, ask and campaign for a position, get hired, accept compensation for the job and then fulfill your duties by not coming to work. Yep. Sounds like liberal thinking to me.

Sorry M&K, more like Service Empoyees International Union:)

Cody Covey
03-24-2011, 04:30 PM
Something that has been brought up a couple times but you haven't addressed that I have seen at least. What do you think about the way the health care bill was passed and if you think it was okay (and I'm sure we could search and find that you were in fact okay with it) how does it differ from this bill in Wisconsin?

we won regards...

M&K's Retrievers
03-24-2011, 06:00 PM
Governor Scott Walker was bought and paid for by the Koch brothers and is now doing their bidding for them by busting unions.
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker: Funded by the Koch Bros.

Wisconsin Republican Governor Scott Walker, whose bill to kill collective bargaining rights (http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/02/wisconsin-middle-east-midwest) for public-sector unions has caused an uproar (http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/02/defunding-democratic-party) among state employees, might not be where he is today without the Koch brothers. Charles and David Koch are conservative titans of industry who have infamously used their vast wealth to undermine President Obama (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all) and fight legislation they detest, such as the cap-and-trade climate bill, the health care reform act, and the economic stimulus package. For years, the billionaires have made extensive political donations to Republican candidates across the country and have provided millions of dollars to astroturf right-wing organizations. Koch Industries' political action committee has doled out more than $2.6 million to candidates. And one prominent beneficiary of the Koch brothers' largess is Scott Walker.
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/02/wisconsin-scott-walker-koch-brothers

And the problem is?? Are you saying that since the Koch brothers don't agree with you, they can't donate. That must mean that you think Soros shouldn't donate either.

Goose and gander regards,