One of the things is accused of is attempting to sell Obama's Senate seat.
He also was conspiring to get editorial staff on the Chicago Tribune fired.
[ December 09, 2008, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
From the link above:
quote: On the issue of the U.S. Senate selection, federal prosecutors alleged Blagojevich sought appointment as Secretary of Health and Human Services in the new Obama administration, or a lucrative job with a union in exchange for appointing a union-preferred candidate. An Obama spokesman had no immediate comment.
Blagojevich and Harris conspired to demand the firing of Chicago Tribune editorial board members responsible for editorials critical of Blagojevich in exchange for state help with the sale of Wrigley Field, the Chicago Cubs baseball stadium owned by Tribune Co.
Blagojevich and Harris, along with others, obtained and sought to gain financial benefits for the governor, members of his family and his campaign fund in exchange for appointments to state boards and commissions, state jobs and state contracts.
"The breadth of corruption laid out in these charges is staggering," U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said in a statement. "They allege that Blagojevich put a 'for sale' sign on the naming of a United States senator; involved himself personally in pay-to-play schemes with the urgency of a salesman meeting his annual sales target; and corruptly used his office in an effort to trample editorial voices of criticism."
Oh, yay. About freakin' time.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Two in a row. We are on a streak. People should have listened to me and voted for Vallas.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I'm just wondering how he could be so stupid when he *knew* that he was being investigated and taped.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Blago is an idiot.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And his wife is Lady Macbeth. I dont' have any real evidence of that, I just get that impression from her.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Lady Macbeth or Lucretia Borgia?
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
kate, I love that sentence. I know nothing of her, and the one picture I've seen of her doesn't strike me that way, but i love it anyway.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
From the complaint itself. Obscenities truncated by me
quote: Later on November 3, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH spoke with Advisor A. By this time, media reports indicated that Senate Candidate 1, an advisor to the Presidentelect, was interested in the Senate seat if it became vacant, and was likely to be supported by the President-elect. During the call, ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated, “unless I get something real good for [Senate Candidate 1], sh--, I’ll just send myself, you know what I’m saying.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH later stated, “I’m going to keep this Senate option for me a real possibility, you know, and therefore I can drive a hard bargain. You hear what I’m saying. And if I don’t get what I want and I’m not satisfied with it, then I’ll just take the Senate seat myself.” Later, ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that the Senate seat “is a f--ing valuable thing, you just don’t give it away for nothing.”
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Also from the complaint..
quote: On November 11, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH talked with JOHN HARRIS about the Senate seat. ROD BLAGOJEVICH suggested starting a 501(c)(4) organization (a non-profit organization that may engage in political activity and lobbying) and getting “his (believed to be the President-elect’s) friend Warren Buffett or some of those guys to help us on something like that.” HARRIS asked, “what, for you?” ROD BLAGOJEVICH replied, “yeah.” Later in the conversation, ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that if he appoints Senate Candidate 4 to the Senate seat and, thereafter, it appears that ROD BLAGOJEVICH might get impeached, he could “count on [Senate Candidate 4], if things got hot, to give [the Senate seat] up and let me parachute over there.” HARRIS said, “you can count on [Senate Candidate 4] to do that.” Later in the conversation, ROD BLAGOJEVICH said he knows that the President-elect wants Senate Candidate 1 for the Senate seat but “they’re not willing to give me anything except appreciation. F-- them.”
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Heh, they obscured gender at the beginning, but later on the quotes seem to be pretty clear that Senate Candidate one is female.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: 111. Later on November 12, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH talked with JOHN HARRIS. ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that his decision about the open Senate seat will be based on three criteria in the following order of importance: “our legal situation, our personal situation, my political situation. This decision, like every other one, needs to be based upon on that. Legal. Personal. Political.” HARRIS said, “legal is the hardest one to satisfy.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH said that his legal problems could be solved by naming himself to the Senate seat.
I wonder if he can still name himself to that seat. In theory, probably, although there has to be some way to make that null and void.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Heh, they obscured gender at the beginning, but later on the quotes seem to be pretty clear that Senate Candidate one is female.
I wonder if it is Schakowsky?
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Smart money says it's Valerie Jarrett.
Marc Ambinder's saying that Candidate 5 is almost certainly Jesse Jackson, Jr. Which means, barring Blago pulling a last-minte "F you" both to the federal government and his own still-constituents, Jackson Jr's chances at becoming Senator just went up in smoke.
Probably for the best, considering it sounds like he tried to bribe Blago for the seat.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Jarret would make sense. Duckworth is another female possibility.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
There are also quotes indicating that Blago wanted to run for President in 2012. With those sorts of delusions, he might be able to cop an insanity plea.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Heh. No kidding.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
They said on the news I listened to that the previous governor of Illinois is currently in jail. This is the corrupt political machine that produced Barack Obama.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
well said Banna.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Wait, so who chooses the new senator of they find him guilty?
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Oh, wow.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
That is a Very Good Question. Technically he's still the governor and theoretically could still appoint himself as senator. (As he's quoted numerous times suggesting in the complaint)
However if the appointment is done in a corrupt manner, I would think there's got to be some sort of Federal statute or something that would override him acutally becoming senator... The legal eagles would know for sure.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think the Senate can refuse to seat a Senator. This came up when it looked like Sen. Stevens would be reelected.
Sen. Stevens from Alaska where all the politicians are pure. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Note: Obama got elected to the U.S. Senate in the first place because of a [corruption*] scandal that brought his main opponent down. If they could have dug up anything to incriminate him then, believe me they would have.
There is the one very small campaign contribution, from Rezko that was returned that has been fully documented during his Presidential campaign. And if they could have found anything else while he was running for President, they would have dug it up.
Even the church he attended where Rev. Wright was pastor, was not The Best Politically Connected church to attend. There are other churches Obama could have chosen to attend based on the political connections he would have made, and he didn't.
*not a corruption scandal, just a sordid one.
[ December 09, 2008, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
At least Sarah Palin took on the corrupt political machine, and actually drove many of the miscreants out of office. Obama never blew the whistle on anyone, just went along and accepted all the support he could get--even from people like William Ayers and Tony Rezko.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
BannaOj, plenty was "dug up" about Obama while he was running for president, but the Obama worshippers chose to ignore it.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: ROD BLAGOJEVICH said he knows that the President-elect wants Senate Candidate 1 for the Senate seat but
“they’re not willing to give me anything except appreciation. F-- them.”
[ December 09, 2008, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: They said on the news I listened to that the previous governor of Illinois is currently in jail. This is the corrupt political machine that produced Barack Obama.
The previous governor in jail is a Republican. Do some homework before you get on your high horse to lead the lynching party.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Sometimes I think Cedrios is still around.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Ron, I don't actually think you are for real. I think this is all a game that you play.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
For the sportsfans:
quote: Based on a review of intercepted phone calls, it appears that the Tribune Company, in connection with its efforts to sell the Cubs, has explored the possibility of obtaining financial assistance from the Illinois Finance Authority (“IFA”) relating to the financing or sale of Wrigley Field.19 During the course of this investigation, agents have intercepted a series of communications regarding the efforts of ROD BLAGOJEVICH and JOHN HARRIS to corruptly use the power and influence of the Office of the Governor to cause the firing of Chicago Tribune editorial board members as a condition of State of Illinois financial assistance in connection with Wrigley Field.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
katharina blatantly stated what I was implying.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:Note: Obama got elected to the U.S. Senate in the first place because of a corruption scandal that brought his main opponent down. If they could have dug up anything to incriminate him then, believe me they would have.
This isn't quite how things went down. Obama's predecessor, Senator Peter Fitzgerald, wasn't part of a corruption scandal. Quite the opposite, in fact.
quote:Throughout his tenure in the Senate, Fitzgerald battled with the state Republican Party leadership. He insisted on the appointment of an out-of-state US attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald (no relation), to investigate corruption in the Illinois state government, which led to several indictments, including that of former Republican Governor George Ryan, who has since been convicted of several criminal abuses of authority. Fitzgerald declined to run for reelection largely because many Republican insiders who had failed to support him in his first run in 1998 had made it clear he would not have their support again, in what he knew would be a much tougher race.
Now, there was something of a scandal that brought down Obama's original opponent for the Senate seat, but it had nothing to do with corruption.
His opponent, Republican Jack Ryan was brought down by a (possibly) unprecedented judicial order that made part of child custody files in his divorce with actress Jeri Ryan public.
From a Wikipedia entry with an invalid URL on this board:
quote:On June 22, 2004, after receiving a report from the referee, Judge Schnider released the files that were deemed consistent with the interests of Ryan's young child. In those files, Jeri Ryan alleged that Jack Ryan had taken her to sex clubs in several cities, intending for them to have sex in public.
Republican leaders urged Ryan to get out, feeling he'd misled them on not having baggage in his divorce papers.
Unable to find any in-state Republican willing run for the Senate seat, fire-breathing Alan Keyes was brought in from out of state.
Not exactly known for his ability to "reach out," Keyes pulled in a whopping 27% of the vote.
/Il political history lesson
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: BannaOj, plenty was "dug up" about Obama while he was running for president, but the Obama worshippers chose to ignore it.
I hear he's not even a US citizen!
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
You know, it's really stunning chutzpah for a governor under intense federal investigation for years to try to auction off the president-elect's Senate seat to the highest bidder. Just last week he was recorded being paranoid about being recorded. But it didn't stop him. I hope he gets a massive sentence.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Lady Macbeth....
quote: During the call, ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s wife can be heard in the background telling ROD BLAGOJEVICH to tell Deputy Governor A “to hold up that f--ing Cubs shit. . . f-- them.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH asked Deputy Governor A what he thinks of his wife’s idea. Deputy Governor A stated that there is a part of what ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s wife said that he “agree[s] with.” Deputy Governor A told ROD BLAGOJEVICH that Tribune Owner will say that he does not have anything to do with the editorials, “but I would tell him, look, if you want to get your Cubs thing done get rid of this Tribune.”
