Why Pat Bauer and the Dems came home...really

Dateline: Thu 31 Mar 2011

An acquaintance who is a former lobbyist for the elderly was at the Statehouse this week, rallying the troops for the CHOICE protest (against cuts to the elderly in their homes). He noticed a tall priest in Roman collar stride through the crowd.

"Who is that?" the former lobbyist asked.

He was told it was Father John Jenkins, president of Notre Dame University, in South Bend. The Rev. Jenkins was slated to do the invocation for the Statehouse Tuesday.


When Rep. Pat Bauer, a Dem from South Bend and a Catholic, got wind of Rev. Jenkins presence on the scene, and absorbed the knowledge that it was the very head of Notre Dame who would be praying over the legislative body, he brought his troops home from Urbana, Ill., where they had been holed up -- doing nothing -- for five weeks.

"Pat knew he had better get back in time for the president of Notre Dame to give the invocation. He did not want to miss that!" said the former lobbyist.

I believe it. So go politics in Indiana.

And you thought it was all about principles? Please.

As another acquaintance said, "If the Dems had stayed away for 3-5 days or so, they might have made an impact."

As it was, they lost the battle and, it seems, the war.

Points to the priest.



Tell The Truth [Member] said:

You could be right. It's entirely possible. Bauer told a friend of mine, who is a constituent of Bauer's, that he voted for the Marriage Amendment because the Archbishop dropped a dime on him. This, after years of fighting back the Amendment via his spoken instructions to the Rules Committee chairman, where it died. Repeatedly.


We need to turn this Catholic influence loose on some real problems. They're evidently uber-powerful.

I'm so sick of my Christian religion unduly imposing itself on government. Someone has misread the Constitutions and has the mistaken impression we've got to live our governmental lives by God's clock.

It was time for Bauer to vacate the premises 15 years ago. Most of the time, he votes OK, but your post, and his comments to my friend, prove he's overstayed his welcome.

Term limits. I used to hate them. Not any more. The stench of the Statehouse reaches all over downtown. It's starting to smell worse than Terre Haute on an August afternoon.

Poof. Be gone, Pat. You've outlived your usefulness.

2011-04-01 05:35:55

Tom Greenacres [unverified] said:

Not only did the Worst State Legislature Money Can Buy pass the anti abortion bill, they stomped on an attempt by a nurse legislator to include language requiring the bill's information and the mandated script to be "medically and scientifically accurate."

What's next- certifying creationism as our official state creed? Adam & Eve and T-Rex in the garden together, as depicted at the Creation Museum! Good gravy, what boobs we Hoosiers can be.

2011-04-01 06:42:09

hendy [Member] said:

I've been paying heavy lipservice on the issues. I don't hear a single serious (this excludes you, Pat Bauer) on the issues. There is no figurehead, no point-maker, no leadership in the Indiana Demos. Not the tiny congressional delegation, not Son of Birch, nobody.


2011-04-01 08:56:59

Tell The Truth [Member] said:

Hendy: re-enforcements on the way.

On the Marriage Amendment: Sens. Lanane, Simpson, Taylor and Randolph (a former judge who knows his stuff), barbecued the sponsors in committee and on the floor. Simpson was particularly effective questioning the Senate sponsor, who was clueless. Randolph told the chamber what would happen to Indian's courts if the Amendment passed. He oughta know.

On the ridiculous abortion debate, Rep. Connie Lawson walked to the podium, and told Rep. Turner he was nuts (re: "women make up rape stories to get abortions). Through tears, she said: (paraphrasing)

"I spent six years as a sex crimes investigator in Lake Counrty. I've sat where none of you shave sat. Women do NOT make this stuff up."

It's worth a watch. Available on this link via Facebook. Rep. Connie Lawson is my new hero. Rep. Turner, uh, is NOT. His performance was shameful, fat and ridiculous:


2011-04-01 09:43:39

hendy [Member] said:


Your link doesn't work. If you can link a youtube video or the source, it would be helpful. It's not that I'm downtrodden, rather feeling like the inmates are in charge.

2011-04-01 12:34:52

Tell The Truth [Member] said:

Oh Sorry I am tech-challenged. It's on Facebook, search "Lori Morris," and it's under her posts.

Let me see what I can do about a YouTube link.

2011-04-01 13:42:43

Tell The Truth [Member] said:

Here's the YouTube link, I think:


Or go to YouTube, search "Indiana Rep says women"

Up pops that toady fat face of Rep. Eric Turner. Massogonistic asshat.

