Dems Divided
It appears that there’s still some bad blood flowing in the Democratic caucus in the state senate.
When Larson called his first Senate caucus meeting of the new legislative session last week, three Democrats were missing - Erpenbach, Bob Jauch (D-Poplar) and Lena Taylor (D-Milwaukee). Larson replaced Jauch and Taylor on the powerful Joint Finance Committee.
Jauch told the Journal Sentinel, “When (Larson) decided to barter one of the two Finance positions for his own, I decided I’m going to serve my district - I don’t serve him. When you decide to put yourself and a title ahead of the best interests of the caucus, I think it says more about him than me.”
How much of a pretentious pseudo intellectual do you have to be to name your kid Atticus when it is not a family name?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 14, 2013 at 1018 hrs
This is what happens when Democrats go off the deep end. I think Charlie would call it “lunatic fringe”.
State Democrats better get more moderate, or they will continue to alienate the voters of this state.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 14, 2013 at 1028 hrs
Uh, Taylor being MIA is not necessarily a bad thing for anybody… even the Democrats.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 14, 2013 at 1049 hrs
Our state would be a much better place if more people, in both parties, stop going to these Private Caucus Meetings. Kudos to these three Dems for taking that first step.
Posted by purplepenquin on January 14, 2013 at 1420 hrs
Good point, Kevin. The voters clearly don’t want Dems like Obama representing them!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 14, 2013 at 1619 hrs
”...Private Caucus Meetings…”
Many of these caucus meetings are open to the public.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 14, 2013 at 1619 hrs
VA,
If you look closer, I said “State Democrats” have to get more moderate.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 14, 2013 at 1628 hrs
Many of these caucus meetings are open to the public
No snark/insult is meant, but are you thinking of committee meetings? ‘cause yes, most of those are open to the public.
But the purpose of a caucus meeting is to discuss, in private, what they wanna do as a party and thus are closed to the public, and not subject to Open Meeting Laws.
Tho I could be wrong. Did this proposal actually get passed into law?Posted by purplepenquin on January 14, 2013 at 1645 hrs
Most caucus meetings start out open, but end up being closed to the public at some point.
And contrary to public perception, closed caucuses aren’t a hotbed of nefarious activity. They do, however, make the legislative process more efficient. There’s nothing accomplished in caucus that couldn’t be accomplished in dozens and dozens of individual meetings and phone calls. It’s just a lot easier to get all the ducks in a row if all the ducks are in the same room.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 14, 2013 at 1857 hrs
While I appreciate your assurances, how do you know what occurs behind those closed doors? Are you a state lawmaker?
I beleive that if political parties want to have a private meeting and lock the taxpayers out of the room, then they should do so on their own time and in their own office space.Posted by purplepenquin on January 14, 2013 at 1933 hrs
Kevin,
Read closer. You said the voters of this state would be alienated if Dems didn’t moderate. Yet those same voters prefer Obama, who, in your eyes, is certainly not moderate. Thinking is hard, I know, but you should try it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 14, 2013 at 2031 hrs
I spent 4+ years working for them. Spent enough time on the other side of the door to know. Most closed caucuses are open to partisan staff, virtually all closed caucuses are open to leadership staff, and the rare leggies-only caucus is usually confidential for about two minutes after it ends since, in my experience, nobody keeps secrets worse than state legislators. An open-ended question like “how’d it go up there?” is usually sufficient to get a leggie to talk. The rest gets filled in by talking to other staff or legislators.
Everyone knew who liked to talk. Hell, most of the time the press room knew before it was even over. Someone’s always looking to score brownie points with the media.What’s your basis for your beliefs? Ignorance? Paranoia? Pretty sure it’s not first-hand knowledge. You’ve all but confessed to that.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 14, 2013 at 2037 hrs
VA,
When it comes to local fiscal matters, people want responsible, not crazy. Thus why Republicans hold power in the state.
Obama is good at pretending to be responsible. Lcoal Dem politicians cannot mask their crazyness as well, as this story proves.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 14, 2013 at 2057 hrs
What’s your basis for your beliefs?
You really have no idea why I think it is wrong for political parties to hold their private meetings on State property while they are being paid to do State business? Really?! You see no basis for why anyone would object to such a practice?
Then again, I reckon an insider like you wouldn’t be able to understand why that sticks in the craw of a regular guy like me. Like water to a fish, ya’ll just can’t see the stuff once you’re surrounded in it.
Let’s just say that as a taxpayer it disgusts me. If they are working for me AND I’m paying for the room, then they shouldn’t be locking me out.