Later, ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s wife got on the phone and, during the continuing discussion of the critical Tribune editorials, stated that Tribune Owner can “just fire” the writers because Tribune Owner owns the Tribune. ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s wife stated that if Tribune Owner’s papers were hurting his business, Tribune Owner would do something about the editorial board. ROD BLAGOJEVICH then got back on the phone. ROD BLAGOJEVICH told Deputy Governor A to put together the articles in the Tribune that are on the topic of removing ROD BLAGOJEVICH from office and they will then have someone, like JOHN HARRIS, go to Tribune Owner and say, “We’ve got some decisions to make now.”
quote:On November 10, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH, his wife, JOHN HARRIS, Governor General Counsel, and various Washington-D.C. based advisors, including Advisor B, discussed the open Senate seat during a conference call. (The Washington D.C.-based advisors to ROD BLAGOJEVICH are believed to have participated on this call from Washington D.C.). Various individuals participated at different times during the call. The call lasted for approximately two hours, and what follows are simply summaries of various portions of the two-hour call.
a. ROD BLAGOJEVICH expressed his interest in figuring out a way to make money and build some financial security, while at the same time potentially participating in the political arena again. ROD BLAGOJEVICH mentioned the Senate seat, the dynamics of a new Presidential administration with the strong contacts that ROD BLAGOJEVICH has in it, and asked what if anything he can do to make that work for him and his wife and his responsibilities as Governor of Illinois. ROD BLAGOJEVICH suggested during the call that he could name himself to the open Senate seat to avoid impeachment by the State of Illinois legislature. ROD BLAGOJEVICH agreed it was unlikely that the President-elect would name him Secretary of Health and Human Services or give him an ambassadorship because of all of the negative publicity surrounding ROD BLAGOJEVICH.
b. ROD BLAGOJEVICH asked what he can get from the President-elect for the Senate seat. ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that Governor General Counsel believes the President-elect can get ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s wife on paid corporate boards in exchange for naming the President-elect’s pick to the Senate. Governor General Counsel asked, “can [the President-elect] help in the private sector. . . where it wouldn’t be tied to him? . . .I mean, so it wouldn’t necessarily look like one for the other.”
ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s wife suggested during the call that she is qualified to sit on corporate boards and has a background in real estate and appraisals. ROD BLAGOJEVICH asked whether there is something that could be done with his wife’s “series 7" license in terms of working out a deal for the Senate seat. ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that he is “struggling” financially and does “not want to be Governor for the next two years.”
c. ROD BLAGOJEVICH said that the consultants (Advisor B and another consultant are believed to be on the call at that time) are telling him that he has to “suck itup” for two years and do nothing and give this “m--f--r [the President-elect] his senator. F-- him. For nothing? F-- him.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH states that he will put “[Senate Candidate 4]” in the Senate “before I just give f-ing [Senate Candidate 1] a f--ing Senate seat and I don’t get anything.” (Senate Candidate 4 is a Deputy Governor of the State of Illinois). ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that he needs to find a way to take the “financial stress” off of his family and that his wife is as qualified or more qualified than another specifically named individual to sit on corporate boards. According to ROD BLAGOJEVICH, “the immediate challenge [is] how do we take some of the financial pressure off of our family.”
Later in the phone call, ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that absent getting something back, ROD BLAGOJEVICH will not pick Senate Candidate 1. HARRIS re-stated ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s thoughts that they should ask the President-elect for something for ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s financial security as well as maintain his political viability. HARRIS said they could work out a three-way deal with SEIU and the President-elect where SEIU could help the President-elect with ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s appointment of Senate Candidate 1 to the vacant Senate seat, ROD BLAGOJEVICH would obtain a position as the National Director of the Change to Win campaign, and SEIU would get something favorable from the President-elect in the future.
d. One of ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s advisors said he likes the idea, it sounds like a good idea, but advised ROD BLAGOJEVICH to be leery of promises for something two years from now. ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s wife said they would take the job now. Thereafter, ROD BLAGOJEVICH and others on the phone call discussed various ways ROD BLAGOJEVICH can “monetize” the relationships he is making as Governor to make money after ROD BLAGOJEVICH is no longer Governor.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Sndrake, thank you for the correction. I was referring to the Jack Ryan incident, in my previous statement. Rather than saying corruption I should have said "scandal"
AJ
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
AJ,
Just wanted to get that part in about Peter Fitzgerald. I disagreed with him on most issues, but I respected him.
And his role in the appointment of Patrick Fitzgerald as Federal Prosecutor is a gift that just keeps on giving.
To both parties.
But mostly to the public, who deserve a lot better from public servants.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I didn't know much about Peter Fitzgerald, as we hadn't been in living the state very long when he retired/refused to run for re-election.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: Update at 1:08 p.m. ET: USA TODAY's Kathy Kiely reports that Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., is calling on the state legislature to enact a law that allows voters to select Barack Obama's replacement in the U.S. Senate.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Peter Fitzgerald was a pretty upstanding guy as far as I could tell.
I must admit to a certain amount of I-told-you-so-ism today. I campaigned hard for Vallas in the primary. We got heartbreaking close considering that Vallas was squeaky clean and had no money or connections (comparatively).
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Yeah, was just watching CNN at lunch. Their "Citizens of Illinois are shocked and surprised!!!" schtick seemed a bit much. I don't think anyone here in the state is terribly surprised. The consensus I'm getting around here is along the lines of "Well we knew he was going down, but how could he be THAT stupid"
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: In a profile of Blagojevich in last February's Chicago Magazine, writer David Bernstein reported:
Privately, a few people who know the governor describe him as a "sociopath," and they insist they're not using hyperbole. State representative Joe Lyons, a fellow Democrat from Chicago, told reporters that Blagojevich was a "madman" and "insane."
That struck me at the time, as over the top. Today it strikes me as brave and prescient.
The comments on this article are awesome. He's limited them to one word.
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Yeah, was just watching CNN at lunch. Their "Citizens of Illinois are shocked and surprised!!!" schtick seemed a bit much. I don't think anyone here in the state is terribly surprised. The consensus I'm getting around here is along the lines of "Well we knew he was going down, but how could he be THAT stupid"
Maybe downstate? He had a lot of support (for a dem) downstate. Yeah. It was a matter of time.
ETA: I remember after the primary loss thinking, "well at least Quinn will be a decent governor after this guy gets indicted." Likely sour grapes at the time, but...
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I think we need to start the impeachment process right away.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
I'm at a loss for words. Not because I'm surprised to find out that Blago's yet another corrupt Chicago Machine politician. But because I'm surprised at the man's absolute stupidity.
I wonder how much heat Obama is going to take as a result, being a Chicago Democrat, and with the number of Chicagoans he's been targeting for his Cabinet.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: At least Sarah Palin took on the corrupt political machine, and actually drove many of the miscreants out of office. Obama never blew the whistle on anyone, just went along and accepted all the support he could get--even from people like William Ayers and Tony Rezko.
Yeah, that's exactly how it went down. Plus he palled around with Ayers, which of course involves a lot of back slapping and winking and joint passing. TOTALLY!
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
(Warning - Many bleeped out obscenities in the rest of the article)
quote:In what is being called one of the most daring escape attempts in the history of law enforcement, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich today offered the U.S. Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama to the FBI agent who took him into Federal custody this morning.
According to U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, the astonishing escape attempt occurred moments after Mr. Blagojevich was handcuffed by the agent, who was wearing a wire and captured the entire expletive-laden offer on tape.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: At least Sarah Palin took on the corrupt political machine, and actually drove many of the miscreants out of office. Obama never blew the whistle on anyone, just went along and accepted all the support he could get--even from people like William Ayers and Tony Rezko.
Yeah, that's exactly how it went down. Plus he palled around with Ayers, which of course involves a lot of back slapping and winking and joint passing. TOTALLY!
Interestingly enough, it's looking like Obama's people are the ones who finally did.
--j_k
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: The previous governor in jail is a Republican. Do some homework...[yada yada yada].
Morbo, political corruption and machine politics are not necessarily confined to one party. In the case of the political corruption in Alaska that Sarah Palin succesfully opposed, part of the corruption was in her own party. She took the place of a Republican incumbent governor.
Noeman, about Obama not being a U.S. citizen--the actual issue is whether he qualifies as being a NATURAL BORN U.S. Citizen.
The question was brought to one Supreme Court justice by an attorney, who was then told he lacked the proper standing to bring suit over Obama's constitutional qualification to be president. The question was then apparently put up as a "jump ball" for the other justices to play with it if they wished. I haven't heard that anyone rose to the challenge.
But now some people who do have the proper standing (certified candidates in the same election and their electors) to bring this lawsuit before the Supreme Court have filed in California and in Mississippi, and plans are being made to file similar lawsuits in other states. These the Supreme Court will have to deal with, even if it takes more than a year for the process.
This paragraph is in the petitions:
quote:"Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void, Petitioners, as well as other Americans, will suffer irreparable harm in that an usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal."
Also, it looks as though we may hold a special election. Or possibly sell the senate seat on eBay.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
katharina, Tin foil hats make poor lightning rods unless they are grounded.
