Join 3,438 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Blagojevich on the run
January 9, 2009 10:38 AM   Subscribe

Blagojevich impeached by State House. With only one dissenter Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was impeached by the Illinois House of Representatives while out jogging (video). This is the first step for removing the governor from power. Next the state senate puts Blaggo on trail, and that is scheduled to happen shortly after Obama's inauguration in a couple of weeks. Capital Fax Blog is reporting that Blaggo is not going to resign, and the governer has scheduled a press conference this afternoon with an official response to the vote. Previously on Mefi

Note: Title shamelessly stolen from the NBC video.

Summary from the Capital Fax blog: "Removal by the Senate will require at least 40 votes, meaning that Gov. Blagojevich will have to find 20 votes to avoid removal. Impossible."

Rep. Milt Patterson (D-Chicago) was the only vote against impeachment, and Elga Jefferies (D-Chicago) voted "present" (ducking taking a position on the issue).

Great presentation from the Chicago Tribune on the articles of impeachment here (pdf).
posted by zenon (78 comments total)

 
Present.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:43 AM on January 9, 2009 [2 favorites]


His hair can't save him now!
posted by The Whelk at 10:43 AM on January 9, 2009 [3 favorites]


If the Senate approves the impeachment, that'll set the bribe for exoneration at a record $800,000.
posted by ALongDecember at 10:46 AM on January 9, 2009 [2 favorites]


How does a face like that get elected to an executive position?
posted by Burhanistan at 10:52 AM on January 9, 2009


Not to be a spoilsport, but what the gov did was simply raise the price and the game from what is usually done. A city or town announces it will build a new housing complex. A contractor contributes 75 thousand to the mayor's reelection campaign. That contractor gets the job to do the new building. Instead of campaign contribution, Blago learned from EBay--how up to date!--and decided to auction the goodies he had (senate seat). Since there was at this point no sale, we have intent rather than completed deal.
posted by Postroad at 10:52 AM on January 9, 2009


Blagojevich is an anagram for Blah vice--jog. Coincidence? I think not.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 10:53 AM on January 9, 2009 [2 favorites]


The news is starting to feel like viral advertising for an upcoming season of The Surreal Life on vh1. What zany hijinks will Ron Blagojevich, Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin get into next? Tune in to find out!
posted by stavrogin at 10:55 AM on January 9, 2009 [5 favorites]


What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
posted by smackfu at 11:00 AM on January 9, 2009


Milt Patterson voted against impeachment? Sheeee-iiit.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 11:03 AM on January 9, 2009 [1 favorite]


Impeachment has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.
posted by swift at 11:04 AM on January 9, 2009 [5 favorites]


What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

It's in there somewhere, in a pile of sweepings near a corner tent pole in the Media Circus. It seems to be encrusted in elephant poop.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:05 AM on January 9, 2009 [1 favorite]


'Blaggo' is a pretty great nickname.
posted by box at 11:09 AM on January 9, 2009 [1 favorite]


With only one dissenter Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich was impeached by the Illinois House of Representatives while out jogging (video).

Wait, the WHOLE HOUSE was out jogging? And they were impeaching at the same time? Those politicians are AMAZING!
posted by blue_beetle at 11:09 AM on January 9, 2009 [9 favorites]


Note: Title shamelessly stolen from the NBC video (Blagojevich on the run)

Must have taken them hours to come up with that headline.
posted by fixedgear at 11:10 AM on January 9, 2009


What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

That's a legal distinction that is particular to certain countries including the United States, but not necessarily held as a correct view by all persons. He's only innocent until proven guilty in the court of law; the court of public opinion can render its verdict at any time.