Posted by purplepenquin on January 14, 2013 at 2141 hrs
Do you think you’re entitled to sit in on every meeting, every conversation? Do you think you’re entitled to sit next to staffers while they discuss a constituent’s personal concerns on the phone? If four staffers and two legislators go out for lunch to talk about a bill they’re working on for a constituent but that hasn’t been circulated, do you think they should leave extra seats at the table for people like you to watch them?
Believe me, I absolutely understand the importance of transparency. What I don’t understand is the transparency fetish that some people have when it comes to government, as though it’s some kind of grievous sin for two leggies to have a conversation at a urinal without some jackwad holding a tape recorder in their faces and demanding to know what’s being said.
If you believe that somehow the legislative process would benefit from zero privacy whatsoever, I will tell you having lived through that process that it would be nearly impossible to get anything done. If, as a legislator, I have concerns about a colleague’s bill, of course I want the ability to speak to him privately to see if those concerns can be addressed without having to turn the affair into a public sideshow. Getting stuff done in politics, like in life, is largely about relationships with your colleagues. No better way to further damage those relationships than to insist that all the disagreement and conflict and dirty laundry get aired in public. You want a legislative process that’s even MORE antagonistic than what you’ve got now? Then let’s do it your way.
When it comes to the process, you’re not a regular guy. Respectfully, you’re just an ignorant one. I haven’t worked in the legislature for 7 1/2 years and both of the legislators I worked for have retired. Calling me an insider at this point is borderline hilarious. But I do have a far better understanding of the process than most people because I got to observe it from up close. It’s easy for me to tell you what works and what doesn’t, and I can do it objectively because I just don’t have a dog in the fight anymore. You don’t have any understanding whatsoever - just a blind, ignorant, pollyanna-ish view of how you think the system should work in a perfect world.
You’re entitled to your opinion, of course. Just don’t make the mistake of thinking that your ignorance is an equally valid basis for an opinion as the knowledge of those who do understand the process.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 14, 2013 at 2319 hrs
transparency fetish
...aaaaaaand THAT is where ya lost me. Seriously, didn’t even read beyond those words.
Your mocking and patronizing tone makes it very clear how Capitol-insiders like yourself feel about the general public, and nothing an “ignorant” plebe is gonna say will make ya change your mind. Ya’ll just want us to keep throwing our taxdollars into your personal trough and then to get the hell out of the way & shut the fuck up about it.
Like, I said….it is like trying to explain water to a fish. I didn’t expect you to understand the concerns one little bit, and you totally lived up to those expectations.
Posted by purplepenquin on January 15, 2013 at 0858 hrs
Ok…I just tried to read the rest of that post, but then this was said….
it’s some kind of grievous sin for two leggies to have a conversation at a urinal without some jackwad holding a tape recorder in their faces and demanding to know what’s being said.
...which made you lose me once again.
To claim that is equivalent to the concerns I brought up shows how out-of-touch our “Ruling Class” is with the general public.
As I said before, it disgusts me that my taxdollars are being used for political parties to hold their private meetings. If you want to have a meeting that is limited to only members of your own political party, then do it on your own time and in your own space.
Posted by purplepenquin on January 15, 2013 at 0908 hrs
Is it just me or would everyone else like to see a cage match between purplepenguin and Mr. Pelican pants too?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 15, 2013 at 0957 hrs
Well, okay then. Let’s play your game. Anyone can hold meetings in the Capitol, for virtually any reason, by paying a deposit and a near-insignificant hourly fee and making a reservation through the respective house’s Sergeant at Arms.
Would that make you feel better? If the political parties paid $50 an hour to allow its members to caucus in GAR or the North Hearing Room? Because then it’s a private party reserving a room in which its designated guests may commiserate and relax during long session days.
I respect all knowledgable members of the public. I always did. But most of you weren’t knowledgable and thought you were, and that always provided good humor during a work day.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 15, 2013 at 1006 hrs
Is it just me or does anyone else think that RS sometimes comes off as someone with a monumental ego too?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 17, 2013 at 0830 hrs
Well, okay then. Let’s play your game.
Oh. I see the problem now. You’re just playing a game while I’m trying to express an actual concern.
*rolls eyes*
Seriously…look at it this way: What if schools were required to provide meeting space so members of the teacher’s union can conduct their private business, behind locked doors, during working hours?Would you object to such a practice or would you use the ol’ “Teachers have a right to not be bothered while taking a piss!” battle-cry in defense of it?
Posted by purplepenquin on January 17, 2013 at 1117 hrs
Total Entries: 21059
Total Comments: 146944
Most Recent Entry: 05/17/2013 05:57 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/18/2013 05:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 54
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/21/2013 04:14 pm
The most visitors ever was 663 on 09/02/2012 05:13 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).