Blagojevich, Reid, and Rahm: Who Is Distorting Claims about Jesse Jackson Jr.?
The Sun-Times has updated its story on Reid’s calls to Rod Blagojevich with this statement from Harry Reid:
Gov. Blagojevich appears to be trying to distract attention from his daunting legal problems and damaged credibility by distorting information about private phone calls between himself and other public officials. It is regrettable and reprehensible.
Gov. Blagojevich’s efforts to try to tarnish others while the cloud of suspicion continues to grow over him are shameful, as are his efforts to further betray the public trust and sow seeds of division. As each day passes it becomes increasingly clear that Gov. Blagojevich is not fit to lead, and he should resign.
I will not allow his corruption charges or his antics to distract me from leading the Senate, to drive a wedge in our party or to obscure the facts. [my emphasis]
(Reid just accused Blago of lying about it on MTP, as well.)
I’m fascinated not only by Reid’s decision to respond to what he apparently believes is a Blago leak, but by his accusation that Blago is lying. That’s because there are now three different versions about whether or not Jesse Jackson Jr. was acceptable to Obama and Reid.
Recall that, several weeks ago, someone leaked to the Trib details of Rahm’s discussions with Blago about "acceptable" candidates for the Senate seat. That list rather notably did not include JJJ.
Emanuel delivered a list of candidates who would be "acceptable" to Obama, the source said. On the list were Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, Illinois Veterans Affairs director Tammy Duckworth, state Comptroller Dan Hynes and U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Chicago, the source said. All are Democrats.
Sometime after the election, Emanuel called Harris back to add the name of Democratic Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan to the approved list, the source said.
In fact, except for Jarrett, that list did not include any African-American candidates.
But that’s not who Rahm says was on the list.
Between the time that Mr. Emanuel decided to accept the position of Chief of Staff in the White House and December 8, 2008, Mr. Emanuel had about four telephone conversations with John Harris, Chief of Staff to the Governor, on the subject of the Senate seat. In these conversations, Mr. Emanuel and Mr. Harris discussed the merits of potential candidates and the strategic benefit that each candidate would bring to the Senate seat. After Ms. Jarrett removed herself from consideration, Mr. Emanuel – with the authorization of the President-Elect – gave Mr. Harris the names of four individuals whom the President-Elect considered to be highly qualified: Dan Hynes, Tammy Duckworth, Congresswoman Schakowsky and Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. In later telephone conversations, Mr. Emanuel – also with the President-Elect’s approval – presented other names of qualified candidates to Mr. Harris including Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Ms. Cheryle Jackson. [my emphasis]
The Trib’s sources say JJJ and Cheryle Jackson were not on the list, Rahm says they were.
Now look at the context for Reid’s purported list from the Sun-Times story.
Blagojevich spokesman Lucio Guerrero confirmed that Reid (D-Nev.) and U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) — the new chief of the Senate Democratic political operation — each called Blagojevich’s campaign office separately Dec. 3. Sources believe that at least portions of the phone conversations are on tape.
Before their contacts, Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel called Blagojevich to tell him to expect to hear from Senate leadership because they were pushing against Jackson and others, according to statements the governor made to others.
The Reid-Menendez calls came a day before a Dec. 4 conversation overheard on government wiretaps where Blagojevich says he "was getting ‘a lot of pressure’ not to appoint Candidate 5." Candidate 5 is Jackson.
The story paints a chronology in which Rahm calls Blago some time on or before December 3, then Reid and Menendez call Blago on December 3, and finally, Blago has the following conversation on December 4.