Besides, a vote to impeach is similar to an indictment. So far, they've only voted to allow a trial to proceed. How else would he stand trial to be considered "innocent until proven guilty" unless they impeached the man?
posted by explosion at 11:11 AM on January 9, 2009 [10 favorites]


Not to be a spoilsport, but what the gov did was simply raise the price and the game from what is usually done. A city or town announces it will build a new housing complex. A contractor contributes 75 thousand to the mayor's reelection campaign. That contractor gets the job to do the new building.

i can't tell if you're being serious or not. on the off chance you are, you do realize that if it can be proven that a politician gave away a government contract in exchange for campaign funds (instead of the two being coincidental) then the politician gets brought up on charges of corruption, yes?
posted by shmegegge at 11:12 AM on January 9, 2009


Isn't impeachment more about credibility and the continued "consent of the governed"? I don't see the slippery slope.
posted by anthill at 11:14 AM on January 9, 2009


Guess he didn't pay off those cocksuckers in Yankton.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:14 AM on January 9, 2009 [17 favorites]


Postroad: "Not to be a spoilsport, but what the gov did was simply raise the price and the game from what is usually done. A city or town announces it will build a new housing complex. A contractor contributes 75 thousand to the mayor's reelection campaign. That contractor gets the job to do the new building."

"Usually"? This is called illegal in pretty much every jurisdiction I've heard of. Just because "government is corrupt" is the stereotype doesn't mean this is either condoned or even typical.

"Since there was at this point no sale, we have intent rather than completed deal."

From the article: 'The impeachment resolution covering Blagojevich's actions "show a public servant who has betrayed his oath of office, who has betrayed the public trust, who is not fit to govern the state of Illinois”'. No deal is necessary. You can betray trust by simply planning to do something extremely unethical or illegal without actually doing it.
posted by Plutor at 11:14 AM on January 9, 2009 [3 favorites]


Plutor: I am not saying he cannot be impeached for intent. As for "usual;ly"--it is done a lot, I am told by those political science people I know and is not at all unusual. Why do so many people give so much money in support of those running for office? Because they believe in the person running so much that they want to offer support and expect nothing in return but a thank you card?
posted by Postroad at 11:18 AM on January 9, 2009


Hi! Is this the new Blago thread? It's nice in here. I think I'll just settle down over there and make some popcorn.
posted by LMGM at 11:18 AM on January 9, 2009


Besides, a vote to impeach is similar to an indictment. So far, they've only voted to allow a trial to proceed.

Ah yes, I always forget that. So he does need to be proven guilty. Should be an interesting trial, since is the justice department really going to offer their wiretap evidence and such before they have their own trial? Is he going to be convicted based on the existence of the federal indictment alone?
posted by smackfu at 11:35 AM on January 9, 2009


Looks like the Year of the Rat really is coming to an end.
posted by sarcasman at 11:36 AM on January 9, 2009 [2 favorites]


With all due respect, Mr. Pileon, those Yankton cocksuckers are the least of our problems! These celestials will give you 2 fucks for a buck, and now even the white men are going there to get their wicks dipped. Don't even get me started on the goddamn dirt-worshippers.
posted by Mister_A at 11:37 AM on January 9, 2009 [4 favorites]


From what I understand, the standard for impeachment in Illinois doesn't depend on guilt. It's enough that the kerfuffle is keeping him from fulfilling his duties.
posted by *s at 11:38 AM on January 9, 2009


Why do so many people give so much money in support of those running for office?

There is a difference in giving money to someone BECAUSE they will do something that will help you and giving them money SO THAT they will do something for you.
posted by DU at 11:39 AM on January 9, 2009 [2 favorites]


smackfu, I am not sure of the specifics in Illinois, but in general you can be removed from office for all-round bad behavior, even in the absence of a criminal conviction.
posted by Mister_A at 11:40 AM on January 9, 2009


His HAIR is a crime! What more do you need!?!
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:44 AM on January 9, 2009 [2 favorites]


How does a face like that get elected to an executive position?

Allow me to introduce you to the Chicago electorate. They've made the Red Eye (today's top headline: "Macho, Macho 'Stache: Love it or hate it, it's once again hip to have a hairy lip") the fastest-growing newspaper in the country! Also, marrying an alderman's daughter.

Nice to see a link to Capitol Fax — really the best coverage of this whole mess, and they've soldiered on valiantly in the face of disappointment even after Blago failed to appoint commenter Bill to the Senate.
posted by enn at 11:47 AM on January 9, 2009


Ah yes, I always forget that. So he does need to be proven guilty.

No, at least not in the sense you're implying.

I'm certainly not an expert in the impeachment process in any given state, but in general impeachment trials are not really analogous to criminal trials.

There is no unanimity requirement as with most criminal trials, just a simple vote.