2011-04-01 13:46:32

hendy [Member] said:

How awful. How sad.

Ok, Ruth. This is the kind of guy that sits on Daniel's side of the aisle. Explain the seeming discontinuity. It's a paradox that I can't seem to explain.

Please use both barrels. I'm really interested.

2011-04-01 14:22:40

Jason [unverified] said:

I enjoy how threads evolve. This one is yet another painful reminder of why I dislike people on social issues more than the issues themselves. I'm not sure quite what it is.

To say this Turner fellow fell off the turnip truck is to imply that, somewhere and at sometime he was actually doing something relevant. And I really don't want to drag turnip farmers and truck drivers down to his level either.

What now, stop welfare because people aren't getting rich off of it? Stop taxing rich people because they'll never pay enough to make everybody happy? What a... goofball. I was tempted to go R-rated but I just can't give this guy that much emotion. In a way it's kind of neat because he doesn't realize he's using an argument in defense of his own position that actually defeats itself. It's like a kid on the debate team thinking he's doing really well until he realizes he's arguing with himself, lol. Cool...

For this Lawson gal, I'm not a sex crimes investigator by trade but I have a little experience in these matters, and she REALLY needs to get out more. Hopefully she's a more accomplished stateswoman than her experience indicates. She seems to have a lot of passion in regard to what she's speaking of, so please don't think I'm calling her a liar. I just feel her statements, while they may be representative of her experience, lack much objectivity. I have a hunch, given the exact same background, if she was a Republican she'd be with Mr. Turner anyway so it's a push.

Can we just get both of them validated and on their way? Better yet, tell them ParkIndy turned their free parking into metered spots while they were busy with this charade and their cars are getting towed.

Maybe it's because social issues are such a gray area but people get so stridently partisan about it? Probably because the government shouldn't be involved in it anyway but we make them.

2011-04-02 01:16:11

hendy [Member] said:

I sat as foreman on a jury that investigated a child molestation crime. The incidence is likely to be much higher than what comes to trial. In this case, it was a pilot that had molested a 12yr old girl who looked 16-- in his church group. The job of prosecutors is hideous, and I believe Lawson (who was the prosecutor in this trial), saw and knew a lot more. That such a boorish display would provoke that kind of emotion is completely plausible. There are people that have empathy, and there are people without it that we call sociopathic (and some are simply narcissistic, but with similar effects).

That you dismiss their emotions, Jason, is dismissive and loses the point of the content of the post. We have a squad of job-bobs (like inmates) running the asylum here. Haters. Greed-motivated, seeming do-gooders. I the end, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

2011-04-02 06:35:05

Tell The Truth [Member] said:

Wow, Jason. Just, "wow."

I know Rep. Lawson. Well. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. And the incredible thing is, unless you know her, or Rep. Turner for that matter, you're forming your opinions based on news reports.

And how you come to those conclusions re: Rep. Lawson's comments, is a chilling indictment.

Rape interlinked with abortion---- "social issues?" Seriously?

You probably need some "alone" time to reflect on those statements, and retract something. Lest we all think you've lost your mind.

Just one more time, in case you didn't get it: Rep. Turner spoke against the amendment, because he thinks women sometimes fake rape to get an abortion.

Rep. Lawson stepped to the podium to relay her personal experiences as a rape investigator. Regardless how anyone feels about abortion, there are boundaries.

Or, to be simpler: Turner=unfortunate boob. Lawson=hero. In this limited instance. There is no debate on that. Is there, really?

2011-04-02 07:20:47

cranky [unverified] said:

Forgive me, TTT, but if you know Rep. Lawson, according to the YouTube video, her name is Linda. She appears to be a Democrat from Hammond. There is a Senator Connie Lawson (R) from Danville. It's just that you said "Rep. Connie" in your first post which confused me.
Frankly, I found her response off topic. She mentions a whole range of rape victims who would not be seeking an abortion. I would prefer a debate to be filled with logic.
While I am not even sure where I stand on this topic, it seems that in the video, Rep. Turner was suggesting that a woman might say she was raped in order for the abortion to be covered. Then he specifically went on to say in cases where charges had not been filed, etc.
So these would not be people who have pressed charges. I think it is a credible argument. From all the welfare fraud I've seen including the scams to continue to receive unemployment, it's hard to imagine that there would be no moogy-foogy in this government program.

2011-04-02 16:19:37

Tell The Truth [Member] said:

Really? Seriously? And I suppose yopu think Bobby Knight's "lie there and enjoy it" logic worked well too. Geeeesh.

