Image 01 Image 03

What do you call the boycotting Indiana Democrats?

What do you call the boycotting Indiana Democrats?

Sore Loosiers

Wisconsin had its Fleebaggers, the 14 state Senators who fled to Illinois to prevent a quorum on Wisconsin’s collective bargaining law.

Indiana Democratic House members have been boycotting the legislative session over Indiana’s proposed right to work law unless they also get an unconstitutional referendum on the law:

House Democrats who have been boycotting the session to block a contentious right-to-work bill could return Monday to begin debating the measure, although disagreement over whether a statewide referendum on the issue would be constitutional might delay a vote.

The bill would ban contracts between companies and labor unions that force nonmembers to pay dues. Democrats want to put the issue to a statewide vote, while Republicans say the matter should be decided by the Legislature.

The state constitution requires all laws to be enacted by the Legislature. To get around this, Democrats have proposed an amendment to the bill that would have the law take effect the day before the Nov. 6 election and then allowing it to expire Nov. 7 if voters didn’t endorse it.

Indiana’s Senate Republicans have rejected the idea and refused to change the legislation.

Will they now run?

Update:  Speaking of Fleebaggers, check out Stand With Scott, a website devoted to supporting Gov. Walker against the recall effort.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



In the good old days, thugs from Chicago and elsewhere went to St. Paul or to Wisconsin’s resorts and lodges when they wanted to hide from the law,

Now it seems that Democrats run to Illinois to avoid meeting their responsibilities as elected representatives in their states.

Maybe they need to change their party’s name to Losercrat or Dhimmicrat. Still, what’s on a name and would they still stink?

Sore Hoosiers? Hoosier Losers?

OR just plain thugs?

They run for office to run from office.

I thought part of this process was that we take a vote, elect “leaders”, those leaders make decisions, and we live with the results. If we are unhappy, we elect new leaders. That’s what I thought. But Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin said “It isn’t over until we way it’s over.” To me that means it’s his way, the thugs at the Madison Protest, their way, or nothing. That’s mob rule.

So Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., the plagiarist, mainly legitimized mob rule. We just celebrated a national holiday for him. Thanks guy. Did he have any original ideas?

    Ragspierre in reply to Milwaukee. | January 21, 2012 at 11:46 am

    Holy logical disjunction, Batman…!!!

    I can think of several…quite good…original thoughts of Dr. King, even while acknowledging his flaws. (And mine.)

      Milwaukee in reply to Ragspierre. | January 21, 2012 at 2:11 pm

      I read this blog to become informed. Exchanging ideas on blogs such as this one has given me pause to re-evaluate my opinions. Go ahead, share three of his original ideas with me. If I am wrong, I’m interested in being corrected. Myself, none of my ideas are original, I just forget the source code.

They’ll form a mob, and find someone or something vulnerable to kneecap or take hostage … Like the super Bowl.


When all is lost, try something completely different …

A Des Moines man has been arrested after police say he used, or tried to use, the identity of Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz in a scheme to falsely implicate Schultz in perceived unethical behavior in office.
Zachary Edwards was arrested Friday and charged with identity theft.
The Iowa Department of Public Safety issued a news release saying Schultz’s office discovered the scheme on June 24, 2011 and notified authorities.
The criminal complaint says Edwards fraudulently used or attempted to use the identity of Schultz or Schultz’s brother with the intent to obtain a benefit. No other details were given.
If convicted, Edwards could face up to two years in prison.

After a stint as a part-time political blogger and local democratic volunteer, he joined the Obama campaign in early 2007 as an intern organizing North-West Las Vegas.

Do the Dem’s really think it wouldn’t pass a public election? This is of course the Catch-22. If the Republican’s are enacting policies not supported by the general public, we’re really not much better than the libtards, we just have a different form of elitism.
If the bill would pass a popular vote I say fine put it in there, and make sure you tie each of these people’s relection campaign to the fact that they wouldn’t support it.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to tsrblke. | January 21, 2012 at 12:35 pm

    The Indiana voters decided to seat a Republican majority in their state House based, one hopes, on their stated platform for governance. This is called a mandate. If such a majority doesn’t honor campaign promises, or if the voters simply change their minds, the next election is where the correction occurs. While state referenda have their time, place, and issues, it is dangerous to go to that well too often – you end up negating your own state legislature if every contested bill goes instead to a state referendum.

    To seek a referendum, the Indiana Dems are acknowledging they are defeated in state congress and want to appeal directly to the people. If it were possible to appeal to the courts instead, they’d likely prefer that to a state referendum. It doesn’t mean they think the people are with them. It means they hope to sway the people back their way over the lengthy time it would take for a state referendum to play out. In other words, they want a chance to buy it with union money brought in from all over the country.

      Fair point I suppose.
      On the flip side they can casts the Republicans as “over focused on this issue” “ignoring those who don’t wnat this” (e.g. those who didn’t vote for the republicans) shifting the narrative over the time it takes this to play out.

    Ragspierre in reply to tsrblke. | January 21, 2012 at 1:19 pm

    But we don’t work as a democracy, which a plebiscite supports. We are a democratic republic, and we elect people to pass law.

    Some things are best left to a plebiscite, but not many.

    wodiej in reply to tsrblke. | January 21, 2012 at 2:13 pm

    A independent legal committee looked into this and in Indiana those kind of things are not allowed by the state constitution. It can only be done for local things-not state wide laws.

    Also, when the Indiana Dems did this last year and were gone 5 weeks, a new bill got passed to fine $1000 per day after being absent 3 days. When our speaker tried to implement the fine on missing House Dem’s this time around, a judge blocked it. One House member, named Vanessa just said a week ago she was a single mom getting ready to move in w her Mom and she could pay the fine. However, she is one of the House members who asked a judge to halt the fine.

“Sore Loosiers.” Heh heh heh.

More importantly, how do we put an end to the practice of shutting down legislatures by denying quorum?

Turns out, its remarkably simple.

The rules requiring a supermajority quorum are set by each legislative body by choice (some have such rules, others do not) in the rules that legislature must pass at the start of each session.

The purpose of requiring a supermajority is so that the majority party can’t ambush the minority with a surprise session and then pass legislation when the minority isn’t present. What the Democrats are doing is abusing these rules in a manner that allows the minority to completely shut down the legislature at will. They are doing this both to prevent particular legislation from being passed at all and also to gain leverage to get the majority to pass legislation they normally would not have.

Seems to me, the solution is simple: at the start of the next legislative session when the rules are passed for that session, require only a simple majority to form a quorum.

Its not like Republicans won’t have a clear argument that anyone can understand as to why the feel the change is necessary. The D’s are abusing the process for political gain.