There is no standard of evidence or proof analogous to "beyond a reasonable doubt." If you're a senator, you can vote whichever way it pleases you to vote for whatever reasons make sense to you, and there is nobody on God's green earth that can do a goddam thing about it.

Finally, impeachment is explicitly political. What is an impeachable offense? Whatever the fuck the relevant House says it is. What is a convictable set of evidence? Whatever the relevant Senate says it is. What can you do about it if the House impeaches you because you have an ugly haircut and the Senate convicts you on that basis, even if it is patently false? Not a single fucking thing; impeachments are normally final, unappealable, unreviewable.

A house can, generally, impeach an impeachable officer for any reason it sees fit, on whatever basis it sees fit to do so. A senate can, generally, convict or acquit on whatever basis it sees fit to do so, using whatever evidence it pleases it to use, using whatever evidentiary standard individual senators happen to apply.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 11:58 AM on January 9, 2009 [1 favorite]


Run that motherfucker out of town on a rail. Tar and feathers are to good for him.
posted by nola at 12:06 PM on January 9, 2009


"Presumption of Innocence" is a principle of criminal law. Impeachment has nothing to do with criminal law, and that principle isn't in play here.

The Illinois Senate won't be determining whether Blago broke the law. They're going to determine whether he should be continue to be governor.

Removing Blago from office would not be a violation of his rights, because no one has a right to elective office.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 12:13 PM on January 9, 2009 [1 favorite]


By the way, it's unfortunate that the OP didn't feel it important to mention which political party Blago is part of. Somehow I have the feeling that if it was the other party it would have been mentioned prominently, probably several times.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 12:15 PM on January 9, 2009


Wow. Awfully sporting of them to give Blago a head start...

Who says chivalry is dead?!

RUN BLAGO, RUN!!!
posted by markkraft at 12:23 PM on January 9, 2009 [2 favorites]


He's a Democrat. If he'd been Republican it would have been a sex scandal.

I kid.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:23 PM on January 9, 2009 [1 favorite]


Live stream of press conference.
posted by billysumday at 12:24 PM on January 9, 2009


rou_xenophobe -- is there a check on legislatures from impeaching executives they just don't like beyond the voting booth?
posted by garlic at 12:25 PM on January 9, 2009


I like the idea that a Democrat is getting raked over the coals for corruption just as Obama is getting ready to take office.

Why? Because I think it's going to be nice to live in a country again where, even if someone is a part of your party, if you see them doing something wrong, you make sure steps are taken to see that they get appropriately punished.

That will be pretty novel after the last eight years.
posted by quin at 12:27 PM on January 9, 2009 [4 favorites]


He's a Democrat. If he'd been Republican it would have been a sex scandal.

I kid.
posted by cjorgensen at 12:23 PM on January 9


I think you mean "if he'd been Republican it would have been a sex scandal with a kid."
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:30 PM on January 9, 2009 [5 favorites]


State week in review seemed good when I was listening to it earlier on this subject.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 12:34 PM on January 9, 2009


Well, that was a totally bizarre press conference.
posted by billysumday at 12:36 PM on January 9, 2009


garlic: not legally, aside from the usual requirement for a supermajority (2/3 of the Illinois senate, in this case — only a simple majority was required in the house). Of course, there may be political checks on the legislature — from the Capitol Fax link:
The word “impeachment” was first uttered publicly back in the summer of 2007, when the General Assembly and the governor engaged in a superheated, months-long battle. The governor and his henchmen reacted swiftly.

Legislators were threatened with direct retaliation. If they had a mistress, their wives would hear about it. If they had ever asked for an untoward political favor from the governor or his staff, they would be dragged through the mud right along with him. Every rumor they’d ever heard about personal or official corruption would be leaked to the media. It would be total war.
posted by enn at 12:42 PM on January 9, 2009


Welcome to Illinois politics.

As noted, getting impeached doesn't mean he's guilty of anything. Clinton's naughty little escapade would hardly land someone in jail but had the potential to get him impeached. NPR reported that the feds have been withholding evidence from the impeachment process for their own legal proceedings, and that is were Rod will be judged guilty or not. This impeachment is the first time its been successfully used in Illinois.