I had Connie on my mind because of the story of her stolen-published email. Sorry Linda is a former sex crimes investigator from Da Region. And Linda's argument was perfectly sensible. She cried because Rep. Turner's ridiculous train of thought was contemptible.

If you think Rep. Turner's argument i credible, you'll be in my prayers tomorrow. morning. He's beneath contempt. Which is why he's in my prayers, too. He probably doesn't expect that.

Logic and common sense are in too-short supply.

2011-04-02 21:30:17

Tom Greenacres [unverified] said:

Why do male morons have the right to keep making laws that exclusively effect females?

2011-04-02 21:39:01

Tell The Truth [Member] said:

Tesfity, Tom.

Maybe if men had to carry babies and give birth, things would be a little different.

Old argument. Sometimes it becomes pertinent again.

2011-04-03 12:54:52

Jason [unverified] said:

Holy crow, so if we cast some doubt on her arguments based on our own experience, we're automatically agreeing with Eric Turner? The Republican Party ca. 1980's (or the Democrat Party ca. 2000's, your pick) called, they want their logic back. For the sake of Pete, if I somehow came across as saying I agree with Turner on this issue, I retract, I retract, MEA CULPA! However I thought I was clear about it...

Did we all sleep through the whole Duke lacrosse thing, for starters? My point was this is two people making two ridiculous arguments to each other and don't even realize how bad they are at doing it. I understand the strong emotions involved and that this is one of those politically correct third-rail issues, but that certainly doesn't automatically make someone right just because they seem to be more sure of themselves. Women get paid very well by criminal defense firms to eviscerate female victims of such things on the stand, does that make it okay just because it's not a male doing it? I could show you videos of Republicans crying out of valor for their causes and I'm sure you'd call them crocodile tears.

And I didn't know women weren't allowed to serve in public office. Is this an allusion to institutional sexism that I may have missed? I thought we all already knew Eric Turner was a goof anyway, and she bought into his rhetoric by engaging in his argument on his terms which had so little to do with the topic at hand anyway. Once again, it's a push.

2011-04-04 01:30:54

Tom Greenacres [unverified] said:

" Is this an allusion to institutional sexism that I may have missed?"

Suggesting there's no such thing?

2011-04-04 06:42:31

Tell The Truth [Member] said:

Jason: point made.

Show me the videos of Republicans crying. Let's judge them issue-by-issue. I pay pretty close attention, and havne't seen any. That doesn't mean they don't exist.

But let's be clear about this: a pompous male state representative actually had the unmitigated gall, to step to the podium and make this ridiculous assertion. The vote on this issue wasn't going to be close. The world was not waiting with baited breath to hear his ugly "suppose if" scenario.

At a minimum, he's guilty of bad judgment. I've watched him for years--he LOVES the attention. And he's pandered to the far-right for at least that long.

Make no mistake--folks pander to the far left, too. In this state, you risk being called a Socialist, but it's done.

Turner made the statements. They are outrageous. He doesn't appear to be sorry he said it.

A female representative who has actual experience in this exact subject area (gasp!) stepped to the podium and relayed her experience.

And, there's part of this argument, too, whether I agree with it or not:

Turner will never get pregnant. He has no idea what that's like. To insinuate that some women may fake rape to get a free pass, insults just about everyone.

2011-04-04 10:22:55

hendy [Member] said:

TTT, we're ruled by a gaggle of narcissists. They crave attention, and turn adjectives of arrogance into testosterone. The sad thing is that he probably believes his inaccuracies. Remember: narcissists and sociopaths have no empathy. Using this filter, consider our legislature. Sort. Refine. Add in a dash of your own empathy. Count.

See the problem?

It's my belief that we deny the role of the empathetically incapacitated in our society in general. If you look at the issues using empathy, then (where possible) without, you can start to see where the dividing lines are going, IMHO. Add in bluster, deceit, propaganda, and the picture becomes clearer and clearer.

I've been wondering about the motivations for a long time, and the farther along I go, the greater role I see in non-empathetic behavioral and public policy profiles. Yes, it seems odd, but I find myself using this filter more frequently as I read thru the headlines, as even the journalists seem to amplify the effect.

2011-04-04 10:53:02

Jason [unverified] said:

TTT, very well stated. I hear the broken clock John Boehner is a famous crier, for one. I don't follow state politics as much as I should, but I do know this Turner fellow is something notorious in regard to comments like this.

