March 13, 2012

Fleebagalgia.

Fleebagger nostalgia.
“Fourteen egos, of such varied personalities … were able to stick together for three weeks,” [Wisconsin State Senator Fred] Risser said. “You don’t have that happen very often.”

39 comments:

CarterFliptMe said...

They 'were able' to stick together? Yeah I suppose when your kneecaps are threatened by Union Thugs and you're directed to get your Progressive butt to Chicago you do as you're told!

Lem said...

This might be a silly question but..

Have they passed any legislation to keep legislators from running away?

It feels weird asking.

traditionalguy said...

The Occupy Illinois crowd wants some 15 minutes of fame. Maybe they can move Heg's Memorial and erect one to themselves more like the Marine Corps memorial in Arlington.

"Uncommon valor was a common virtue" over at the Rockville Conference Center.

purplepenquin said...

when your kneecaps are threatened by Union Thugs

Where there actual reports of that happening or is that something that is simply being made up?

edutcher said...

For one shining moment, there was Fleebagger.

At the closest breastaurant.

purplepenquin said...

Have they passed any legislation to keep legislators from running away?

A change to the quorum laws would require amending the State Constitution.

While some lawmakers have proposed an amendment that would alter recall elections, I haven't heard of any proposals to change the quorum laws.

garage mahal said...

Where there actual reports of that happening or is that something that is simply being made up?

Instead of Mozart, * Union Thugs * Union Thugs *BOOGA BOOGA!* is piped into little winger's baby cribs.

Meade said...

"While Risser acknowledged his district supported him in Illinois, not all districts fully supported their senators. State Sen. Tim Cullen, D-Janesville, noted more than half of his district was against him going to Illinois."

Even Mr. Risser's district did not fully support him running away to Illinois. I emailed him:

Please return to Madison


Meade Laurence
2/19/11

to Sen.Risser
Dear Mr. Risser,

As a member of your constituency, living in the 26th District, I request that you return to Madison as soon as possible. This act of running away that you and the other senators are engaged in is a serious error and is an embarrassment to our district and state. I look forward to personally visiting with you in your Senate office soon after your return.

Sincerely,

Rusty said...

purplepenquin said...
when your kneecaps are threatened by Union Thugs

Where there actual reports of that happening or is that something that is simply being made up?



I wish you were as attentive to the outright crap your side makes up.

BTW the above was obviously hyperbole and intended to be humorous.

Rusty said...

garage mahal said...
Where there actual reports of that happening or is that something that is simply being made up?

Instead of Mozart, * Union Thugs * Union Thugs *BOOGA BOOGA!* is piped into little winger's baby cribs.


A wit by half.

garage mahal said...

What's funny is none of the senators actually had to leave the state, Gestapo arrest threats from Fitzgerald notwithstanding. They were breaking no laws. FitzWalker had no jurisdiction to arrest any of them, and knew that, but had the state patrol out looking for them anyway. Would have been quite the spectacle though watching a woman 8 months pregnant being hauled in the Capitol in cuffs.

Meade said...

garage mahal said...
"Would have been quite the spectacle though watching a woman 8 months pregnant being hauled in the Capitol in cuffs."

And is there anything the garage mahals of the world love more than spectacle?

BarrySanders20 said...

I didn't know Risser was a woman, or pregnant at the time.

Crazy times indeed.

Curious George said...

purplepenquin said...
Have they passed any legislation to keep legislators from running away?

A change to the quorum laws would require amending the State Constitution."

Not true. The constitution provides the legislature the power to craft rules. The amount of members that meet the quorum requirement is in the constitution, how you meet that is up to the legislature. For instance, they could say that announcement of a bill to a legislatures office requires them to appear or to vote by proxy.

garage mahal said...

And is there anything the garage mahals of the world love more than spectacle?

I have to take the back seat to you though. You're fearless and relentless reporting of spectacles is second to none.

purplepenquin said...