Chocolate Pickle is right- Blago is a Democrat. They're all democrats. The majority of both Illinois Houses are Democrats so this is a bit of necessary fratricide. Another Illinois Democrat that should be removed from office: Todd Stroger, who inherited his father's seat on the Cook County Commission. Their budget is 3.2 billion, larger than many state budgets. And in the city it's Daley. It's not pretty at any level.

Which raises the big question: What's next? The Republicans are in pretty bad shape (previous Republican Gov. Ryan in jail & they recently ran Alan Keyes!) and you can see were the Democrats are at.

Ahem. The House were not out for a group run- 55 percent of Illinois reported themselves as obese or overweight and the City of Chicago claims that 49% of Chicagoans age 20 and older are obese. The House representatives could likely use the exercise, but it was old Rod getting some some fresh air (hi blue_beetle!).
posted by zenon at 12:47 PM on January 9, 2009


Because I think it's going to be nice to live in a country again where, even if someone is a part of your party, if you see them doing something wrong, you make sure steps are taken to see that they get appropriately punished.

Yeah, but in the old days, if you caught someone red-handed on frickin' audiotape trying to sell an office, that someone would resign immediately out of shame. Even Nixon resigned rather than go through the shame of impeachment.

Shame; that's what's missing.
posted by JHarris at 12:49 PM on January 9, 2009 [7 favorites]


Random aside: today would be Nixon's birthday, and Capital Fax has a picture up of old twinkle toes and a young Blaggo, who is sporting a jogging suit or perhaps leisurewear. Everything is better with a little Nixon magic dusted on it.
posted by zenon at 12:51 PM on January 9, 2009 [1 favorite]


By the way, it's unfortunate that the OP didn't feel it important to mention which political party Blago is part of.

It doesn't matter. Corrupt governors in Illinois is a tradition that knows no political party. In the last 50 years, we've had 9 governors, four of which were indicted, three of which were convicted. This would become 5 of 9 if the Blagojevich complaint becomes an indictment, and 4-9 should he be convicted. In terms of indictments, the score is tied 2-2, with the dems set to take a 1 run lead should Blago get pinched.
posted by eriko at 1:10 PM on January 9, 2009 [3 favorites]


Shame; that's what's missing.

Um, you know, it's their culture. Who are we to judge their culture, just because it's different than ours? As good multiculturalists, shouldn't we tolerate Illinois Democratic corruption? (ahem)
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 1:12 PM on January 9, 2009 [1 favorite]


is there a check on legislatures from impeaching executives they just don't like beyond the voting booth?

A formal check? It would depend on the state. State constitutions can be all sorts of screwy, so there might well be one or two states where you can appeal an impeachment-conviction by the legislature.* But I would be shocked if there are more than a bare few.

Since you mention the voting booth, there are other informal mechanisms that probably help keep frivolous or otherwise not-motivated-by-serious-misconduct impeachments from taking place. The most obvious is that payback is a real bitch. Another is that impeachments and trials are a pain in the ass that distract from the stuff you want to do. And it's also the case that most legislators take their jobs with some degree of seriousness such that impeaching an official they just didn't like would directly cause disutility.

*There are a few states where the legislature can't/doesn't normally impeach.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:29 PM on January 9, 2009


Does anyone *not* know what party Blago belongs to? Strikes me as a straw man, dude. If you're keeping score, Dems still have a nice long way to go to catch up, but don't worry, now that they're in power, catch up they will.
posted by fourcheesemac at 1:31 PM on January 9, 2009


is there a check on legislatures from impeaching executives they just don't like beyond the voting booth?

One minor check: In Illinois, the Lieutenant Governor takes over when the Governor is impeached, and the LG was elected on a joint ticket with the Governor. So you're not bypassing the electorate entirely.
posted by smackfu at 1:38 PM on January 9, 2009


It's a shame America doesn't have the "Vote of No Confidence" the way Britain does. This would be an easy, quick removal of G-Rod.

quin: I think it's going to be nice to live in a country again where, even if someone is a part of your party, if you see them doing something wrong, you make sure steps are taken to see that they get appropriately punished.

