Sen. Jauch at UW-Barron tonight.

I asked a question. First, I introduced myself, one of the few who referred to him formally by his Senator title, as so many of the other questioners complimenters/applause leaders knew him from his past years of service (state senator since 1986), referring to him as "Bob".

Then, I thanked him for coming to the listening session, but unlike so many others, stated I was disappointed that he took the highway to Illinois, instead of staying and taking care of business here in the state. (Earlier, he had remarked how he didn't much like politicians who couldn't work together and compromise, who believed in "my way, or the highway", himself referring to Gov. Walker and the current majority party, I think.)

I gave him my own background info -- immigrant's daughter; scholarships to Northwestern University in Evanston, IL (he earlier told us, in some kind of civil rights ramble, about being from Wheaton, IL himself, when his grade-school friend had to use a different barber (?) not sure if that was some inside liberal code word that others who disagree with his political positions are racist (?).) And later in life, a scholarship to UW Law School (high enough LSAT score, and in-state resident by then.) Said my two questions were legal in nature...

Earlier, a young man who identified himself as part of the high school Young Democrats Club, thanking Jauch personally for coming and speaking to his civics class, and being complimented as a good young leader himself in return, asked: Looking forward, aren't you afraid that if the Republicans are in the minority, they later might utilize the same tactic of taking off out-of-state when they disagree on an issue? Good question, kid, though he seemed apologetic asking it.

(A: "No, this is such an important civil rights issue. " Went on to quote the archbishop of Milwaukee, on how workers' rights is such an important moral issue, as if that justified all.)

So back to me, I asked first: whether the senator, not so much agreed, but understood why the judge ruled it illegal to keep the Capitol open 24 hours for protesters, paraphrasing the part about nobody being there to listen to their protests at 3am. Asked whether -- speaking of the Milwaukee archbishop and morality -- if the gay marriage people, say, decided their civil rights issue was just as important, that taxpayers should bear the costs also of providing 24-hour security, and shelter. Similar to the young Democrat, whose question was forward-thinking, whether the senator understood why the people's Capitol simply couldn't become the Capitol Hotel.

My next question was more open-ended, I said, asking him if he had any comment on the "potential politicization" of the Supreme Court race between Justice David Prosser and JoAnne Kloppenburg. (I was hoping he'd say, "Justice is non-political. That's never been a Democratic v. Republican race, and it shouldn't become one now.")

He fumbled his way though the answer to my first, "24-hour Capitol" question. Something about: Of course I understand that the Capitol can't be open 24/7, sorry if I gave that impression, but "this is such an important issue". The people needed to be heard; everything was so peaceful and non-combative, the protesting; and then he ended his ramblings by citing more than once, a poll showing that more than 70% of the people allegedly agreed with him on this one, and something about needing to take action (in fleeing to Illinois), when what the Governor and Assembly was doing was illegal.

Then he feigned forgetfulness, when asking me about the second question. I again repeated the phrase "potential politicization", asking him if he had any comments to share, and he took the bait gladly. Saying he wasn't planning to bring it up, but since I did, he urged everyone in the room, which had definitely proven itself to be full of teachers and public-sector union supporters, to "Vote JoAnne Kloppenburg!" The room erupted in applause.

I was sitting in an aisle by the exit, and on hearing this, raised myself, dismissed his response with a hand wave, and exited through the door, where one well-coiffed lady screamed after me, laughing: "Why did you ask the question then?" "Because I wanted to get him on record" saying that, I responded.

Disappointing, to say the least. I do think this will be his last term though, one way or another*. Close race last time, and surely 30+ years as a public servant is enough.

-----------
* Meaning either he'll be voted out next election, or age out gracefully.