That is a good point CuriousGeorge; the lawmakers could most likely make some sort of changes if they wanted to. Tho I ain't sure how a "requirement" to vote would take place...would someone simply be marked as "abstain" if they refuse to do so within a certain time limit?

I think making changes to the quorum rules is too drastic of a reaction. The procedure worked as intended (slowed, but didn't stop, the process) and has not been abused (used only once and it hasn't been used since). Why the need to change anything?

It seems that lawmakers, on both sides of the aisle, feel the same way...hence no proposals to make changes in that regard.

Patrick said...

Garage, you really seem fixated on the pregnant senator (or rep, I'm not sure). Do you view pregnancy as a disease? In the (obviously unlikely) event that all of the senators needed to be hadcuffed, should pregnancy require different standards.

Guys like you make me laugh. I was involved in some litigation with some railroad union fellows who insisted that their work was physically demanding, and that no woman, much less a pregnant woman could handle it. Of course one of the attorneys was 8 1/2 months pregnant, we went out to the rail yard, and she flipped the witch without incident or much effort. This was after the rail road guys had defined that as the most physically demanding of their duties.

Sexism doesn't become you, Garage. Pregnancy is not a disease, and your constant wailing about it is sexist and ignorant.

Meade said...

garage mahal said...
I have to take the back seat to you though. You're fearless and relentless reporting of spectacles is second to none.

We're like two p's in an ipod, garage. What would we do without each other?

garage mahal said...

Yea call me old-fashioned, Patrick. But the idea of shackling a woman 8 months pregnant and hauling her over a threshold inside the Capitol solely to force her to vote is the work of a demented mind. YMMW.

Patrick said...

Yeah, that spectacle that never happened.

Curious George said...

"purplepenquin said...
That is a good point CuriousGeorge; the lawmakers could most likely make some sort of changes if they wanted to. Tho I ain't sure how a "requirement" to vote would take place...would someone simply be marked as "abstain" if they refuse to do so within a certain time limit? "

Sure they could abstain. The quorum rules do not require a vote, just the opportunity to vote.

"I think making changes to the quorum rules is too drastic of a reaction. The procedure worked as intended (slowed, but didn't stop, the process) and has not been abused (used only once and it hasn't been used since). Why the need to change anything?" Because that's not what the quorum rule is intended for. It's intended to insure a sufficient body be allowed to vote to eliminate manufactured results. Period. While certainly the intention of the fleebaggers, quorum calls are not intended to slow legislation.

"It seems that lawmakers, on both sides of the aisle, feel the same way...hence no proposals to make changes in that regard." That's assumptive. The 3/5 rule applies only to fiscal matters, and that's behind us now. It has been brought up, by both sides of the aisle. Legislation of a non-fiscal manner is simple majority makes a quorum. That's gonna happen no matter what. So the issue is not pressing now.

Meade said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
purplepenquin said...

It's intended to insure a sufficient body be allowed to vote to eliminate manufactured results

That's like saying the filibuster rules are intended to make sure everyone gets a chance to speak. ;)

I reckon we're just gonna have to disagree with each other on this one...but I gotta say (sinceIhavemadeafussinthepast) that I'm glad we're respectfully disagreeing.

leslyn said...

@Lem and purplepenquin:
garagemahal is correct in saying the legislators broke no laws. Which raises the question, "why were state troopers sent to their homes?" It's actually a good thing for the governor, et al, that the Dems were out of state, because arresting them in state to bring them to the capitol would have been unlawful detention; or, if done with malice or knowing it is wrong, could have been the crime of kidnapping.

One doesn't need to amend the state Constitution in order to require the presence of a legislator for a quorum or a vote. One need only pass a law that makes it a felony to fail to attend.

"SECTION 15. [Exemption from arrest and civil process.] Members of the legislature shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest; nor shall they be subject to any civil process, during the session of the legislature, nor for fifteen days next before the commencement and after the termination of each session." Wisconsin Constitution, Art. IV, Legislative.

Making absence from the legislature into a felony would do the trick, but you can see the problems: it would apply to both Ds and Rs, and it would have to be extremely narrowly drawn to avoid all sorts of side issues.