Here's my problem with that--The Republicans (and the "liberal" media) never do this when a Republican is in office. Then there's crime after crime after crime after crime, and people get weary of it, and finally say "enough is enough!" and elect a Democrat, at which time they do exactly what you've stated--the media starts reporting on every little thing any Dems do, and demand that they be taken to task. This pattern has been the case throughout my whole life. Since the media (and Americans) were asleep through most of Bush's reign, and have finally woken up, everyone is on the "no more corruption!" bandwagon, and they're gonna dig up every tiny random bit of crap on every Dem they can find, while ignoring Bush's war crimes and crimes against humanity by telling us to "get over it".

(This is not to say G-Rod shouldn't be booted, but good.)
posted by tzikeh at 1:49 PM on January 9, 2009 [5 favorites]


Um, you know, it's their culture. Who are we to judge their culture, just because it's different than ours? As good multiculturalists, shouldn't we tolerate Illinois Democratic corruption? (ahem)

Whose strawman are you fighting?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:03 PM on January 9, 2009


Holy shit, that press conference... The guy in the wheelchair? What the fuck, Blago?
posted by mr_roboto at 2:04 PM on January 9, 2009


The thing I don't get is what Blagojevich is playing at. Does he actually have a game in mind or is he just trying to make as much of a mess as possible before he goes out? He has to know its over, that what he's doing is making bad press that may well spill over onto Obama (the conservative talking heads are certainly doing their best to slop it onto the president elect).

So is this just an expensive, elaborate, "fuck you" to his fellow Democrats or am I missing something big here?

tzikeh wrote Here's my problem with that--The Republicans (and the "liberal" media) never do this when a Republican is in office. Then there's crime after crime after crime after crime, and people get weary of it, and finally say "enough is enough!" and elect a Democrat, at which time they do exactly what you've stated--the media starts reporting on every little thing any Dems do, and demand that they be taken to task.

Quoted because it bears repeating. I'm not advocating that Democrats be given a pass, I just wish they'd hold Republicans to the same standard. A blowjob gets Clinton impeached, but when Bush shreds the Constitution, drags America's name through the mud of torture, etc nothing happens. WTF?
posted by sotonohito at 2:05 PM on January 9, 2009


Meant to add, the same thing appears in party politics. Republican president == supine and compliant Democratic congress. Democratic president == congressional Democrats fighting him every step of the way.

This morning, for example, we saw that talking heads rambling about Diane Feinstein boldly standing up to Obama (or, rather, holding a press conference where she slammed his choice for CIA head) and asserting her congressional privileges. And that's great, the president isn't an elected king, and congress is supposed to be a check on his power. But why is it that congress never chose to stand up to Bush? Why is it that they only assert congressional privileges when it's a Democrat in the Oval Office? They've rediscovered their collective spines just in time to boldly stand up to any and all progressive policies Obama might suggest. Wonderful.

Again, we see that in American politics it is literally impossible to be too right wing. There's no such thing as an "extreme right wing", but any politics to the left of Cheney is too liberal.
posted by sotonohito at 2:12 PM on January 9, 2009 [2 favorites]


And the county judge...who held a grudge, will search for ever more.

“How does a face like that get elected to an executive position?”

Elected? Oh, you’re not from around here.

“What happened to innocent until proven guilty?”

Due process? ...look, are any of you people actually from the U.S.?

(srsly - what explosion, et.al. sed re: impeachment)

“Another Illinois Democrat that should be removed from office: Todd Stroger”

Hell yea. I’ve refrained from voting for so many democratic candidates that I might otherwise agree with simply because of the party machine and the corruption.

Buddy of mine lives down the street from Blago. Sees him jogging all the time. I guess he jogs in this velour or whatever jogging suit. My buddy speculates that it’s just for photo ops, because he comes in a bit later looking pretty fresh.
Although that could be because the haircut is immoble and sustains him like a Fremen stillsuit or something.

Ah, he’s a bastard, but he’s not an f’ing bastard.
He went to Serbia, all that.
Guy just got greedy. The thing of it is, and I think I’m stealing this from the film ‘The Paper,’ you move in the world of big money as a politician, but you are not OF that world.

