If the 14 Wisconsin democrats are given any more, 'no one will accept the outcome of an election anymore.' Althouse, law prof.

• 'Elections have consequences' only when their side wins.

3/7/11, "The leader of Senate Democrats hiding out in Illinois is seeking a face-to-face meeting with Gov. Scott Walker and the Senate GOP leader." Ann Althouse, Althouse blog
.

"Senate Minority Leader Mark Miller (D-Monona) said in a letter sent out Monday that he wants to meet with Republicans 'near the Wisconsin-Illinois border to formally resume serious discussions' on Walker's budget repair bill."

"Oh, come on! That's absurd. Walker is supposed to make a trip to the border, maybe stand toe-to-toe with Miller with the Wisconsin-Illinois border between the 2 men?! All in the name of "serious discussion"? You need to get serious!

"I assure you that Democratic state senators, despite our differences and the vigorous debate we have had, remain ready and willing to find a reasonable compromise," Miller said in the letter.

I cannot understand why the Democratic senators should get more because of the way they've behaved. What kind of an example will that set for the future? No one will accept the outcome of an election anymore. You don't like what happened?

• Run away, storm the statehouse, make a cacophony of drum-beating and chants for weeks on end until you get your way.

One of the chants has been, "This is what democracy looks like." Is that what we want democracy to look like in the future? No one ever accepts a loss? Instead of working toward the next election, you use any strategy you can think of to prevent the exercise of power by the representatives the people have chosen to run the government?

The Wall Street Journal spurred hopes of compromise Sunday with a story citing Miller and saying the Democrats would be back "soon." But that same night Democrats knocked that down, saying that they hoped to return soon but that there was still no development to make that happen.

Something kept me from linking to that WSJ piece. That's another thing I'd like to avoid encouraging. Websites getting tons of traffic with premature news scoops. I'd like the WSJ to explain why it did that. It shouldn't want to look like a link whore.

I'd also like more inside reporting about those 14 Democratic senators. If only one of them goes back, the Republicans get their quorum and the whole enterprise collapses. How are they maintaining discipline? My state senator is Fred Risser,

• and that man is 83 years old.

It bothers me to think of such an old man held hostage to politics in some motel in Illinois. Another of the 14 is Julie Lassa,

• who's 6 months pregnant and has 2 little kids back in Wisconsin.

There must be a hard core within the 14 who are keeping the rest in line. What are they saying to Julie and Fred? Assuming they're not the hard core. Imagine being 6 months pregnant and not having your husband to comfort you, to know he's at home taking care of the children you miss? And what is it all for?

• Keeping the winners of the last election from voting!

And in the end you'll have to go back. It's only a question of when.

What was their plan? They fled together, and perhaps at that point, all 14 thought it made sense to slow things down so that the protests could play out and Wisconsinites could give more thought to the GOP proposal. Lengthening the time line, they might argue, served a democracy interest. But what was the exit strategy? We've had the protest. The bill has been examined and discussed.

• What is democratic about preventing the vote now?

I suppose the "fleebaggers" would like to say that current public opinion polls ought to replace the results of the last election. Is that "what democracy looks like" in your version of American representative democracy?

• Only a Democrat with very short-term vision could say yes."

.