(BTW, "breach of the peace" refers to an act by a legislator, not any breach of the peace occurring somewhere else. It allows the police to arrest a legislator if they've gone all nuclear on someone's ass.)

leslyn said...

@Lem and purplepenquin:
garagemahal is correct in saying the legislators broke no laws. Which raises the question, "why were state troopers sent to their homes?" It's actually a good thing for the governor, et al, that the Dems were out of state, because arresting them in state to bring them to the capitol would have been unlawful detention; or, if done with malice or knowing it is wrong, could have been the crime of kidnapping.

One doesn't need to amend the state Constitution in order to require the presence of a legislator for a quorum or a vote. One need only pass a law that makes it a felony to fail to attend.

"SECTION 15. [Exemption from arrest and civil process.] Members of the legislature shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest; nor shall they be subject to any civil process, during the session of the legislature, nor for fifteen days next before the commencement and after the termination of each session." Wisconsin Constitution, Art. IV, Legislative.

Making absence from the legislature into a felony would do the trick, but you can see the problems: it would apply to both Ds and Rs, and it would have to be extremely narrowly drawn to avoid all sorts of side issues.

(BTW, "breach of the peace" refers to an act by a legislator, not any breach of the peace occurring somewhere else. It allows the police to arrest a legislator if they've gone all nuclear on someone's ass.)

Curious George said...

purplepenquin said...
It's intended to insure a sufficient body be allowed to vote to eliminate manufactured results

That's like saying the filibuster rules are intended to make sure everyone gets a chance to speak. ;)"

No, it's not like that at all:

A quorum is the minimum number of members of a deliberative assembly (a body that uses parliamentary procedure, such as a legislature) necessary to conduct the business of that group. According to Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, Tenth Edition, the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order, the "requirement for a quorum is protection against totally unrepresentative action in the name of the body by an unduly small number of persons."[1]

You are wrong. I am right.

Kirk Parker said...

What an amazingly cramped life Sen. Risser must lead, thinking that 14 people sticking together for a 3-week project is somehow unusual.

Rob said...

I am amazed how so many people think any problem can be solved by one more law. Perhaps the remedy is humiliation, lack of cooperation by the other side, and losses at the polls. I hold legislators who run off in contempt, and perhaps they should be impeached or prosecuted for ghost employment (they certainly were not doing their jobs), but why on earth do we need more statutes? There are WAY too many now.

leslyn said...

@Rob,
If you got the impression from me that we need more laws in this situation, then I didn't make myself clear enough. Trying to write such a statute is fraught with problems. It's best not to mess.

damikesc said...

What an amazingly cramped life Sen. Risser must lead, thinking that 14 people sticking together for a 3-week project is somehow unusual.

Makes one wonder what life is like at the Risser house.

"Clean your room!"
"FORGET THIS. I AM OUTTA HERE!!"



"How about sex tonight?"
"WHAT? I AM OUTTA HERE!!!"

I bet arguments and fights don't last long.

David said...

Politicians agree to cooperate, however nefariously, for three weeks and it's cause for celebration.

That tells you what their standards are.

Lem said...

I see Meade and garage having a beer summit.

Kirk Parker said...

damikesc,

You owe me a new keyboard!

Curious George said...

damikesc said...
Makes one wonder what life is like at the Risser house.

"How about sex tonight?"
"WHAT? I AM OUTTA HERE!!!"

Risser's 84. The only one he fucks these days is the State of Wisconsin.

Rob said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
gerry said...

Fleebagalgia sounds like a difficult-to-diagnose nervous disorder that inexplicably causes pain in one's fleebag.

Is it possible to carry a petard in a fleebag?

Michael said...

Three weeks! Twenty one days! What solidarity, what cohesion, what determined principle! Nobels for each.

Jim Ellison said...

In medicine, -algia means pain. Proctalgia: pain in the butt (sort of). Fleebagalgia would be a painful fleebagger.

Writ Small said...

Fleebagalgia is a portmandeaun't (portmandon't?)