ROD BLAGOJEVICH told Fundraiser A to tell Individual D that Senate Candidate 5 was very much a realistic candidate for the open Senate seat, but that ROD BLAGOJEVICH was getting “a lot of pressure” not to appoint Senate Candidate 5. ROD BLAGOJEVICH told Fundraiser A to tell Individual D that ROD BLAGOJEVICH had a problem with Senate Candidate 5 just promising to help ROD BLAGOJEVICH because ROD BLAGOJEVICH had a prior bad experience with Senate Candidate 5 not keeping his word. ROD BLAGOJEVICH told Fundraiser A to tell Individual D that if Senate Candidate 5 is going to be chosen to fill the Senate seat “some of this stuffs gotta start happening now . . .right now. . . and we gotta see it. You understand?” ROD BLAGOJEVICH told Fundraiser A that “you gotta be careful how you express that and assume everybody’s listening, the whole world is listening. You hear me?”
The Sun-Times doesn’t note it, but the claim that Blago was getting "a lot of pressure" not to appoint JJJ was part of his pitch to one of JJJ’s donors for a quid pro quo pertaining to JJJ’s appointment to the seat. Remember, too, that Blago was demonstrably leaking information about who was and was not a leading candidate in an attempt to drum up urgency among potential players in the Senate seat sale, as when he leaked the "news" that Madigan was rising in consideration to Michael Sneed. This raises the possibility that Blago’s claim that he was getting a lot of pressure was a lie, intended (like the Madigan leak) to increase the sense of urgency among JJJ’s donors who–remarkably enough–had a fund-raiser scheduled for that weekend. The complaint does not say whether Blago really was getting a lot of pressure or not, but Blago also said, twice, on December 4 that he was elevating JJJ in consideration because he thought he could get money for the seat.
On December 4, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH spoke to Advisor B and informed Advisor B that he was giving Senate Candidate 5 greater consideration for the Senate seat because, among other reasons, if ROD BLAGOJEVICH ran for re-election Senate Candidate 5 would “raise[] money” for ROD BLAGOJEVICH, although ROD BLAGOJEVICH said he might “get some (money) up front, maybe” from Senate Candidate 5 to insure Senate Candidate 5 kept his promise about raising money for ROD BLAGOJEVICH.
[snip]
Later on December 4, 2008, ROD BLAGOJEVICH spoke to Fundraiser A. ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated he was “elevating” Senate Candidate 5 on the list of candidates for the open Senate seat. ROD BLAGOJEVICH stated he might be able to cut a deal with Senate Candidate 5 that provided ROD BLAGOJEVICH with something “tangible up front.”
In other words, Blago was claiming he was getting a lot of pressure, but that would have been before he even gave JJJ serious consideration. Blago may or may not have been pressured, but his claim is tied directly to negotiations that allegedly involved the sale of the Senate seat for $1.5 million.
Also note the discrepancy between the Sun-Times’ latest version of discussions–in which Rahm purportedly spoke directly to Blago around December 3–and the Obama report, which states that Rahm only spoke to Blago about the Senate seat twice (at most), both times in early November. That Sun-Times version, though, is sourced to "statements the governor made to others," which seems to parallel Blago’s claims that he was getting a lot of pressure–which may or may not have been invented.
Now, frankly, I don’t know what to make of these three contradictory stories. Blago’s sources appear to claim that neither Obama nor Reid supported a JJJ candidacy. Obama’s version clearly states he did. And Reid won’t tell his version (saying he doesn’t remember it), but he states clearly that Blago’s version is false.
But I find it really telling that, first of all, Blago is shamelessly race-baiting in his efforts to successfully appoint Burris to the Senate seat, and, at the same time, he claims neither Obama nor Reid supported African-Americans for the Senate seat (except for Jarrett). At the same time, the question of whether or not Blago really was being pressured not to appoint JJJ may inflect the interpretation of the recorded conversations about Blago’s intent to appoint JJJ to the Senate seat.
Blago might be telling the truth.
Or, he might be inventing this story to both support his larger attempts to make everyone else (including Obama?) look like racists, and to explain away comments he made in early December that would otherwise seriously incriminate him.
I’ll go with Rahm’s version for the following reasons:
1) Blago has clear reason to lie, and has done so in the recent past.
2) Reid is an idiot, who would say whatever he thought would work best at the time. Then issue a clarification later.
3) Rahm is smart, knows that any and all calls he made on this subject are likely recorded. Lying would be discovered too easily.