And he said it himself, he wanted to make real money. Never seen the point myself. I typically get things done using other people’s money if I have to. It’s not like the money doesn’t exist if it’s not in your pocket.
So all I can think is he wants the big cars, the jets, the fine food, the plo-chops, the scene, etc. and misrepresented himself as a public servant.
That, to my mind, is what makes him contemptable.
Want that stuff, go to business school and compete like everyone else (I personally don’t think it’s a worthy task for one’s life, but such avenues exist to follow).
No one put a gun to his head and made him run for governor.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:14 PM on January 9, 2009


Awesome. thanks for bringing up the political party thing, chocolate pickle. Now we all can back to fighting about how my party is corrupt like this, and your party is corrupt like that.
posted by garlic at 2:15 PM on January 9, 2009


So is this just an expensive, elaborate, "fuck you" to his fellow Democrats

IMHO, he's trying to threaten mutually-assured destruction; take him down, and he will smear every last single one of them with whatever filth he can manage to dig out of his ass.

...another option I've heard fairly often is that he's gone insane. As in, he's actively delusional.
posted by aramaic at 2:16 PM on January 9, 2009


Seconding insane.
I'm also with these guys that there is more to his "hair" than meets the eye......
posted by Sloben at 2:24 PM on January 9, 2009


Anyone else notice that since Blago has been acting so insane it's taken the heat off Obama? I mean, a couple weeks ago there was all this "speculation" and "unanswered questions." The press desperately wanted to turn this into an Obama story so that it would be interesting. But now Burris and Blago are providing enough entertainment on their own, that's no longer necessary.
posted by delmoi at 2:33 PM on January 9, 2009


Due process? ...look, are any of you people actually from the U.S.?

"Due process" is shorthand for this part of the 14th Amendment: "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;..."

If Blago is impeached and convicted, he won't be deprived of life, of liberty, or of property. He'll simply be removed from ofice. So requirements for "due process" don't apply.

The impeachment process is not a criminal proceeding. Trying to apply concepts from criminal law to the impeachment process is muddying the waters.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 2:35 PM on January 9, 2009


“So is this just an expensive, elaborate, "fuck you" to his fellow Democrats or am I missing something big here?”

You’re, uh, not from Illinois either I take it?
The allegiance is to patronage and kickbacks (pdf), not to parties. It’s pretty much internecine mob war between competing syndicates and political/business interests with the veneer of a political party overlaid on top.

I mean, I’m a conservative for some fundimental philosophical reasons. But I’m not a Democrat (locally, because I wouldn’t trust Bushco to call 911 if my chest caught fire) pretty much because out here it’s completely corrupt.
Some fair choices now and then on individuals in terms of Dems and GOP. But there’s a reason the Greens did so well out here and they seem to have so many conservative members in contrast to other states.
But it opened my eyes early on that maybe backing one party, this whole “this is my team no matter what” thing, is pretty much b.s.
A Dem or GOP guy being a crook doesn’t make the other side any more right.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:37 PM on January 9, 2009


“Trying to apply concepts from criminal law to the impeachment process is muddying the waters.”

It’s a joke, babe. I mentioned explosion’s comment parenthetically.
posted by Smedleyman at 2:38 PM on January 9, 2009


Whose strawman are you fighting?

Like the man says, it's a joke.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 2:50 PM on January 9, 2009


IMHO, he's trying to threaten mutually-assured destruction; take him down, and he will smear every last single one of them with whatever filth he can manage to dig out of his ass.

Normally that would be the best thing for the state, but we do have Some Problems that require actual work from the legislature right now. What I hope happens is that he's been nixonesque taping and trades 15-20 for 5-10 selling every last bastard in IL politics up the river. I think that ILs eavesdropping law (taping made by a private citizen without consent can't be used in court) was created to prevent that.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 3:06 PM on January 9, 2009


sotonohito: Again, we see that in American politics it is literally impossible to be too right wing. There's no such thing as an "extreme right wing", but any politics to the left of Cheney is too liberal.

Yeah, I think many of our friends overseas would be surprised to learn just how many true liberals there are in the U.S. who are simply not represented by any political party (at least, none that have any clout). We vote Democrat only because Neo-con, er, "logic" makes our brains explode, and we can't bear having them in office (c.f. The Last Eight Years). But the Dem platform is nowhere near what real liberals in the U.S. would like it to be.