I expect as much from him, perhaps I was subliminally dragging her down to his level without realizing it. Either way, I still maintain it's a stupid argument exactly because people WILL lie. In the end I still don't know if she's a sex crimes prosecutor or investigator (can be a big difference) or whatever. She's entitled to her own opinion.

The fact that he could only spew forth such a statement tells me he's possessed of a worldview that is at best unapologetically negative. In my experience a lot of people want to think the rest of the world is as dreary as they are.

Mr. Greenacres, yes, I'm thinking there will be a common denominator with the voting on this one and it won't be gender.

2011-04-04 17:12:17

Tom Greenacres [unverified] said:

"TTT, we're ruled by a gaggle of narcissists."

They take pride in describing themselves as "public servants." Fortuantely the Greeks invented hubris to bring a few of them low.

Jason, of course people lie, and some women will lie about rape. Witness the lacrosse team stripper. But it is a rarity and the exception should not be used to cast public doubt on the vast majority of truthful accusations (to say nothing of those that are never reported for one reason or another).

Women should probably not have a legislative vote on making erectile disfunction eligible for Medicare payments any more than men should be able to control women's reproductive choices. (In the 3rd Reich it was a criminal offense to not give birth to more sons of the Fatherland, i.e., cannon fodder. I wonder if the religious admonition against contraception and abortion has some similar root, that is, procreating for the glory of the church, adding to its human assets. We all know the Bible was edited to fit evolving early Christian circumstances and opportunities.)

2011-04-05 16:42:20

Jason [unverified] said:

As long as we're all paying for it IMHO we should all have a say in it. Men are typically half of a procreative equation and it's always struck me as more of a feminist backlash that we've discouraged abortion from being a communal issue between the two parties involved. And there's always a choice. Some just believe it, um, comes a little bit earlier.

I agree with you to an extent on the religion/breeding link. The trend in the uberearly church was more that marriage was pointless because the end was nigh. It's a common thread in just about every religion with eschatological roots when that transition from charismatic to bureaucratic authority occurs, a "breed like there's no tomorrow" mindset ensues. While I would hardly equate that to anything involving the 3rd Reich because it's a common mindset, and I disagree with your premise that there's anything nefariously intended by it. It was about 250-300 years after this mindset existed that the church resembled anything close to a mainstream dues-paying bureaucratic organization worried about membership numbers.

I think there's an interesting segue from that to the early church's view on homosexuality, in that it was extremely common as a form of birth control in antiquity. Obviously it's purpose has evolved in our society and the Church is slow to adapt to these changes.

Going out on a limb, early Christianity viewed homosexuality as taboo not for the act itself, but because of all the reasons you mentioned (hence the paradox between the thought itself being a sin, but being gay is 'okay' as long as you don't act on it, and instead get married, and have kids.) I'm still waiting for somebody in the Vatican to buy into my logic though, lol.

2011-04-06 03:20:54

Tom Greenacres [unverified] said:

"As long as we're all paying for it IMHO we should all have a say in it."

If I have my Medicare-paid appendix out, I don't want everyone to have a say in it.

"Men are typically half of a procreative equation and it's always struck me as more of a feminist backlash that we've discouraged abortion from being a communal issue between the two parties involved."

The incidence of men coming and going and being no part of birthing, much less parenting, is the root cause of many of our social ills. Babies born out of wedlock has become a pandemic problem. Black single mother births are 3 out of 4. The disconnected sperm donor deserves no vote in this "communal issue" because there are not two parties involved. And even in the best of circumstances, pregnancy is like the old comparison between bacon and eggs: for the chicken, it is a mere donation, but for the pig it is total commitment. Men do not have nor do they deserve an equal vote in the conception process. And the knuckle draggers in state legislatures should not have the right to tell a woman how to deal with her pregnancy. Look at the travesty now in Marion County courts where a suicidal woman who took rat poison but survived is being charged with the death of her baby, born after the woman was taken to the hospital. Poor woman. Idiot prosecutor.

2011-04-06 06:20:04

Jason [unverified] said:

Hmmm, what I'm reading out of your post is that all fathers in unwanted pregnancies are deadbeat dads. I would disagree with that premise and draw a very distinct line between what you refer to as sperm donors and people who merely end up in a pregnancy situation for which they had not properly planned and considered. Just because an 'unwanted' pregnancy is carried to term doesn't automatically mean the father will not be involved. I know a guy who got a girl pregnant in college and was very upset that she didn't notify him for 5 years he had a son. Once she did he's been a mainstay in his child's life, this is truly more her loss than his. Obviously deadbeat dads are an issue but that's a separate argument from what I'm talking about.