Ridicule may feel good, but there is no substance in it, especially for those who have been careless about the details and hope to laugh their way through the continued controversy. Team Obama's response to these lawsuits is that they are just "garbage." That is not very substantive. It does not deal with the serious questions that do still remain about whether Obama was born in Hawaii, or in Kenya (as his own relatives claim).
What would do the Obama lawyers good would be for them to state which hospital in Honolulu Obama was allegedly born in, and who was the attending physician (so that corroboration will be possible).
Keep your eye on Obama's relatives in Kenya--if any of them suddenly disappear or die under mysterious circumstances, then we will all know that things have taken a real turn for the dark side.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*laughs*
There is an official birth certificate and an announcement in the paper from the time. The tin foil hat is completely appropriate.
As the man himself said, if his family was planning on him running for president in a half century time, they would not have given him the middle name of "Hussein."
quote:in Kenya (as his own relatives claim).
Absolute, complete baloney. I can't tell if you really think this or if you are just enthusiastically spreading what you know isn't true.
When asked if Obama was born in Kenya, his grandmother replied "He was born in Hawaii."
quote:The comments on this article are awesome. He's limited them to one word.
My favorite was "Schadenfreudelicious".
EDIT - holy page 2 batman!
[ December 09, 2008, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: Juxtapose ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm still thinking eBay or Craigslist. Fix the budget.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: katharina, Tin foil hats make poor lightning rods unless they are grounded.
Even then. Neither tin nor aluminum is an especially good electrical conductor. Try adding some copper. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
What rivka said
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Morbo, political corruption and machine politics are not necessarily confined to one party. In the case of the political corruption in Alaska that Sarah Palin succesfully opposed, part of the corruption was in her own party. She took the place of a Republican incumbent governor.
About Palin, very true, and I give her props for that.
But you previously said:
quote: They said on the news I listened to that the previous governor of Illinois is currently in jail. This is the corrupt political machine that produced Barack Obama.
There is a Democratic machine in Illinois. The previous Republican governor now in jail was not a part of it, and has no relation to Obama. So your original quote made no sense.
BTW, Ron, I mostly agreed with you in the Big 3 hypocracy thread. Just sayin' Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The previous governor may have belonged to a different party, but he operated in the same corrupt climate. The behind-the-scenes facilitators, a.k.a. the beaurocrats, often hang around and ply their trades for both parties. But just the fact that this kind of behavior seems to be endemic in Illinois (and especially in Chicago) politics, and has been for decades (remember the old 1960s "Boss Daley"?), tarnishes the reputation of the governments involved, and makes it seem reasonable to look with suspicion on any politician coming out of that milieu.
I have known people who have had to deal with Chicago government on church business, obtaining permits or whatever, and they told me they were shocked to discover that they were routinely expected to give bribes on every level of government. This is how government was done as a rule, not an exception. Granted, this was a couple of decades ago that I heard about this, and I cannot say if it is still true. I hope not, but it does not sound like any great reform has come to Al Capone Land.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
My goodness this guy is an idiot. I don't know a whole heck of a lot about him, but wasn't he already in trouble for like a half dozen things before this? It either takes a special kind of God complex to think you can do whatever you want and get away with it, or he's just beyond the normal realms of STUPID.
Duckworth, Jesse Jackson Jr, and Valerie Jarrett are the three names I hear tossed around the most. They all bring up different issues. Tammy Duckworth isn't considered at all a contender to take up a reelection campaign when the seat expires in the next midterm election. She'd be a placeholder at best. JJJ is looked to as a guy who has more statewide name recognition than the other two, which would help him hold onto the seat in 2010. Jarrett on the other hand is a close friend to Obama, and any other Governor might have considered her for the spot in an effort to send someone to the Senate who will obviously work with Obama. Apparently Blagovich isn't any other governor though. I don't know any of the candidates well enough to say who I'd prefer, or for that matter who I think is best.
I'm sketchy on the whole "appointing himself" thing. Near as I can tell he isn't allowed to hold two offices at once like that, which would mean he'd have to resign and have his Lieutenant Governor take his spot and then appoint him, and I can't imagine any Lt. Gov would actually do it. And even if they did, yes, the Senate can refuse to seat him, though I'd call 50/50 odds on them actually doing that. Losing a valuable seat would hurt, but allowing a guy as tainted as he is into the Democratic caucus could be its own political firestorm.
There's a little controversy going on in Deleware over the appointment to fill Biden's spot, which many consider a placefiller until his son Beau Biden comes back from his military deployment and run for the seat in 2010 (the appointment I believe only lasts until the next major election, not the entire term). But that's another story.
But take everything I say with a grain of salt. You all saw what I said about Obama in the Christopher Walken thread. Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I get this image in my head of a self-appointed Senator being dragged from the Senate chamber by police screaming "And... I propose a bill that we give all the third-born children in America FREE BANANAS!... And a military contract for Illinois for a aircraft carrier that doubles as a PARADE FLOAT!... And.."
More seriously, I can't help but wonder if there is a special election (as seems likely) if the governor's shenanigans might not lead to a backlash against the Democrats.
As far as Obama... He won. Get over it. Sheesh.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And even if they did, yes, the Senate can refuse to seat him, though I'd call 50/50 odds on them actually doing that.
Evidently that's not necessarily true. Here's a post at fivethirtyeight that explains what the constitutional issues might be. Essentially there is a difference in how appointees and electees are handled; the Senate can choose not to seat an electee, but not an appointee (unless the appointment violates necessary conditions of age, citizenship, etc).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The Senate refused to seat Frank Smith and he was appointed to fill a seat* after his predessor died.
That was before the US Supreme Court found such exclusions unconstitutional (although the wikisummary doesn't make any distinction between appointment and election, unlike the legal summary at fivethirtyeight; I don't know which is more accurate).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It is a little different, too, because Powell was already a member of the House (and had been for quite some time) and had been elected rather than appointed.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I've been wondering if Blago could still just appoint himself. It sounds like our State Attorney General would immediately bring him up on conflict of interest charges if he did try that maneuver.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
While it is considered somewhat gauche, appointing yourself is pretty common, and not illegal.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I think the man might be insane enough to do it. I suspect if there is corruption involved they might be able to declare the appointment void, but it doesn't seem like there is much legal precedent.
Also our kmbboots was prescient about the "Lady MacBeth" bit.
I haven't checked this out, but if my recent memory of readings is correct...
Blagojevich can appoint himself to the seat.
The Senate will have to accept the appointment.
However, once he's sworn in, they can vote to expel him - and I don't think there would be a problem getting the votes to do that.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:President-elect Barack Obama believes that Gov. Rod Blagojevich should resign, his advisers said on Wednesday. "The President-elect agrees with Lt. Gov. Quinn and many others that under the current circumstances it is difficult for the governor to effectively do his job and serve the people of Illinois," Robert Gibbs, the incoming White House press secretary, said.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
If Gov. Blagojevich were to appoint himself to the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama, and then the Senate voted to expell him from the Senate, would he still get the cushy retirement and other benefits enjoyed by former Senators as an entitlement?
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
It's probably a moot point. He may have only a couple of days to try that maneuver. The Illinois legislature is meeting on Monday to vote on a measure that would change the law in Illinois - so that a vacant Senate seat would be filled through a special election. It should get a veto-proof majority.
According to the Illinois Attorney General, she would challenge any self-appointment by Blagojevich on a "conflict of interest" basis. Traditionally, Governors who get to fill a Senate vacancy do so by resigning and relying on their successor to appoint them to the seat.
Which cushy retirement benefits are those, Ron? They are part of the regular federal retirement system which, while good, is hardly "cushy."
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Dagonee, members of Congress get a whole lot better retirement package than I do, or most other Americans. Not to mention health care, dental, etc. And you don't even have to serve for 20 or 30 years, like big city government plans require for their workers.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: They said on the news I listened to that the previous governor of Illinois is currently in jail. This is the corrupt political machine that produced Barack Obama.
Interestingly enough, one of the tapes has the governor berating the Obama campaign for not giving him more than, "appreciation."
But hey guilt by association right?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And even if they did, yes, the Senate can refuse to seat him, though I'd call 50/50 odds on them actually doing that.
Evidently that's not necessarily true. Here's a post at fivethirtyeight that explains what the constitutional issues might be. Essentially there is a difference in how appointees and electees are handled; the Senate can choose not to seat an electee, but not an appointee (unless the appointment violates necessary conditions of age, citizenship, etc).
Interesting. I wasn't aware of the distinction.
I'll have to check out that article when I get the chance. Thanks.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
If you grow up in a manure pile, you are more likely to be a mushroom than a rose. Some people do rise above their origins. But mushrooms require thorough washing.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Here's Madigan the state AG saying that she has a number of options to keep Blago from appointing himself. On the other hand she isn't quoting legal chapter and verse so I'm not sure how many options she really has.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Obviously you've never grown roses.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:If you grow up in a manure pile, you are more likely to be a mushroom than a rose. Some people do rise above their origins. But mushrooms require thorough washing.
I had never thought about it that way before!
Palin/Joe the Plumber '12!
[ December 10, 2008, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: Strider ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
there's also anaerobic bacteria
One of the Deputy Governors has resigned.
(Deputy Governors are not to be confused with the Lieutenant Governor who would replace Blago)
Short-term Senators do not automatically get full retirement benefits. I don't know the details, but I know that the person Ventura appointed to fill out Wellstone's Senate seat does not have health insurance.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated that he... does “not want to be Governor for the next two years.”
This made me
See, wishes do come true!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: But now some people who do have the proper standing (certified candidates in the same election and their electors) to bring this lawsuit before the Supreme Court have filed in California and in Mississippi, and plans are being made to file similar lawsuits in other states. These the Supreme Court will have to deal with, even if it takes more than a year for the process.
