Thom,

Full stop. Learn to recognize sarcasm.

Good advice. When you said, “I’m SURE this is a ‘fact finding’ mission” you were being sarcastic, because, though you said you were sure it was fact finding, you meant to convey the sentiment that you were sure it was not fact finding.

Yet, when you said:

Undoubtedly Baldwin and Azar will find…

1) Brussels is lovely in Spring.
2) The Louvre really IS big!
3) European heads of state wear Armani all day.

You were NOT being sarcastic, but rather, satirical. While you didn’t believe that they would actually find these things, you didn’t intend to convey that they wouldn’t find these things so much as that these were humorous exaggerations of the type of things they were likely to find. That’s not sarcasm, or irony, but satire.

Your sarcasm is merely uninformed, first with respect to why spouses are allowed to attend (see: family time in my previous post), second with respect to Anzar’s interests, and third with respect to what the trip was about in the first place. If you want to dispute those, so be it. I don’t regard them as especially important given that…

Your satire relies on sexist portrayals of women as frivolous and unintellectual.

That’s a problem.

Full stop. Learn to recognize sarcasm.

Apparently Russ Feingold, also from Wisconsin, is unable to attend social gatherings without a companion and is therefore prevented from engaging anyone in relevant political dialogue….?

I don’t care if Baldwin’s wife is on the board of my OWN state’s regulatory agency… this isn’t appropriate to be billed to the federal coffers. Private industry experience with a particular matter, even if the person’s position fits my own political tastes, when the person represents STATE interests is NOT to be billed to the federal government. She wants to go? Great. Let the taxpayers of Wisconsin send her, or better yet, she can travel privately. As for the hypothetical adult children? Please. I’ll remind my employer my hypothetical children also need to travel with me because we only hang out outside of the 9-6 routine.

This whole scenario smacks of nepotism and is the kind of shell game I expect freely from old school, back room Dems… not newly elected representatives. There’s nothing Azar needs to see that she couldn’t get over email, and nothing Baldwin needs to talk to her about IN Europe. This is about an American politician wanting a spouse to accompany her to a place she’s unlikely to get to see within the schedule of her partner. I certainly understand WHY she would want to go, but don’t agree that she SHOULD go… on the federal taxpayer’s dime. I’m all for the state of Wisconsin picking up the tab here, if there is anything to benefit.

The most ridiculous thing is that I used to live in Europe. They’re about a decade ahead of us in green technology and lifestyle. I would imagine even their most outdated documents are more timely and forward-thinking than most of what even private industry considers “modern” here in the US. This shit is ALREADY on paper. Azar’s getting a trip out of it. Don’t turn my disagreement with Protocol’s wasteful spending into an anti-woman creed, you idiot. This isn’t about a sex or a sexual orientation. This is about getting a freebie.

Please, prove me wrong. I’d love to know she’s only there for the national interest. Any idea what Azar’s schedule is, or if she’s turning in significant documentation to a federal regulatory agency once she comes back from this trip?

That’s why the “necessary for protocol purposes” line is in there. And since Baldwin’s marriage, even if not recognized by her home state, is legally recognized by a long list of the countries the US does business with, DoD should get the heck out of trying to make US foreign policy in ways it is barred by law from doing.

You can type: YOU tell her.

Azar, an environmental attorney in Madison, has a deep background in public policy. Gov. Jim Doyle appointed her last March to the Public Service Commission, a state board that oversees local utilities and economic development.

The Easter recess trip on which Azar accompanied Baldwin was organized by Democratic Rep. Rick Boucher of Virginia, who chairs the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.

Even if Azar didn’t have a background relevant to the trip, she should be allowed to join her spouse. Given the travel commitments congressional service demands, it’s reasonable and humane to allow members of Congress to bring spouses or adult children with them on business trips–they see them rarely enough as it is.

But here, deep6, you assume against all evidence that this is a vacation where the two Wisconsonites will stare at the Lourve like slack-jawed yokels or distract themselves with the weather and clothing. Why would you think something like that?

I’ve no doubt that they will do some vacation-like things. I hope they do, in fact. But the suggestion that they are doing only vacation-like things seems to have more to do with the fact that they are women than with any grounding in the facts.

Ummmm…not so much.

I’m SURE this was a “fact-finding” mission to Europe. Undoubtedly Baldwin and Azar will find…

1) Brussels is lovely in Spring.
2) The Louvre really IS big!
3) European heads of state wear Armani all day.

What a waste of my tax dollars. Protocol is just a chasm of taxpayer funded nepotism - an excuse for partying with your spouse and getting a free trip out of it. Heads of state and elected officials do not need dates, however much I would like to ensure that there is no difference in treatment of inappropriate gay partners from inappropriate straight partners.

the solution is obviously to repeal DADT. unfortunately, it’s starting to look like quite a few people will have to get fired and/or shot first. i’m not optimistic enough to start holding my breath for it, sadly.

There were Republicans supportive of Baldwin’s partner traveling, it wasn’t a partisan matter (when it was under the table).

You mean when they couldn’t use it as a bat against San Francisco Nancy Pelosi, who’s from San Francisco, where a lot of gay people live.

It’s Republican business as usual — give a free pass to something until it becomes convenient for you to denounce it. Of course, it requires you to deny that you ever gave it a free pass, but it’s not like our journalists will actually look into it or pursue it if you deny that you said what they have you on tape saying. Remember how quickly the 2004 post-debate controversy went from “Bush said on tape that he doesn’t care where bin Laden is” to “Kerry said Mary Cheney is GAY!!!!”

You’d think that, you know, national security would be more important than the sexuality of the vice president’s daughter, but not to our press corps.

Their orders also say they can not appear in public out of uniform, so do congrespeople have to wear a uniform when using military transportation?

Your point is well taken, but the logic in that bit is quite flawed. There are lots of orders military people have to follow that congressional passengers do not have to follow. I mean, if DADT applied to passengers then Rep. Baldwin shouldn’t be allowed to fly either since she has “told” right?