I wish there were a sincerely liberal party, but we'd never get anywhere against the people bitterly clinging to their Bibles and their guns (yeah, I said it, and I meant it). Christianity may be a force for good in theory, but in practice (at least in the U.S.) it is a severe impediment to getting anything positive done in government--where it doesn't belong.

*insert rant about how the Mormon Church poured money into Yes on 8, and how Baptist Ministers told Democrats that they were no longer welcome in their congregations, and how Catholic priests refused communion to those who chose to vote for Obama, but churches still don't have to pay taxes*
posted by tzikeh at 4:01 PM on January 9, 2009 [1 favorite]


wait a minute...political corruption? in Chicago?

*dies of shock*
posted by jonmc at 5:44 PM on January 9, 2009


Hard to believe this thread is so long. He apparently did wrong. He hasn't been convicted of anything, but is politically dead, neither the people nor the state or nation's elite strata has any faith in him. He's as good as out. It's as simple as that.
posted by raysmj at 6:31 PM on January 9, 2009


However, his last name is really fun to say.
posted by jonmc at 6:42 PM on January 9, 2009


In the last 50 years, we've had 9 governors, four of which were indicted, three of which were convicted.

Back before the break, the Daily Show had a telling comparison to make. Committing murder carries less of a chance of jail time than getting elected governor of Illinois!
posted by JHarris at 7:15 PM on January 9, 2009 [1 favorite]


"If indicted, I will run; if convicted, I will serve."
posted by dhartung at 9:40 PM on January 9, 2009


If indicted, I will run; if convicted, I will serve...

...ten to twenty in the state pen...
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 9:48 PM on January 9, 2009


Late to this, but I find it interesting that he mentions working closely with Rahm Emmanual in his Press Conference. He is so Nixonesque that I think he has been keeping dossiers on others in government, info to trade on if he needs it.

Nixon had J. Edgar, a kindred spirit if there ever was one. In Politics along with favors, people trade information. Gossipy kind of talk rules with these guys. I think he's threatening to take some key players along with him.

He is delusional. I watched TV news sometime last week and was shocked to see footage of him with his family at church for Orthodox Christmas. Who lets camera follow their children at church? His older daughter looked so uncomfortable.
What an asshole.
posted by readery at 5:56 AM on January 10, 2009


am i the only fan of this guy? he seems to be the only cowboy politician willing to be a man about things. or maybe he really is a scumbag?
posted by johnferg99 at 12:08 PM on January 11, 2009


Camera caught visitors to gov's campaign office, more phones were tapped
"Federal authorities used a video camera as part of their cache of tools to investigate Gov. Blagojevich in the final weeks of 2008 before his arrest, the Chicago Sun-Times has learned."
posted by ericb at 12:16 PM on January 14, 2009


I think cowboy politicians are on the wane generally around these parts.

Taking a cue from smackfu, Blaggo is insisting on conflating criminal proceedings with legislative, and is refusing to participate in the Senate trial and going on a PR campaign. He is claiming it is all a plot to "raise taxes" and called himself "a soldier for constitutional rights".

As previously predicted the Senate trial is pretty much a forgone conclusion, with even Blaggo's lawyers expecting a complete defeat in the trail.

The Feds have identified Frederick S. Yang as another high profile idividual to become enmeshed in the scandal. Yang is Advisor B, and with remarkeble foresite
"noted that Change to Win already has a revenue stream, meaning Blagojevich "won't have stories in four years that they bought you off..." Via Capital Fax Blog
In other fallout, Blaggo's wife Patricia has also been fired from her position on Chicago Christian Industrial League, a homeless organization that was paying her $100 000.
posted by zenon at 8:43 AM on January 23, 2009


Another update: What is expected to be the last day of Blagojevich's impeachment trial at the state Senate is being broadcast live from WBEZ. The proceedings have already started, they are currently presenting closing arguments. Blagojevich is going to give a speech and there is some speculation that he may go nuclear and dish dirt on other politicians. This will be followed by a half hour rebuttal and then potentially a vote to remove him from power.
posted by zenon at 8:29 AM on January 29, 2009


Buh-bye!
posted by ericb at 3:03 PM on January 29, 2009


« Older Dave Dee, RIP....  |  Gettysburg Daily... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments