Now Indiana Democrats Fleeing State

[natepro]

This is some of the most bizarre **** I've ever heard of.

[Labgrownmangoat]

EDIT

Again I want anyone to please explain to me why elections only have consequences when Democrats are in control? But when the Republicans take control their agenda isn't good enough and have to be stopped at all costs. That the Democrats won't so much as allow a vote on a bill they don't like. Sure didn't see the Republicans running out of Washington during the bills they didn't like that got passed in the past two years. Nor do I ever remember hearing about Republicans running out of a statehouse because a Democratic controlled house was passing a bill they don't agree with. So tell me anyone how this is anything more than democrats acting like spoiled brats that aren't getting there way.

Please provide a single statement from the Governor of Wisconsin from before his election stating that he would remove the ability of public-sector unions to bargain collectively. If you can find none, then this is not what he ran upon.

Second, it really takes some giant brass balls to say that elections have consequences immediately after 2 straight years of Republican obstructionism at the national level. When the majority of the voting public voted for Democrats and their policies on the national level in both houses of Congress and the Presidency, Republicans responded with a record number of filibusters. They stymied everything the majority of Americans wanted, and did so gleefully for no other reason than partisan gain. You want to talk about spoiled brats? Bring it on!

[Angelica]

Republicans blocking Obama's and Democrats agenda over the last couple years? With the large majority Democrats held?

Thought Thomas Sowell said it well recently.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell100610.php3

One of the big distracting talking points is that the Republicans in Congress have been "the party of No." Given the overwhelming majorities of the Democrats in both houses, in addition to their control of the White House, whether the Republicans said "yes," "no" or "maybe" could not stop the Democrats from doing anything they wanted to do.
It should also be noted that the Democrats were in power in Congress before President Obama got to the White House. So "the mess" that he constantly reminds us he "inherited" includes runaway spending by Congressional Democrats, of whom Senator Barack Obama was one of the more prominent big spenders.

[Labgrownmangoat]

Republicans blocking Obama's and Democrats agenda over the last couple years? With the large majority Democrats held?

Thought Thomas Sowell said it well recently.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell100610.php3

Thomas Sowell is deliberately misleading people. Filibusters do not require a majority, and the legislative sessions he is lying, err talking, about featured a record number of filibusters. Try again.

If only he was right and the Democrats could have gotten more of the hundreds (literally) of bills that the House passed through the Senate, we would all be a lot better off.

[dbroncos78087]

Sowell is just factually inaccurate on that profile. When the Democrats had 60 senators, of whom two were independents not Democrats they could only do what they wanted of they convinced Bernie Sanders and Ben Nelson it was a good idea. The thing about having 60 members is that the tent gets so much larger because despite the who "tax and spend" mantra, not all Democrats are the same. Also when Ted died and Brown took over the entire dynamic changed which is the climate we have been in, as an ironic note we suffered massive climate change.

With the national stage going the way it did the Wisconsin legislature went to a point where Walker can loose votes and still reach 60% so he decided he could completely ignore the people whom this change most affected, the teachers/civil servants/etc.

[cabernetluver]

Sowell is just factually inaccurate on that profile. When the Democrats had 60 senators, of whom two were independents not Democrats they could only do what they wanted of they convinced Bernie Sanders and Ben Nelson it was a good idea. The thing about having 60 members is that the tent gets so much larger because despite the who "tax and spend" mantra, not all Democrats are the same. Also when Ted died and Brown took over the entire dynamic changed which is the climate we have been in, as an ironic note we suffered massive climate change.

With the national stage going the way it did the Wisconsin legislature went to a point where Walker can loose votes and still reach 60% so he decided he could completely ignore the people whom this change most affected, the teachers/civil servants/etc.

Not to mention that for the first few months, the Minnesota election was not decided (so in fact during that time there was no 60 under any count) and Ted Kennedy was not there a good part of the time later on. And Lieberman was one of the 60. Or at least he is counted that way.

[b1e9a8r5s]

Of course elections have consequences. That is not the issue here, unless, you are going to say that the Republicans in the Senate are not following that idea with all of the appointments to non confrontational positions that they have held up. This to me, if there is no instrument like the filibuster in the US Senate, is using the tools they have. For the life of me, I just don't remember you clamoring for more cooperation in the Senate in 2009/10.

So you find/found no fault in the Republicans using the fillabuster the past 2 years as they did? I'm not sure I agree, but I want to make sure I understand you. That was just using the tools they had?

[cabernetluver]

So you find/found no fault in the Republicans using the fillabuster the past 2 years as they did? I'm not sure I agree, but I want to make sure I understand you. That was just using the tools they had?

You have been fair over the years, so you have earned a thoughtful response. In this, as in many things, it is not a simple binary response. yes/no. I have not been yelling for the abolition of the filibuster, but I have been unhappy with frequency of them.

It has been my feeling that it is an important tool to be used judiciously, but the Republicans have been using it with far more frequency than ever before, (along with secret holds) so, to give you a complete answer, I have found fault with the frequency of use, but not the use per se. I apologize in advance for such a long winded answer.

[TunTavern]

I'm more curious as to how anyone could be against right-to-work legislation without specifically supporting an exclusionary labor racket enforced through state violence. I find it funny that some of the politicians have fled to Illinois, a state totally done-in from corrupt state/union activities.

[DodgersFan28]

Pointing the finger at the other party isn't going to help the Dems. Those despicable cowards have abandoned their state and its people, including the ones who voted for them. They should all be immediately fired. If that can't happen, I sincerely hope none of them are ever voted into office again.