Parents who don't want to be part of this decision shouldn't have their involvement forced upon them, I don't believe I said anything to the contrary. What I perhaps poorly phrased but was intending to say is that if the male half WANTS to be involved, they shouldn't be pushed aside and dumped into your sperm donor category like so much offal.

And the 'gold standard' of care which insurance companies and medicare are willing to cover (to include your appendectomy) is established by people other than you with more people than you in mind. Always has been, always will be.

I don't know if I would consider your rat poison thing much of a travesty, from what I've seen even the most staunch partisans highly discourage self-abortment. Not that it's how I would have handled it, but oh well. To go back to your original premise, a travesty I'm still seeing in our courts is the 'temporary amnesty' Carl Brizzi gave to deadbeat dads that's been going on almost 3 years. Why haven't they started reissuing child support warrants and why haven't they continued court-ordered wage garnishments? Somebody took their eye off the ball. Can we agree on that much?

2011-04-06 11:21:15

Tom Greenacres [unverified] said:

"I don't know if I would consider your rat poison thing much of a travesty, from what I've seen even the most staunch partisans highly discourage self-abortment."

She didn't eat rat poison to abort, she ate it to kill herself. So an already troubled suicidal woman is now charged with killing her unborn. That's wingnut compassion for you.

I don't see as how the male in any pregnancy situation is entitled to an equal vote as to whether or not the woman must have the child. Not unless he could be subjected to the same physical discomfort, health issues and delivery risks. As far as I know, no man ever died during delivery, though plenty of women did and occsionally still do. It is not a level playing field and never will be.

Walk away fathers abound. They should be held to account financially, legally, in every way. Too many grandmothers end up raising unwanted kids; too many babydaddies spread their seed with abandon and unconcern and contribute to if not create dysfunctional "families."

2011-04-06 13:05:44

Jason [unverified] said:

I'm not sure exactly how compassion is supposed to play a role in this situation, are you suggesting we should have let her try again? Surely that's not what you're implying. You may need to flesh that one out a bit because it's coming across as sour political grapes.

I'm picking up on a contradiction. You're saying on one hand that men should have no say in pregnancy situations, but then we should hold them accountable to a very high standard in these same situations, akin to taxation without representation.

So we're holding them severely accountable for a situation which they have no control over?

Within that rubric I can begin to understand deadbeat fatherdom. Since they aren't allowed to be vested in the process from the getgo anyway that would surely encourage men to continue to walk away.

2011-04-07 03:05:33

Tom Greenacres [unverified] said:

"So we're holding them severely accountable for a situation which they have no control over?"

Let me explain how babies are made....
Though clearly the Little Head does all the thinking in such situations.

"Sour political graopes." No grapes involved, but surely politics and not by me. And are you suggesting the rat poison lady be prosecuted for a suicide attempt, or for murder for incdentally aborting her baby, or what? "we should let her try again?" Do you mean get pregnant, or kill herself? Politics and stupidity aren't always corollaries but in this case, they are.

2011-04-07 06:25:09

Jason [unverified] said:

Now it sounds like you're running back to my original argument, that it takes two people and joint participation.

I was obviously referring to the part, after the procreative act, where in your words the male half isn't allowed to be involved anymore. The logic can't work both ways.

2011-04-07 16:01:27

Tom Greenacres [unverified] said:

"I was obviously referring to the part, after the procreative act, where in your words the male half isn't allowed to be involved anymore."

Jason, didn't say that. I do say the male should not be allowed to determine what the woman does with her pregnancy. Obviously we all would be better off if more males were involved with a normal pregnancy, delivery, and child rearing. But the male should not be allowed to make rules for women that make them have babies that they do not want to have, a threat to their physical and mental health. I seem to recall a case not long ago where a man filed suit to compel a woman to carry his child to term, when she wanted to have an abortion. Now that's chutzpah.

2011-04-07 16:13:20

Jason [unverified] said:

Not all pregnancies are life-threatening, for starters. And there's a really simple, time-honored method that's 100% effective in NOT getting pregnant.

Look, at this point we're just running around in circles. I'm not following your life-cycle dependent responsibility continuum thingie and you're obviously not understanding my across the board joint-decision philosophy. See you on the next one..

2011-04-11 01:54:07

Anisha [unverified] said:

HHIS I shloud have thought of that!

2011-04-12 17:25:39

Comments are closed.


or Register


Syndicate Blog