HAH. I believe it's one of the perks of being on the supreme court that the justices get to decide what cases come before them. So, iirc, they won't "have to deal with," anything if they don't feel like it.
And this is most certainly, emphatically, a situation they will not care to deal with.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Ridicule may feel good, but there is no substance in it, especially for those who have been careless about the details and hope to laugh their way through the continued controversy. Team Obama's response to these lawsuits is that they are just "garbage." That is not very substantive. It does not deal with the serious questions that do still remain about whether Obama was born in Hawaii, or in Kenya (as his own relatives claim).
Ah, ok I get it. You think that the world has to slow down to accommodate idiots and charlatans and their various grandiose claims of respectability and credibility even though they cannot satisfy the opposition with enough evidence even to warrant more than offhanded and flat denial of their credentials, their theories, and their supposed evidence.
Gee whiz, it occurs to me that if these people had anything substantively real or useful to say, or if at any time their claims approached a level of reality that demanded attention, magically smarter and more reliable people than you would notice. But then there's all the very easily accessible and totally reliable evidence that they're not only wrong, but that they are in fact lying about their own belief in their accusations.
But no, part of what attracts you to conspiracy theories and assorted nonsense is the romantic and egotistical belief that you might be capable of seeing something no one else can see. What better way than by championing causes that no one takes seriously? You can forever cry-foul, and claim martyrdom, and you can better control people's reactions to you, rather than if you ever attempted to be actually truthful or reasonable.
So as a self-branded conservative heretic, you're no better than the hippies and counter-culturalists (including Ayers) of the 1960s who decided, quite without any sense of perspective, that they were so right about things, they should jump into the machinery of our society and sabotage it with their own excessive lifestyles. You are just like that.
So far, you're it. So don't be surprised if I sleep soundly knowing you're on the case.
Edit: But hey, that's what's great about you Ron! You haven't been right about Obama, to my knowledge, even one time through this whole election process. I suppose a compass with the poles reversed is not necessarily broken, just reliably inaccurate. I'll start worrying when you do say something useful.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Which cushy retirement benefits are those, Ron? They are part of the regular federal retirement system which, while good, is hardly "cushy."
Please Dag, anything that is actually good = cushy. In order to meet Ron's standards, the retirement system must inherently suck.
I mean, what good is a retirement system that is good for the people who are in it? What, moreover, does Ron get out of the deal?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: If you grow up in a manure pile, you are more likely to be a mushroom than a rose. Some people do rise above their origins. But mushrooms require thorough washing.
Actually, roses grow much better in manure than mushrooms do.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I think Ron was trying to tell you about his love of hallucinogenic treats.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote:You can forever cry-foul, and claim martyrdom, and you can better control people's reactions to you, rather than if you ever attempted to be actually truthful or reasonable.
Hmmm, there are ironic similarities between those reactions and those of Blagojevich himself...
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Uhuh. And Hitler was a vegetarian and Eisenhower's mother made him wear a dress and Abe Lincoln was gay, blahdy blahdy bla.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Team Obama's response to these lawsuits is that they are just "garbage." That is not very substantive. It does not deal with the serious questions that do still remain about whether Obama was born in Hawaii, or in Kenya (as his own relatives claim).
Here's another left-wing source criticizing the lawsuits regarding Obama's citizenship and alleged lack thereof -- David Horowitz at the National Review:
quote:Obama Derangement Syndrome Shut up about the birth certificate.
By David Horowitz
The continuing efforts of a fringe group of conservatives to deny Obama his victory and to lay the basis for the claim that he is not a legitimate president are embarrassing and destructive. The fact that these efforts are being led by Alan Keyes, a demagogue who lost a Senate election to the then-unknown Obama by 42 points, should be a warning in itself.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: katharina, Tin foil hats make poor lightning rods unless they are grounded.
Ridicule may feel good, but there is no substance in it, especially for those who have been careless about the details and hope to laugh their way through the continued controversy. Team Obama's response to these lawsuits is that they are just "garbage." That is not very substantive. It does not deal with the serious questions that do still remain about whether Obama was born in Hawaii, or in Kenya (as his own relatives claim).
What would do the Obama lawyers good would be for them to state which hospital in Honolulu Obama was allegedly born in, and who was the attending physician (so that corroboration will be possible).
Keep your eye on Obama's relatives in Kenya--if any of them suddenly disappear or die under mysterious circumstances, then we will all know that things have taken a real turn for the dark side.
Ron, You can't honestly expect us to take you seriously when you regurgitate this kind of wight wing wacko crap when even the slightest effort reveals it for the bald faced lie that it is.
The state of Hawaii has verified the validity of Barack Obama's birth certificate. End of story.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I would be more amused by the whole Obama-is-not-a-US-citizen thing if my father-in-law hadn't espoused the same nonsense when we visited him over Thanksgiving. Oh, the shame!
He's also still convinced that Obama is a Muslim and informed me that in his book he said he would side with Muslims against Christians.
I had just finished reading the book in question days earlier and found nothing of the sort, but of course logic doesn't really come into these arguments, does it?
The same thing is true here. Actual legal documents and birth announcements in the newspaper, not to mention the fact that dozens of credible sources have looked into and debunked the insane rumors, don't mean anything because they are inconvenient to those who would like to continue living in la la land.
I like la la land sometimes. But I prefer to imagine I am a superhero or something fun. Barack Obama's planet of origin concerns me not. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote:The governor has moved on from being "a sleazy politician,'' Stewart suggests, to something out of a 19th Century German children's fable.
"Sadly,'' Stewart concludes, "graft is nothing new to Illinois.'' - noting that three of the last seven governors have landed in jail.
Comparing the percentage of that record with the numbers of people who are estimated to get away with murder each year, he concludes: "You are more likely to end up in jail if you become governor of Illinois than if you are a murderer.''
Additional note - the site linked has optional video of Stewart that contains obscene language and will defitely be offensive to some people. I've shared the PG-rated stuff. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
This article has links to a bunch of the possible scenarios of what happens next. It is as comprehensive as anything I've seen.
Please, please tell me you that was deliberate, not a typo. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
sssshhhhhh. He's hunting wight wing wacko wabbits.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Absolutely deliberate. It should be said in an Elmer Fudd voice. My husband and I have been saying it that way for years, its at least in part to separate the wackos from the legitimate and rational conservative thought.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Hmm and here I thought it was a Tolkein reference.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by sndrake: Here's another left-wing source criticizing the lawsuits regarding Obama's citizenship and alleged lack thereof -- David Horowitz at the National Review:
quote:Obama Derangement Syndrome Shut up about the birth certificate.
By David Horowitz
In this article Horowitz says,
quote:This tempest over whether Obama, the child of an American citizen, was born on American soil is tantamount to the Democrats’ seditious claim that Bush “stole” the election in Florida and hence was not the legitimate president.
I think this comparison is very weak. There is legitimate controversy over the 2000 Florida election results. Post election examination of the ballots determined that using the recount rules recommended by Bush for examination of rejected ballots, Gore would have won the election. Using the rules recommended by Gore, Bush would have won the election. There is legitimate controversy on this issue and a rational person objectively reviewing the facts could come to the conclusion that Bush was not the legitimate winner of the election.
The same can not be said for the question of whether or not Obama counts as a natural born American citizen. Obama was born in Hawaii. The evidence is clear and indisputable and has been certified by the proper authorities. A rational person looking objectively at the facts could not possibly come to any other conclusion. This is an out ant out fabrication with no foundation in truth what so ever.
[ December 11, 2008, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Rabbit, the state of Hawaii has not provided the definitive proof that is required. It has been pointed out for months that the "Certificate of Live Birth" is not the same as a valid Birth Certificate. It does not say which hospital in Honolulu Barack Obama was allegedly born in, nor does it give the name of the attending physician. These things are needed so the facts can be verified independently. This, combined with the fact that Obama's relatives in Kenya have been recorded as claiming he was born in their village (Obama's Kenyan grandmother says she was present in the room when Obama was born), do leave a reasonable question open. Obama, being the product of corrupt Chicago/Illinois politics, probably does not think little details like meeting the constitutional requirement for a "natural born" citizen reallys matters, as long as he can skate around it and get away with it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
True, Rabbit.
But if you look at his intended audience, it is an analogy that may resonate. Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Ron, even if he was born in Kenya, the fact that his mother was a US citizen means that he is a natural born citizen. It would also mean so if he was born on the moon. Period, end of story. The kerfuffle stating otherwise shold be as embarassing to Republicans as it is ridiculous.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Also, the person commonly referred to as his grandmother in Kenya is actually his step-grandmother, the mother of one of his father's other wives. The idea that she would have been present at his birth is unlikely at best. Not that that's relevant.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It has been pointed out for months that the "Certificate of Live Birth" is not the same as a valid Birth Certificate.
Are you kidding? What the heck does your birth certificate say on top?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Ron, even if he was born in Kenya, the fact that his mother was a US citizen means that he is a natural born citizen.
No. The law at the time he was born defined that status more narrowly; your parent had to have been in the United States for a certain duration by a certain age in order for your citizenship to be valid, and his mother didn't fit that criteria. Ergo, he does need to have been born on U.S. soil in order to legally be a natural-born citizen.
Note, however, that since the state of Hawaii says he was born there, it's not a problem.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
From the summary of the interview with the Kenyan grandmother, it sounds like there was some confusion with the translation. Conversations with translators can be extremely difficult as can conversations with old people. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Rabbit, the state of Hawaii has not provided the definitive proof that is required.
"Required" for what?
Where does the Constitution say someone needs a "Birth Certificate" as opposed to a "Certificate of Live Birth" to prove their citizenship? It doesn't. Therefore one would expect that citizenship verification would proceed under the rules and procedures normally used to verify citizenship.
As has been explained multiple times now - and as you have utterly failed to acknowledge - the certificate posted by the Obama campaign and examined by FactCheck is acceptable for proof of citizenship under the standards currently used by the U.S. government.
Are you advocating changing those standards solely for this purpose? If so, why? You haven't presented reasons why those standards - used to enforce laws and grant passports EVERY SINGLE DAY except maybe Sundays and holidays - are suddenly inadequate.
I get the sense that the real meaning of "required" in your post is "to satisfy the people making those accusations." And that, frankly, seems quite impossible, for reasons that seem to me to be pathological.
quote:I think this comparison is very weak. There is legitimate controversy over the 2000 Florida election results. Post election examination of the ballots determined that using the recount rules recommended by Bush for examination of rejected ballots, Gore would have won the election. Using the rules recommended by Gore, Bush would have won the election. There is legitimate controversy on this issue and a rational person objectively reviewing the facts could come to the conclusion that Bush was not the legitimate winner of the election.
I think the comparison is very apt, because the only way Gore could have won the election is if the guidelines for counting ballots (specifically, for reviewing overvotes) adopted before the election were replaced with something else. In both cases, people are using post hoc revisions of rules to challenge the outcome of the election.
Certainly the birth certificate thing is far more ridiculous. But I think it's on the same continuum.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Rabbit, the state of Hawaii has not provided the definitive proof that is required. It has been pointed out for months that the "Certificate of Live Birth" is not the same as a valid Birth Certificate.
A Certificate of Live Birth is the official and legal name or what is commonly called a "Birth Certificate". The document which has been provided, examined is the document which constitutes legal proof that Obama was born in the US. The state of Hawaii has verified the authenticity of the document and it has been observed by independent experts who verify that it is valid and legal.
quote: It does not say which hospital in Honolulu Barack Obama was allegedly born in, nor does it give the name of the attending physician. These things are needed so the facts can be verified independently.
No they aren't. The short for Birth Certificate which has been provided contains all the information needed to legally establish that one is a natural born citizen of the US. It is Legal PROOF that Obama was born in Honolulu Hawaii on August 4, 1961.
End of story.
quote:This, combined with the fact that Obama's relatives in Kenya have been recorded as claiming he was born in their village (Obama's Kenyan grandmother says she was present in the room when Obama was born), do leave a reasonable question open.
I've seen no proof that such statements were made. Obama's Kenyan grandmother does not speak English so the recordings which claim to be her and claim she that she claim's Obama was born in Kenya are utterly unconvincing. What's more, the testimony of an elderly woman about her memories of what happened 47 years ago are not reliable evidence sufficient to contradict verified legal documents. She could easily be remembering the birth of one of Barack Obama Sr's many other sons or be making things up to bolster her own stature. I have yet see any evidence that Obama's mother ever visited Kenya let alone gave birth there.
The court's dismissed the lawsuits on this issue as frivolous. The Supreme Court refused to hear the case. Its time for you wight wing wackos to admit you are wrong. Of course, since the people backing this are in fact wackos, I don't see that happening even if we were to invent time travel and let them actually travel to the past to personal witness his birth in Hawaii. Evidence and facts are basically irrelevant to wackos.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I just thin fundamentally Ron doesn't appreciate or possibly even understand that once Obama has satisfied the requirement for proof of citizenship (and he has), the burden of proof otherwise is squarely on the shoulders of those who would beg to differ.
What Obama will not and should not do is answer accusations, one and all, as if each were legitimate. He should also most certainly not waste his time and energy doing the work of his detractors for them.
I have an idea. The people who think there is a possibility that Obama was not born on U.S. soil should seek proof that he was, before seeking proof that he was not. The comparison between the two classes of proof will be too obvious for them to reasonably ignore.
On one side you have a birth certificate, the testimony of the family, neighbors, newspaper reports, and myriad other pieces of evidence- and this, mind you, at a time when no one had an inkling of a notion that any evidence would ever be needed.
On the other side you have the claim being made that the Obama family in Kenya is making the claim that he was born there, which, to my knowledge, has not even been corroborated by a credible source. The claim, that *there is a claim,* with plenty of room even in that for translators to be wrong, jokes being made, cultural differences getting in the way, outright falsehood on the part of the family, and outright falsehood on the part of those who make the claim that the claim has been made.
But Ron prefers to take seriously the claims of some people in Kenya who have just had a relative become the most powerful man in America, if not the world, over birth certificates, photos, newspapers, numerous personal accounts, and the testimony of everyone who might actually know something.
Here's a thought. Suppose the organization "Bushes against George W. Bush," or whatever they were called, floated the claim that G.W. was born in Mexico? They are relatives, after all, perhaps the Burden should be on GW to prove that he wasn't born there.
But I'm sure you're being objective Ron. I'm sure you would have been equally credulous of the even more obvious claims that would have been made about John McCain, should he have been elected President. After all, He was not a natural born citizen of the United States. He became a citizen retroactively before his first birthday, but his eligibility to become President is still questionable.
But here's the thing Ron. It DOESN'T MATTER. No court in the land would have come near that case if John McCain had been elected. There would have been no reason. And do you know why? Because the claims made against his eligibility would have been from sniveling whiners like you, and probably worse than you, who wouldn't have cared about the spirit of the law, but would only have wanted to turn events in their favor, based on a technicality. Thankfully, our society does not often reward such motives, and the Supreme Court is a prime example- they get to hear cases they choose to hear, and there will never be anything that you can do about that.
So take your ball and go home, and please do drop in when you have something worth sharing.
[ December 11, 2008, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I always hoped he was an Apple guy.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Ron, even if he was born in Kenya, the fact that his mother was a US citizen means that he is a natural born citizen.
No. The law at the time he was born defined that status more narrowly; your parent had to have been in the United States for a certain duration by a certain age in order for your citizenship to be valid, and his mother didn't fit that criteria. Ergo, he does need to have been born on U.S. soil in order to legally be a natural-born citizen.
Note, however, that since the state of Hawaii says he was born there, it's not a problem.
I've heard this argument before, but I fail to understand it. At the time of Obama's birth, his mother was an adult and had lived in the U.S. her entire life. Granted, that Obama was born in Hawaii so this is just a matter of interest on my part, but could someone clarify this for me?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If I understand it, the law was that the mother had to have lived in the US for 5 years after the age of 16. This seems to be to keep people who live abroad from "passing on" a US citizenship that they don't "use". Mrs. Obama was only 18 when President-Elect Obama was born so she could not have lived in the US for 5 years after the age of 16 even though she lived her whole life in the US up to that point.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
It is believed by those on the fringe *cough Ron* who believe his mom hadn't lived in the US for some wierd period of time so that when she came back and gave birth she wasnt there long enough to qualify for President or something wierd like that.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Thanks for clearing that up. I actually found the text of the law in question and the 16 years one was outdated when Obama was born. At the time of Obama's birth, they had to have been a U.S. citizen for 5 years after the age of 14, which would mean she would have had to be 19 years old. New laws are in place nows. The history of citizenship is kind of messed up.
Still, he was born in Hawaii. Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Interesting interview on Rachel Maddow's Air American show with Chicago Reader columnist Michael Miner:
quote:Back at the Sun-Times, years ago, I had a friend who ran the city desk weekend nights, and his wildest dream, he told me, was that two 747s would collide directly over the John Hancock Center and he’d be the editor on duty directing the coverage.
Tuesday was like that, only better -- no fatalities. It was the first time in ages when if you were a reporter at a newspaper in Chicago you wouldn't have wanted to hold any other job in the world. We've had other governors go down -- though come to think of it, they were out of office when they fell. And not like this. Blagojevich's arrest -- at home, in cuffs, 6 AM -- broke like the DC-10 crash, or the Speck murders, or the Our Lady of the Angels fire. It was sudden and astonishing, and nothing mattered in your newsroom but the story.
This was no mere arrest -- it was an intervention.
In the interest of full disclosure, I admit to being biased in terms of appreciating Miner's take on things. We've had a cordial relationship for years - he's written about NDY three times in his column. I was even able to direct a lead on a story his way that had nothing to do with NDY or disability stuff once.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Thank you Gov. Blagoyvich.
As our economy worsens the last thing this country needs is another sector facing massive layoffs.
Well, after the departure of President Bush from the Whitehouse, there was a great fear that thousands of hard working pundits, bloggers, cartoonists and political comedians (writers for late night television for example) would soon run out of the natural resources used for the products they produce..
in this case--political stupidity.
Thank you Governor Blagoyovich, for stepping in to provide these people with a valid mine to keep them going for months to come.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
I'm in NYS now, after living in Illinois for 12 years.
Judging from just a few conversations with colleagues, there are some people in this state who are grateful to Blagojevich for pushing the name of Eliot Spitzer off of its prominent spot in the "Governors' Hall of Shame."
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The We the People Foundation has sent this open letter demanding that Barack Obama submit the following hilarious list documents.
quote:• A certified copy of your original, signed “vault” birth certificate. • Certified copies of your reissued and sealed birth certificates in the names Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro, Barry Obama, Barack Dunham and Barry Dunham.
Please note the "and" in this requirement. Who has Birth Certificates under 5 different names. If in fact Pres. Obama did have Birth Certificates with 5 different names on them, I'd be seriously worried. It seems they are demanding that Obama produce evidence that he committed a fraud.
quote:• A certified copy of your Certification of Citizenship.
I don't have one of these. Do you? Are these even issued to natural born citizens? I'm pretty sure that these are only issued to naturalized citizens and the existence of one would be proof that Obama is ineligible to serve as President.
quote:• A certified copy of your Oath of Allegiance taken upon age of maturity.
I never made one of these either. Did any of you? I did once sign an oath of loyalty to the state of California but I don't have a copy of that and have no idea how I'd get a certified one.
quote:• Certified copies of your admission forms for Occidental College, Columbia University and Harvard Law School.
I'm not sure what this has to do with citizenship in the US. All these colleges accept foreign students. I don't know about you, but I didn't save any of my admission forms and none of them were certified. The Universities which I attended and at which I have taught will issue certified transcripts and certified copies of my diplomas but none of them will provide certified copies of admission forms.
quote:• Certified copies of any legal documents changing your name.
Once again, something that would only exist if the allegation which these kooks are making and which Obama denies are true.
They are demanding that Obama produce the evidence they need to prove their allegations. If he produces the documents they demand, it proves he is guilty. If he doesn't, they will assume he's guilty.
quote:As of today, there is no evidence in the public record (nor have you provided any) that defeats the claim that you are barred by law from assuming the Office of President because you fail the Constitution’s eligibility requirements.
I guess they mean "no evidence" aside from the legal birth certificate which he has provided and which has been certified as valid by the State of Hawaii and which is considered the standard evidence to prove one is a legal born citizen. I guess it also doesn't include the evaluation of the courts which threw out the case.
quote:All state Electors are now on Notice that unless you provide documentary evidence before December 15, that conclusively establishes your eligibility, . . .
I think that they already clearly stated that they won't accept any evidence except evidence that conclusively establishes that he is ineligible.
quote: . . .they cannot cast a vote for you without committing treason to the Constitution.
Evidently the We the People Foundation's commitment to strict interpretation of the constitution does not extend to Article III, section 3.
quote: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
[ December 12, 2008, 07:51 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:They are demanding that Obama produce the evidence they need to prove their allegations. If he produces the documents they demand, it proves he is guilty. If he doesn't, they will assume he's guilty.
BURN HIM! He's a witch!
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
This isn't racism.
Racism is the idea that despite all the evidence, one is inferior based on one's birth.
Truly dangerous racists believe that one's race is biblical in origin. Darker skin is a sign of descent from Cain. Sin is passed from father to son, so those of dark skin are automatically sinners, while those of light skin are free from sin.
The only thing a light skinned person could do that was sinful would be to betray other light skinned folks to the evil dark skinned children of Cain.
Hence, sin is a product of your birth, not what you do.
Their attack on President Elect Obama is all about his birth, not on what he has or will do.
The big sin is betraying your race.
The big treason is voting for this person.
No, not racism at all, just the same lame logic.
And what do these folks believe will happen when African Obama or Chicago Dirty Politics Obama is President?
From Chicago, he will bring all his Chicago Cronies into the Government ousting better more qualified people to settle for paid loyalty.
Except that so far he has ignored most of the Chicago gang and brought in good qualified members who have different opinions not blind loyalty.
The loyal friends seems to have come from the Texas political machine.
From Africa, he will sell the US out to Kenya.
I don't see that happening, or any sign that it will, but you never can tell with those crafty Kenyans can you.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: People who seek to rise to high office in chronically corrupt states typically go one way or another. They turn corrupt themselves, or they become goody-two-shoes. When you come from a place like that, there can be no middle ground. And very often the ones who manage to stay clean become public officials of notable integrity. So searing is their early exposure to the temptations of influence-peddling that they often turn into even more zealous champions of ethical government than officials from other, less corrupt places. Louisiana, for example—historically a state that's at least as corrupt as Illinois—has long alternated between putting reprobates and good-government crusaders into high office. The current governor, Republican Bobby Jindal, campaigned on a pledge to clean up Louisiana's politics and banish incompetence, and he won handily. (Jindal's two immediate predecessors, Kathleen Blanco and Mike Foster, managed to avoid most allegations of cronyism, but a third, former four-term Gov. Edwin Edwards, remains in federal prison after being convicted of bribery and extortion.)
Now we have cause to question how another product of a chronically corrupt state, Barack Obama, might perform in office. In the aftermath of the arrest of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich on a range of charges, including trying to sell Obama's Senate seat, and questions about whether other prominent Chicago politicians such as Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. were involved, some in the national media have begun re-examining the president-elect's ethics. Tony Rezko, for one, is back in our sights. The fact that the political fixer was a big-time crony of Blagojevich's and raised funds for Obama—despite the total lack of evidence that he ever received patronage for it—is disturbing enough. While Obama supported ethics reforms as a state senator, he still "has an ambiguous reputation among those trying to clean up Illinois politics," John Fund wrote in the Wall Street Journal on Thursday. Fund went on to quote Jay Stewart, executive director of the Chicago Better Government Association, as saying: "We have a sick political culture, and that's the environment Barack Obama came from ... Obama has been noticeably silent on the issue of corruption here in his home state including, at this point, mostly Democratic politicians."
I may not be right about this, but I suspect that these inquisitive minds have Obama entirely wrong. It was no accident that U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald went out of his way to say Obama was not implicated in any way. One of the more telling excerpts from Blagojevich's wiretapped conversations indicates the governor was "bleeping" upset that the Obama team was "not willing to give him anything but appreciation" in exchange for appointing the president-elect's preferred candidate, Valerie Jarrett. There's a pattern here. From all the available evidence we can gather from his time in Illinois politics, Barack Obama is a major goody-two-shoes. And that may tell us a lot about what kind of president he's going to be.
The early experience of Harry Truman, one of our greatest presidents, provides some telling clues as to how Obama might perform in office. Though he was, like Obama, a devoted family man, Truman was no angel. "Give 'em Hell Harry" loved bourbon and poker, and when he first arrived in Washington, he was snubbed and derided as the "senator from Pendergast"—as in Tom Pendergast, the boisterous, unapologetically corrupt political boss of Missouri who had made Truman's career. "I was under a cloud," Truman later admitted. George W. Norris of Nebraska, considered the great voice of reform in the Senate at the time, thought Truman was "poison" and refused even to speak to him, as David McCullough wrote in his best-selling 1992 biography.
What few in the Washington bubble (yes, it was a bubble back then, too) understood was that Truman had actually made his career by refusing to engage in Pendergast's patronage politics, to the everlasting annoyance of the old man. Not long after he anointed Truman a county judge, Pendergast was appalled to learn that Truman actually intended to keep his campaign promises "to conduct the county's affairs as economically and efficiently as possible" and "see that every man does a full day's work for his pay," as the candidate put it in a speech. To the outrage of local Kansas City bankers, Truman set about negotiating lower-interest loans with banks in Chicago and St. Louis. Truman also insisted on pushing through a major bond issue to build badly needed roads and to see that they were constructed honestly and well. "The Boss wanted me to give a lot of crooked contractors the inside and I couldn't," Truman later wrote. To the astonishment of all—including the Missouri newspapers—Truman was as good as his word. "It is now generally recognized that every promise made at that time … has been carefully fulfilled," the Independence Examiner reported, five years after the road system was built.
The article might be wishful thinking and Hirsh admits that - although we may all know one way or another within the next year.
He missed one thing, though. Obama's version of Truman's Pendergast would be IL Senate president Emil Jones.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It will be interesting to see what the State supreme court does with this.
It's actually a pretty scary argument being made by the AG in her brief. I think there should be a mechanism for temporarily removing an indicted governor; I'm skeptical that this is a good way to do it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:It's actually a pretty scary argument being made by the AG in her brief.
Would you be willing to elaborate on that?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that it sets a scary precedent. And I don't think it would get very far in court. Impeachment is the right way to go. On the other hand, this could sufficiently slow down Blagojevich from naming a senator until the legislature can act to impeach or to legislate a special election.
I think that may be the real purpose.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
It was a dark and stormy night...
A governor and lieutenant governor were necking in the woods, near corruption point. Things were getting hot and heavy, and bribes and payoffs were being bandied about like hotcakes. One of the governors decided to tune the radio to a hot corruption-format station, to hear about some white collar crime, to get the executives in the mood to steal and betray public trust. He came across a station where the AG was making a speech. She was talking about ending corruption, removing the governor from office, and setting things right in Illinois!
Well, the governors rolled up the windows just as fast as they could, and drove out of the state lickity-split. But when they got to their offshore holdings in the Caymans, and opened the door, there was her legal brief... right in the window!
Or... the radio adress had been coming from inside the car! Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:It's actually a pretty scary argument being made by the AG in her brief.
Would you be willing to elaborate on that?
The brief relies on Article V, Sec. 6(b) of the state constitution, which reads: "If the Governor is unable to serve because of death, conviction on impeachment, failure to qualify, resignation or other disability, the office of Governor shall be filled by the officer next in line of succession for the remainder of the term or until the disability is removed." She argues that "other disability" "describes a Governor who is unable or unfit to serve or who has been rendered incapable of proper or effective action."
She then argues that the volume and nature of the charges in the complaint indicate that he is "unable to distinguish between his financial interests and his official duties and between illegal acts and legal conduct, rendering him incapable of legitimately exercising his authority as Governor." She also points out that his future acts will be subject to challenge as illegal or improperly motivated.
Converting a section of the constitution which has always been interpreted as relating to mental or physical ability into an almost metaphysical form of "ability" leaves open lots of other ways allowing for judicial removal of the governor. And I'm not talking slippery slope. I mean that the plain meaning of the AG's desired outcome can, as a precedent, justify removal in situations of intense unpopularity, for example.
Again, I'm not against a properly enacted provision that allows the court to remove (temporarily) a governor under indictment, either for any crime, for a felony, or for crimes that implicate his duty - however they want to couch it. But the radical redefinition of a constitutional provision to meet the emergent needs of this situation is scary.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I'm curious as to sndrake's take on this interpretation of "disability" especially because he has experience in IL in particular.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm assuming that if "disability" in that context had ever been successfully used in the manner she advocates then she would have cited the case.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Can they order an impartial psychiatric evaluation, because the man is not behaving in a sane manner?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Thanks Dagonee, I was fairly confident that you felt her arguments would set a precedent that opened a door for abuse but since I am not familiar with the brief I wasn't sure why.
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Can they order an impartial psychiatric evaluation, because the man is not behaving in a sane manner?
Her arguments seem to hint at a mental disorder but they don't actually make that claim directly. If he were diagnosed with a mental disorder, say for example Narcissistic Personality Disorder, I think it would be reasonable to claim that this diagnosed disorder was a "disability". But she doesn't actually make this argument.
I have to agree with Dagonee that the way she defined "disability" is disturbingly broad.
I wish that the US had stronger conflict of interest laws for elected officials. I think elected officials should be legally required to recuse themselves from participation in any decision that presented a substantial financial or personal conflict of interest. Violations of the law should lead not only to criminal charges but to immediate invalidation of any contracts, laws, appointments made in violation of the law.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Can they order an impartial psychiatric evaluation, because the man is not behaving in a sane manner?
No, you don't get hauled in for being a sociopath.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
I went and read the brief after Dag red-flagged it. (That's something I generally do if it's a subject of interest.)
As near as I can figure, this was enacted in 1970. I'm not a lawyer, but this may not be as unusual as some of you think.
Broad definitions of incapacity and/or disability are built into (I think they're still this way in Illinois) guardianship statutes. Many states - as a matter of statute - allow a declaration of incapacity or incompetence for physical disability alone.
In fact, in general, I'll go out on a limb and say that definitions of disability that deal with taking away your rights (such as guardianship or this current situation) tend to be very broad.
OTOH, legal definitions related to protections or benefits tend to be relatively narrow or at least well-defined (social security, American with Disabilities Act).
As I googled around on this, the most interesting thing I found is the total silence from disability bloggers on this. Two blogs devoted to picking up disability-related media coverage haven't picked this up at all. No bloggers that I can find (disability bloggers) are discussing it at all.
I think I'll go post something on a couple disability listservs I'm on to see if I can rectify the situation - It's not really my subject area and kind of out of my area of expertise, but I'm really puzzled that this aspect of one of the top two national stories isn't being discussed in the disability community.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
It really sounds like we need to open a Chicago branch of the Gulabi Gang who fight things like societal-approved wife-beating and government corruption by dragging the men into the street and whacking them with sticks if necessary. That puts the fear of shame into them and makes them act better. Seriously I think a Gulabi Gang here might be just what we need to make corrupt government officials clean up their acts.
[ December 13, 2008, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:As near as I can figure, this was enacted in 1970. I'm not a lawyer, but this may not be as unusual as some of you think.
The language is, I believe, a carryover from an earlier state constitution.
Disability is often used in non-physical contexts. Imprisonment is a legal disability in some contexts in some states. But generally not in a fitness for office context.
quote:Broad definitions of incapacity and/or disability are built into (I think they're still this way in Illinois) guardianship statutes. Many states - as a matter of statute - allow a declaration of incapacity or incompetence for physical disability alone.
I'm assuming a certain level of competency on the AG's part, but I seriously doubt that she (her staff, really) didn't look for examples that would have supported her broad definition.
Statutory construction is (much) more an art than a science, but she takes a lot of liberties. The following objections to her interpretation are right off the top of my head.
First, the text being construed: "If the Governor is unable to serve because of death, conviction on impeachment, failure to qualify, resignation or other disability, the office of Governor shall be filled by the officer next in line of succession for the remainder of the term or until the disability is removed."
She argues that "other disability" describes someone who is "unable or unfit to serve or who has been rendered incapable of proper or effective action."
Her interpretation amounts to something like "If the Governor is unable to serve because of ... or because he is unable or unfit to serve or has been rendered incapable of proper or effective action, the office of Governor shall be filled by the officer next in line of succession for the remainder of the term or until the disability is removed."
In other words, under her definition, "other disability" does no work except to make it clear that the list of reasons is non-exclusive. This isn't unheard of, but typically courts resist such interpretations. The maxim is that we assume each word has meaning.
quote:Her arguments seem to hint at a mental disorder but they don't actually make that claim directly. If he were diagnosed with a mental disorder, say for example Narcissistic Personality Disorder, I think it would be reasonable to claim that this diagnosed disorder was a "disability". But she doesn't actually make this argument.
I think she's aware she can't make the case for an actual mental illness. Plus, if she did, she'd be providing ammo for his defense against the charges - probably ineffective ammo, but she must be aware of the possible harm she could do to he governor's case.
I don't fear the broadening of "disability" outside this context, because I doubt there'd be much spillover, but rather the structural precedent, wherein one executive officer and a court can remove a sitting governor in a way that deliberately short-circuits the intended mechanism for removing governors because of malfeasance.
If this is truly urgent, then the legislature ought to convene now and impeach him. And then look for a way to amend the constitution for future instances to account for this kind of thing. Such a mechanism would also take resignation from office off the plea negotiating table, something I think is unseemly.
I would propose amending the temporary removal section to explicitly allow the court to remove a governor under indictment. I've seen opposition to this based on "innocent until proven guilty," but paid administrative leave is quite common in such situations.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I would only be concerned that technically, iirc, a grand jury can indict anyone for anything. Doesn't mean it would stick, but that would give a small group of citizens the ability to remove a sitting executive at almost any time. Is that not the case?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I would only be concerned that technically, iirc, a grand jury can indict anyone for anything. Doesn't mean it would stick, but that would give a small group of citizens the ability to remove a sitting executive at almost any time. Is that not the case?
No, because adding indictment to the fitness provisions would have the court look into the indictment, at least somewhat, before removal. Plus, indictments require executive action (in this case, U.S. attorney - which almost certainly required USAG approval beforehand) as well. There are some checks built into that process as well. Finally, it's temporary. There are mechanisms in place for challenging indictments before trial.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:Former Illinois Supreme Court Justice Louis Rathje believes Attorney General Lisa Madigan's request for the state's highest court to remove Gov. Rod Blagojevich from office is beyond the court's powers.
"Lisa Madigan is doing a stretch and is pushing this as far as she can go to see what she can do," Rathje said Monday in a telephone interview. "Hopefully, he'll just resign."
quote:The Obama transition team released a statement on its communications with Blagojevich in relation to Obama's Senate seat.
There are two pieces of news: (1) The Obama team has completed its review of communications with Blagojevich's office and affirms that the president-elect had no contact with the governor and that his staff had no "inappropriate discussions."
(2) They won't release the review, however, until Dec. 22 -- at the U.S. Attorney's office's direction.
No news articles on this yet, but I received a "breaking news" alert from the Chicago Tribune:
quote:SPRINGFIELD--The Illinois Supreme Court has rejected Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan's attempt to have Gov. Rod Blagojevich declared unfit to hold office, court officials said.
The high court issued the order without comment.
More details to come.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
The Illinois congress is starting impeachment proceedings, though, so it's not like protections aren't built into the constitution. It just doesn't happen overnight. I would be afraid if we established a precedent for setting aside due process, especially over a matter of impatience.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
The latest Apparently Blago has appointed someone but the Senate says they wont seat him. Wonder what is going to happen next.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: The latest Apparently Blago has appointed someone but the Senate says they wont seat him. Wonder what is going to happen next.
A most unfortunate development. I hope this turns out well. I think the Senate should first actually review Roland Burris' credentials and the circumstances surrounding his selection before deciding whether to seat him. He should be given a fair shot at being seated.
On the other hand, and I am at this point convinced Blagojevich is guilty, Blagojevich should not have appointed anyone to the senate and should have resigned. I imagine he is using his refusal to resign as a means to broker some sort of deal for leniency.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I'm speculating the next thing that is going to happen in several weeks to a month is that Blago is going to make a grandiose unsuccessful attempt at suicide (not political suicide, the real thing) and somehow blame it on the pressures "everyone else" has brought on him to make a sympathy ploy. This will then allow him to remain in medical seclusion so he doesn't have to deal with the press.
At that point the attorney general can again go to the IL Supreme Court to get him declared incompetent and might suceed.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think the Senate should first actually review Roland Burris' credentials and the circumstances surrounding his selection before deciding whether to seat him. He should be given a fair shot at being seated.
No way. Think about it. If they confirm him, they're basically giving a stamp of approval to Blago. Or it'll look that way, anyhow. And Burris knows it. Accepting the appointment only makes sense if he's trying to help Blago, which in my opinion should be grounds for disqualification at this point.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I think the Senate should first actually review Roland Burris' credentials and the circumstances surrounding his selection before deciding whether to seat him. He should be given a fair shot at being seated.
No way. Think about it. If they confirm him, they're basically giving a stamp of approval to Blago. Or it'll look that way, anyhow. And Burris knows it. Accepting the appointment only makes sense if he's trying to help Blago, which in my opinion should be grounds for disqualification at this point.
In the meantime Illinois is short a senator in a pretty precarious situation. Blag is still the governor and innocent until proven guilty, it's his constitutional right to select a replacement senator. I think since he has used that power, a review panel should determine if Burris is qualified.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I sort of agree. Since he IS the governor, and it IS his job to make appointments, that's really all that matters and he should be able to make this appointment. It doesn't really matter in the eyes of the law whether he'll soon be out. That never stops presidents from making midnight appointments and executive orders that take a long time to undo if unwanted.
Besides, what are they going to do if they actually CAN'T remove him from the seat, or what if it takes months? Illinois shouldn't be without representation for that long, not if it turns out this guy actually is qualified for the spot. I think they should review his credentials and how he got appointed as well. If there's nothing shady and he's qualified, they should consider confirming him. He'll be gone in two years anyway.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
The secretary of state is refusing to certify the appointment. However there doesn't appear to be any true legal requirement that requires the secretary of state to certify it. Yeah there's a spot for him on the form but there appears to be nothing legally binding about it.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:At a Tuesday news conference here, Mr. Blagojevich breezily introduced Mr. Burris, a former Illinois attorney general, as the “next United States senator from Illinois.” But United States Representative Danny Davis, who like Mr. Burris is a longtime fixture of the Illinois Democratic Party and an African-American, said he was offered the seat in a meeting with an emissary of the governor last Wednesday, and turned it down on Friday.
“Given all the revelations and all the controversy, I would not be able to take it from the governor,” Mr. Davis, who has represented a Chicago district in Congress since 1996, said in an interview. “I felt that if I was to take the appointment, I would spend so much of my time deflecting and defending the position that it would take away my real reason for being involved in politics and political life — to find solutions to problems.”
quote:The U.S. attorney pursuing corruption charges against Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich asked a court Wednesday for a 90-day extension of the time allotted for the return of an indictment.
U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald cited mountains of recently wiretapped telephone conversations, the complexity of the case, the possibility of additional defendants and the holidays in seeking the delay.
I am beyond annoyed at the folks who are trying to make the Senate refusing to seat Roland Burris about race.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Annoyed, yes. But surely not surprised?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
True.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am beyond annoyed at the folks who are trying to make the Senate refusing to seat Roland Burris about race.
Oh don't kid yourself. We live in a highly racist society. In fact, I wager this country will never elect a black man to high office.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Illinois sure wouldn't anyway.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Tis sad really, Burris being so far adrift from reality that he thinks the governor of Illinois is God. And the Republicans will probably agree with him.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am more bothered that he is being held up as a great Illinois politician when he has lost the last four races he was in, including to Blago for governor.
Clearly, Illinois doesn't want him representing them. "Lord has ordained" my foot.
He accepted because he has nothing to lose - being appointed is the only way he'll get another office. If he loses all credibility, he apparently didn't have much to begin with or it wasn't doing him any good.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Also true. I wonder how many Blagojevich had to try before he got to someone who was desperate enough to accept.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I wasn't aware of Rule 2 of the standing senate rules.
And I am so glad rule 2 exists.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I'm not sure how that standing rule really affects things in a legal challenge though.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think the point is to stall until Blagojevich is impeached.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
The delaying approach may be untenable. Right now, there are conflicting reports coming from mainstream news sources - some saying Senate leaders *will* seat Burris and others saying the first story is mistaken.
Frankly, I'm not at all impressed with Burris, but there are lots of folks in Congress I'm not impressed with.
I think the law is on his side and the ultimate outcome in court will be that he should be seated.
Most of the folks in the Senate are lawyers, so I am sure they can figure it out too. They might as well grit their teeth and accept this (hopefully) last "gift" from Blago.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
That was fast, they weren't expecting a vote until this afternoon, because they thought most representatives were going to use their 5 minutes of speechifying time before the vote.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Frankly, it doesn't matter if Burris walks on water. Allowing him to be seated starts off the Obama presidency with a note of "Do anything to win, ostracize the minority vote, politics as usual", and the Democrats can't afford that.
That Burris is willfully choosing to ignore that isn't exactly crowning him in glory, either.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I disagree with Sterling. Blagovich has not been convicted and at the time, it was his right and his duty to appoint someone. Seating Burris reaffirms our belief in innocent until proven guilty and the rule of law we have established. Illinois can certainly change its law to prevent this in the future, but right now, to not seat Burris is wrong. I think not seating him is a slap in the face to Illinois. They deserve representation, even if their governor is a crook. And this is the system they have selected for deciding that representation when there is an opening.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't know anyone here that feels slapped in the face by the Senate. Kicked by Blagojevich, certainly and embarrassed by him. But I know no one who really wants Burris seated.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
After reading all of it, it looks like Blago still had a legal right to appoint Burris, and Burris himself is not disqualified.
Stupid "innocent until proven guilty" thing.
Burris just wanted to be able to call himself a Senator. I can't imagine that he will be either effective or be re-elected. Really, I think he's a weenie - that "appointed by God" bit did him no favors. But I guess it was legal.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I disagree with Sterling. Blagovich has not been convicted and at the time, it was his right and his duty to appoint someone. Seating Burris reaffirms our belief in innocent until proven guilty and the rule of law we have established. Illinois can certainly change its law to prevent this in the future, but right now, to not seat Burris is wrong. I think not seating him is a slap in the face to Illinois. They deserve representation, even if their governor is a crook. And this is the system they have selected for deciding that representation when there is an opening.
Blagojevich is innocent until guilty, but given the seriousness of the charges and the evidence for them, it seems prudent to hold off on Burris until Blagojevich has been found guilty or not guilty. As far as I know, it is much harder to remove Burris if Blagojevich is removed from office and/or convicted than it is to refuse seating him until things are cleared.
As an analogy, consider a defendant who is considered a flight risk. They are still innocent until proven guilty, but they are still held in jail until the issue is decided because the consequences of releasing them may be hard to reverse. Likewise, they should not accept this appointment until the issue is decided because it is harder to reverse the damage if Blagojevich is guilty.
In regards to the representation issue, I agree with kmbboots that most of the people living here that I know do not want Burris seated even though it means having reduced representation until the issue comes to a conclusion.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote: The Illinois Supreme Court today rejected Roland Burris' effort to get the signature he needs to complete his appointment to the U.S. Senate.
Burris was seeking to compel Secretary of State Jesse White to sign the certification of appointment naming Burris to the seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama. Gov. Rod Blagojevich named Burris to the Senate seat last week, but White refused to sign the required paperwork because the governor has been charged with crimes including trying to sell the Senate seat.
Democratic leaders in the U.S. Senate have cited the lack of White's signature as a reason not to allow Burris into the Senate.
White has maintained that his signature is purely symbolic, and the high court agreed in its refusal to grant the motion.
"Because the secretary of state had no duty ... to sign and affix the state seal to the document issued by the governor appointing Roland Burris to the United States Senate, petitioners are not entitled to an order from this court requiring the secretary to perform those acts," the high court wrote in its opinion. "Under the secretary of state act, the secretary's sole responsibility was to register the appointment, which he did."
Secretary of State Jesse White spokesman Henry Haupt said the office will review the ruling and issue a statement shortly.
"We have not seen it yet, and our attorneys still have to review," Haupt said. "We will be issuing a statement as soon as possible."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Frankly the most disturbing thing for me in this whole political conflagration has been Harry Reid. I can get over the state politics in Illinois, and I don't even have a problem swallowing Burris for two years until his term expires, but has anyone actually watched the progress of Reid's "leadership" on this issue?
He's been bugging the hell out of me for awhile now, but I was hoping that he was just playing the victim and biding his time until a Democrat became president so he could really start to move some paper and get Democratic ideas made into law. Now I'm not so sure. He's bungled the last two years of Democratic control of the Senate, allowing Republicans to run roughshod over him with dozens of fillibuster threats without actually making them carry out any of them in order to win the PR victory and maybe even the legislative victory as a result. He's shown a history of being unwilling to fight for the important things, of talking a good game but never following through.
Well, here's the latest example. First he says that it would be impossible for Burris to be seated in the Senate, and that Democrats control who is and isn't seated in the Senate. That was a stupid statement to make in the first place since he doesn't have the automatic legal backing to make it stick. At the very least this thing was always going to go to court. It wasn't until Obama stepped in and said that he'd be okay with Burris that Reid changed his tune and sung his praises, but in a press conference near to that one said that Obama wouldn't get a blank check.
It's a horrible mix of messages. It would have made sense if he was sacrificing his own clout to improve Obama's on the Hill, or it would have made sense if he was sending a strong message to Obama by defying him (not necessarily the GOOD choice, but the one that makes some sense). Instead he says he won't green light Obama, at which point he reverses himself in order to do just that, and in general the constant message is: Harry Reid is utterly ineffective.
How the heck is he still in charge over there? He must be every Republican's favorite Democrat. Put Chris Dodd in charge or something.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
The IL Supreme Sourt says the IL Sec of State doesn't have to sign the document, and now the US Senate says they won't seat him without that signature. What court does it go to now? The US Supreme Court?
I listened to that press conference earlier today on the radio. It almost sounds as if they have talked with Burris about having him back down until Blagojevich is removed from office, at which time they will push to have Burris appointed by Pat Quinn. I say this because Durbin made several references to how all of the problems would go away if Quinn appointed Burris, and when a reported asked about the Quinn appointing someone besides Burris, Durbin seemed to brush it aside.
Everyone knew that there was a strong chance that some sort of back room deal would take place, and I think we are starting to see it shape up. If all goes smoothly, I suspect we will see Burris make only token efforts to be seated, and as soon as Blagojevich is removed Quinn will step in and legitimize the appointment. A win-win for everyone except Blagojevich. The senate and Illinois politicians get to stand tough, Burris gets his seat, and there is no messy and potentially damaging fight to slog through. Sure, Blagojevich gets thrown under the bus with this, but his approval is pretty much nonexistent and it really does look like he's guilty and on his way to a criminal conviction.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)