Not that Rahm is above lying to political gain (far from it!), but there’s no percentage in it for him.
I think Blago is negociating for a “go away” deal. He’s not getting one he likes, so he keeps upping the stakes. And he’ll keep doing it. Think he’s got the cajones to demand a pardon? I do.
Boxturtle (Those cajones are all he has left, but they’re working well for him)
From Harry Reid:
Right back at ya Hanoi Harry.
bullseye, thanks.
cajones is all that Bushco used for 8 years and it worked really well in keeping people from “moving forward” and filing charges. It works really well for most conduct disordered folks. Think of the class bully and the teacher and how difficult it is to deal with someone who just keeps pushing the limit and refuses accountability. One person can often develop the kind of consistency that holds this type of person accountable but it becomes increasingly difficult in systems where people can be triangulated against one and another.
Between the new Colorado senator and Franken, the IQ points in the Senate are on the rise. Not a moment too soon.
So at least there is some good news…
Coleman camp threatening court action…the classic stall.
Where is the court of public opinion action demanding Coleman live up to his own blustery words when he on paper held a lead?
For the benefit of those as ignorant as I am, rOTL is referring to Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter choosing Michael Bennet to fill Ken Salazar’s Senate seat.
I’ll see you and I’ll raise you one: http://www.newyorker.com/repor…..ntPage=all
This is a wonderful piece of writing, and a hell of a story about his approach as Supt of Denver Public Schools. A favorite bit, in case LooHoo comes around:
Now, if Jill Biden can get people interested in the social consequences of what happens when people aren’t literate, and Bennet can get a spot on the Senate Ed Committee… we might actually see a conversation grounded in some decent research, and maybe even round up enough Senate votes to implement desperately needed change.
(FWIW, I’ve bolded Bennet’s insights about the failures of NCLB because it’s so important. And it’s interesting that Malcolm Gladwell is now offering a really terrific explanation of the significant impact of good teachers… at any rate, props to the CO Gov Ritter.)
I’ll look forward to reading that later. Thanks. NCLB has been a disaster for both recruitment and retention of quality teachers. One more Christmas now!
Oh, let’s just say that we don’t even discuss NCLB anymore in my social melieu.
Unless, of course, it’s raised under the categories: ‘venal stupidity’, ‘incompetent government’, and assorted more obscene (but sometimes wildly funny) topics.
LooHoo, that article is kind of a little Christmas gift all in itself. Might even spark one to optimism, so beware ;-))
Blago is to governors as NCLB is to learning and education.
Ritter, on the other hand, looks like someone to keep an eye on.
(And if nothing else, Ritter has shown how someone with principles CAN make an appointment that brings someone into the Senate who most likely would never have run for the office. Here’s hoping that Patterson takes courage from Ritter’s wise move.)
I think this might be partly semantics. If Rahm told Blago that Jackson was okay with him and Obama, but other people have big problems with him, the message is that Rahm is covering his bases with Jackson by including him, but at the same time he is telling Blago that Jackson won’t fly. There are ways of recommending people where you are not really recommending them.
You might be on to something. I remember getting counseled by my three star on how to write an officer’s effectiveness report with the “right” code words in it to make sure the officer never got promoted, but still give the officer the highest numerical rating.
I’m wondering more and more how much of this is politics as usual. For instance, when the Obama camp was talking with the Clinton camp about helping with her debt, how could there have not been some sort of quid pro quo? The stronger her support for Obama, the more money she would get. It doesn’t seem that different from Jackson holding a fundraiser.
Figuring out which lyin politician is lyin is a pretty tough gig..
Obviously dems want an appointee who can win election when the time comes. Don’t know at the moment who is the strongest candidate.
GIven the idiocy of these folks that candidate may well be a rethug. These clowns need to stop the BS and learn to say “My good friend Sen. Burris”
383 hrs & 42 min
That’s how I’d play it. The guy was picked by the governor who has the authority to do the pickin- and there is no evidence that there was any graft involved…seat him!
…………383 hrs & 42 min………….Not soon enough!!!
But more obvious is an appointed candidate whose vote in the first 100 days, and in fact the first two years, can be counted as strong support for the administration for change. A successful first 2 years will be the best guarantee of an election 2010 we can believe in. Leaders seem to either be too short-sided or too far-sighted…I need good governance now
That’s easy. Which ones lips are moving?
Boxturtle (*rimshot*)
blago is blowing smoke into the discussion. the crime isnt expressing a preference or saying who you want; the crime is trading the seat for cash, or a job.
Durbin apparently got Reid’s talking points memo. Asked on This Week about Bobby Rush’s comparison of Senate leaders to segregationists, Durbin launched into an irrelevant screed about the Blagojevich administration desperately attempting to smear the party. Last I knew, Bobby Rush was NOT a member of the Blagojevich administration.
Blago has succeeded in taking the attention from himself. That’s what this is about – not to mention he has thrown a fast curve at Reid and it worked.
Dang, Gregory woke Reid up!
How so?
I’ve just never seen Reid so spunky. Usually he seems like he’s falling asleep mid-sentence.
Now more than ever, Dems desperately need someone credible and competent leading the Senate. Reid is a bumbling, spineless, fool. Unfortunately, since Senate Dems couldn’t do the right thing in regard to Traitor Joe, I don’t imagine there is much chance of them ever replacing Reid.
What the dems need running the senate right now is someone who can pressure outliers to vote with their majority..It remains to be seen if any of them have that ability.
Gettin Specter to cross the aisle wouldn’t be a bad mission either..he’s bein threatened with a gooper primary battle- if he could be assured of no primary as a dem, he might bolt.
Blago probably picked Burris just to be a troublemaker- he knew that the guy has a pisspoor track record in elections and that Reid would blow a cork about the nominee- but what’s the legitimate argument against seating his 72 year old ass?
I don’t think he did it just to be a troublemaker. If he was accused of trying to sell the seat but then makes an appointment without any hint of a consumated “sale” it makes prosecutions case a little bit more difficult.
383 hrs & 24 min
That’s a good argument-
When is somebody going to actually research the Senate procedure for challenging a Majority [or Minority] leader? And report at the lake?
Going back into the scurvy bushes now with spyglass lookin’ at Blair House….
Jane is upstairs with news on Employee Free Choice
Reid is going to have his hands full getting all the Obama appointees through the senate swiftly and to begin to consider Obama’s landmark legislation on health care and energy.
If he can pull all that off, I’ll credit him with leadership ability. If he fails- he needs to step down.
I don’t know why dems put a purple state guy in there in the first place- probably to make them look less radical during the last congress.
Goopers tend to put “safe seat” people in congressional leadership positions- like Pelosi.
Ms E Wheel – Great analysis; but as for “to explain away comments he made in early December that would otherwise seriously incriminate him”, I think it’s more: to set up the jury pools: the one on the street plus the one that to be seated in court.
Good point. Make his problems so newsworthy and controversial that nobody can be seated as a juror. At least nobody who reads FDL.
If they ever make a movie about Reid’s life, it should be called Awakenings II. He has been been given a miracle drug manufactured in Chicago. Imagine how outraged he would have been if he had been awake the last several years.
Well, sure, now that the public commotion is about Reid and his precious behind, he’s very concerned.
Is Harry Reid automatically the Majority Leader with the new Congress or is there a new election? How can we get rid of him?
Dems have been playing defense for two years. Job one was to keep Bush from getting anything malicious through congress- they were reasonably successful except for FISA- which they can andshould now “modify”.
Job two was to not fuck up a generational opportunity to take a commanding lead in both houses and to win the White House- OK- DONE
Now the mission changes from winning control to accomplishing something with it- to use a generational opportunity to make generational changes in health care,the economy and energy.
Whereas in the last two years, the risk was fuckin it up by appearing too radical- their failure risk now is not being bold enough.
If the Obama administration and congress can enact the 2008 level of New Deal….. Free choice, Health care, throw in paid and guaranteed sick leave, vacation and maternity leave then the USA will join the rest of the world…… give me a break…. Brazil and Chili have universal healthcare…..
It would have been better if Harry Reid had stayed out of Illinois politics. Those of us who live here have problems keeping track of things and Reid, who often demonstrates a Bush-like ability to to make any bad situation infinitely worse, hasn’t a clue.
Burris when/if seated is going to be a place holder for two years. There will be a primary fight. All the people mentioned for the job, and god knows how many more, will likely run. I would not bet on Burris winning even with whatever benefit he might get from incumbency.
Trash Talk has been updated for the early game and awaits all Wheelies and Wheelers.
Ah — so there’s a feminine and a masculine? I had not known that before. I shall conduct myself accordingly henceforth.
Funny you should say that.
When I was in Prague, I’d experiment with translations of my name so I could make dinner reservations more easily.
I used Kolova (of the wheel) for a while. THen I realized that it wasn’t a direct translation of Wheeler (and I had a friend who had that name), plus there was a cool artist with the direct translation and I was usually making reservations at my artsy pub. So I switched to Kolarka.
Because, of course, I couldn’t be Kolar, because that would fuck with the reservation coming from a woman.
Trying to guess from the context,
Wheelers = EW, bmaz, LHP, etc.
Wheelies = fans, kibbitzers, visitors, etc.
Naw, it was a simple gender differentiation made in jest.
I like Wheelios. Gender neutral!
Wheelios, Wheelias.
True. But are we speaking Spanish?? We need to decide!
Cheerio!
Someone should set up a Blog Dirty Harry and Sons and really track Reid’s own twisted dealings and doings – especially over public lands and projects ranging from energy to water on public lands in Nevada that have the Reid family fingerprints all over them. He uses public lands and public resources as currency to deal political favors. I think the only reason he hasn’t been brought down already is that the Repubs like what he does enough to let him get away with it all. Reid is responsible for legitimizing these complex quid pro quo land bills that include – under cover of Wilderness legislation – land sell-offs, aquifer mining of the heart of the Great Basin and other very special deals involving public lands for his friends like Harvey Whittemore. The folks at Western Land Exchange Project have been tracking some of his doings for a while now. One of the commentors here said Reid should have stayed out of this. Indeed. No matter how much wheeling and dealing he has done in the Senate, Illinois politics sure seems like a world away from the small pond of Nevada where there is pretty much no resistance if you do the right favors for the right people. Also, Harry Reid’s Senate seat, when he became leader at least, did not seem so secure. He barely squeaked by in his last election.
A “private conversation” Senator? You are purportedly the leader and spokesperson of the Senate’s Democrats. The conversations at issue are not about your spouse or children, your mental health or your bowling score. They are about the public’s representatives, and they are public property. They are also, it seems, part of an ongoing federal criminal investigation.
How ironic, Senator, that you are attempting to hide behind an emotional claim to privacy, not to protect legitimately private conversations, but to spin your participation in the “sausage making” of political power. Like Mr. Cheney, you even want to hide what comes out at the end. Get used to that lack of “privacy”, Mr. Reid. You are one of the chief enablers of a Gubmint that has done much to crumble it along with the Constitution.
Same words caught me EOH, but with a different take:
information about private phone calls
“private” phone calls are such a pre-telecom immunity concept.
As are e-mails and blog comments. And not just for those applying to Mr. Obama for a job.
Jesse Jackson Jr. was on Obama’s list, so this is not a competing account. Reid is the only one that attempted to take JJJ off of the list.
As the post points out, it is not all together clear that Jackson was on Obama’s initial “list” to the extent there was an actual “list”. To the best I can discern, he may not have been until things started getting public and Obama was embarrassed that people were finding out that he wasn’t all that crazy about the guy he adopted out of convenience as a supposed national campaign co-chair or whatever JJJ was called.
Well, it wasn’t a “list”, really, just a bunch of names dropped in a file drawer. No one was really in charge of it.
Not according to the people who first leaked the list to the Trib.
There always seems to be a mismatch between Harry Reid’s tough talking public statements and his actions- hopefully, in this case Fitz has him on tape, so we will (eventually) find out what he actually said.
While I can’t stand Harry Reid as majority leader, who would replace him? most likely another village embracing, corporate loving sell out that is “well liked” by Republicans. Lets face it, the game Harry Reid plays (sell out the base after talking tough, and shakedown the corporate interests for campaign contributions) is the same game that most of the Democratic Senators play. Its getting old, but it has worked out well for most of them.
Anybody seen MinnesotaChuck and MadDog?? Or are they already hiding?
45 – I’m not sure how much of an expectation of privacy there is or should be in blog comments, but I don’t think anyone paying attention for the last several years thinks that any emails or phone calls are actually “private” or that there is one part of the Executive branch that actually respects the Constitution that so many have died for – especially not men like Hayden who wear their uniforms to lie.
I watched the clip above, and the body language, facial expressions and apparent effort to both be “forceful” and at the same time, to be smarmily dismissive of Blagojevich as making things up (never mentioning the word lie, though, and very quickly coming back to *I can’t remember everything I might have said*) all makes for a pretty unconvincing delivery imo.
His whole “I did that, memememememe” on being able to pluck an nonentity and, using just his personal power, make them a Fed Judge – that was just creepy IMO.
On Sat Bob Edwards (one of my all time favorite radio host not about him, about the guest) did a show on the “digital trail” and the “Numerati”
“Every day, we all create a digital trail of information that forms a picture of who we are, what we buy and where we go. Data mining is nothing new, but now companies and governments can use math and statistics to quickly compare and compile all that data and use it to their advantage. Bob talks with journalist and author STEPHEN BAKER about The Numerati — the statisticians who translate that raw data into highly targeted ads for consumers and voters.”
http://www.bobedwardsradio.com…..s-weekend/
I figure that the NSA program has at least one division totally focused around this concept. Probably more than one.
So they know all about me.
Yawn.
Me too double yawn.
But when I listened to this program it really had me concerned (not for me) but for the direction and scope of such a program. Creepy
I agree with Mary #48 above…Reid is a total disgrace, and his performance today on Meet The Press was no different from most of his public appearances…he has the most whiny, annoying voice I’ve ever heard in a Dem leader, and his leadership and communication skills are non-existent!
I wish the Dems could get a more forceful, dynamic leader for the Senate, but I doubt with the cautiousness O is showing so far that anything will change.
Interesting timing for Reid to start using the word “lying”. Reid sure has missed quite a few opportunities to call “lying” Lying over the years. Why now?
Remember talking with Paul Hackett when he decided to run for Senate(he came to Athens in response to our request). He said Reid and company lobbied (applied pressure) him hard to run, and after allegedly running this past at the time Congressman Sherrod Brown Hackett decided to run. He went full speed ahead. Then when Sherrod Brown decided to run, Hackett said Reid and company “applied (intense) pressure” on him to drop out.
Paul Hackett was really pissed by the games Reid and company played. My quess is Ohio lost a potentially great candidate for the future.
How long has JJJ been helping Fitz? Seems like Reid, Emmanuel and Blago all might have reasons to attack and discredit JJJ
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITI…..agojevich/
Taken from the link you kindly provided:
‘Spokesman Kenneth Edmonds described Jackson’s interaction with federal authorities this way: “As a responsible citizen and elected official, Congressman Jackson has in the past provided information to federal authorities regarding his personal knowledge of perceived corruption and governmental misconduct.
“This was completely unrelated to the current investigation regarding the U.S. Senate appointment. And it is absolutely inaccurate to describe the congressman as an informant,” Edmonds said in a written statement.
Jackson, a Democrat, has given information regarding the embattled Democratic governor of Illinois, though not in the case currently under investigation, Edmonds said.’
####
So JJ Jr. was not in aiding the U.S. Attorney’s office with this investigation. A couple reasons why he might not have gone to them: 1) The most obvious, he did not know about whatever deal his donor may have been working on with Blago on behalf of his Senate aspirations (if that allegation is even true); or 2) He did not see the U.S. Attorney take any action in regard to his previous complaint.
Maybe? Probably? Who knows? You have no idea for certain, and neither do I. One thing is certain however, snitches never admit to being snitches. JJJ’s statement means absolutely nothing.
And there is little, if anything, in all this that I believe out of Harry Reid. He is approaching the bottom of the well in the credibility department.
I a Colorado resident since 1977 and I am unhappy with the choice for this U.S. Senate seat here. The guy has lived here for a brief 10 years, used to manage millions of dollars, worked for oilman Phil Anshutz and basically represents aristocratic interests.
He’s never run for office. He’s only ever been appointed. He has never faced a tough political question.
In short, he is rich, pampered and enjoys the perks of entitlement. I would have preferred an actual Democrat.
Slothrop, I always enjoy reading your comments, and nothing in that article that I posted a link to in the New Yorker contradicts your remarks.
But if you read that story, realize that you could not do a search/replace on the word “Bennet” in any paragraph of that article and insert “Corker”, or “Frist”, or “Coryn”, or “McConnell”, or “Shelby”, or “Inhofe”. For starters, it’s just not credible to imagine that any of those GOPers care enough about society, or poor kids, to go door-to-door persuading dropouts and parents that there’s some way to figure out workable, individualized schedules to get a high school education.
The money spent on NCLB was a waste.
Bennet clearly has a better sense of the real problems, faced by real students, and real teachers, and real communities, than any one of the GOPers that I listed above.
A Senator from CO has to be able to deal with Anschutz. You’ve got a double-bonus; it looks like Bennet also understands city budgets, municipal government, finance, accounting, and the social, economic, and personal obstacles involved in student underachievement.
I’m not from CO, but I thank you.
If Bennet is half as smart as he looks, your state is doing the rest of us a huge favor.
And God only knows, we need one.
Thanks ew.
Thanks to RBG for opening the digg
from readeroftealeaves
Like the odd mutation that allows a species to live on after dramatic environmental changes, all three of these appointment opportunities should bring into the Senate gene pool new active thinking in fields of expertise, field practise and community identity that no lifelong politician could never develop. 1 out of 3 so far
That’s exactly my hope.
“Blago might be telling the truth.”
And the sun might rise in the west tomorrow morning. With Blago, and speaking as one of his
victimsconstituents who has watched his career for years, you can always tell when he’s lying; his lips are moving.Tea Leaves: it’s the aristicratic entitlement thing that gets me. Yeah, Bennet is smart, but has he ever worried about money in his entire life?
Also, big difference between “working FOR Anschutz” and “able to deal with Anshutz.”
We need Democrats in the Senate who owe billionaire oil men?
There were better choices — more real choices than this Bennet from the Beltway.
If Bennet had just spent the past 20 years on Wall Street selling derivatives, I might agree with you.
But I don’t personally blame him for an ‘aristocratic’ background, nor did he come across in that article as someone who thought himself ‘privileged’ to the Senate spot (in contrast to the ‘aristocratic’ Caroline Kennedy Schlossman, but I digress….)
He has a range of experience, and that’s a good thing.
It beasts the hell out of Corker, McConnell, Coryn, Shelby, Inhofe, and the rest of Plantation Caucus, some of whom also grew up with money. But seem to lack the depth of social conscience that we see in Bennet.
If Bennet had sat in his office in Denver, then maybe I would agree with you.
But the fact that he went door-to-door in Latino neighborhoods trying to find individual solutions for individual, dropped out teens and did the kind of time-consuming, sloggy, down-and-dirty unglamorous work that it would require to work with a McDonald’s manager so that a Latino kid can work during the day and get to a nearby high school for evening classes — well, that’s innovation. That’s creative. That’s problem solving.
I don’t care if is last name is Rothschild and he was sprung fully born from the forehead of Zeus.
For heaven’s sake, education in this country has been ground under the heel of corporate greed while Wall Street ‘investment bankers’ invented dangerous illusory ‘financial instruments’ like CDS swaps and CDOs. Meanwhile, we’ve got Cerberus gutting the TARP money via it’s ‘camel’s nose under the tent’ ploy since it owns part of GMAC….
This nation has BIG problems, and we’ve had an absolute absence of leadership.
I sympathize with your frustrations, but I value breadth of experience and an ability to care about people. If he went to St Albans, so be it. So did Al Gore, who was also ‘aristocratic’ and happens to be one of my personal heroes.
jack Abramoff was the son of Diner’s Club money and went to Beverly Hlils High School.
I just don’t see that coming from ‘money’ automatically makes someone good or bad.
What they do with it matters.
Bennet appears to have taken what he was given and used it responsibly.
We should all be so lucky, IMHO.
Anyone taking self-rightous potshots at NCLB is playing to the cheap seats. Same goes for taking such shots at Blago, including invoking the word, “lying”.
Kolarka
Sounds Klingon!
Actually, it’s pronounced something more like “Kolahzhka.”
I guess it beats Blagojevich
From all accounts, including their own internal report, it sounds like there was a real list of names from Obama. What may be in some dispute is whether they were presented merely as suggestions of qualified candidates, or whether they had any favorites. I’m more inclined to think it’s the former because at that point Obama said he made it clear he did not want to back any one candidate. Whatever the case, their report also says Emanuel had the authorization of the President-Elect to submit a list with JJ Jr’s name on it.
I just watched Reid on Meet the Press. While it’s troublesome that he says he doesn’t remember specifics, he is clearly disputing the allegations that he told Blago who to appoint, or spoke against JJ Jr.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28493781/page/2/
MR. GREGORY: All right, but let, let’s talk about those conversations you had with Governor Blagojevich. Apparently you made it clear that three men were not acceptable to you: Jesse Jackson Jr., Danny Davis, Emil Jones. And yet you just said Jesse Jackson would be fine. Is that what you said, that these men would not be acceptable?
SEN. REID: This is part of Blagojevich’s cloud. He’s making all this up. I had a conversation with him. I don’t remember what was in the conversation, other than the generalities that I just talked about. I didn’t tell him who not to appoint. He’s making all this up to divert attention…
MR. GREGORY: Don’t you think these conversations are on tape?
SEN. REID: Of course.
MR. GREGORY: For the U.S. attorney’s investigation?
SEN. REID: I’m, I’m sure they are. But–that’s right. And that’s why what he’s saying, he’s making it up.
MR. GREGORY: So he’s wrong, Jesse Jackson Jr. was always acceptable to you?
SEN. REID: Jesse Jackson Jr. is somebody that I think would be a good senator. And for Blagojevich to start throwing out these names of people who I wanted and didn’t want…
MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.
SEN. REID: …he’s making it up.
####
Regardless of what you think about the man or his politics, Reid is now on record saying that he did not tell Blago who not to appoint, and he’s saying this knowing there are probably tapes of their conversations. I think I’ll take that over anonymous sources, especially since at least one of those sources sounds like someone who was not in the room during the calls and who has no knowledge of what is on the tapes, but who did have contact with Blago.
EmptyWheel; hell of a thread!
With Reid and Rahm both saying that Blago is playing fast and loose with who was on their “lists” (albeit with somewhat different specifics) it just throws a little more doubt on Blago’s motives (as if we needed any more…) and with the Illinois legislature set to move on Blago’s impeachment, it could give Reid and his vile “co-racists” a little stiffener in their effort to keep Blago and Burris’s “hooker’s-r-us” plan from succeeding before the roof falls in on Blago.
And, ohhhh, those tapes! :o)
“He is approaching the bottom of the well in the credibility department.”
And Burris isn’t???: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FOIKG_T0TA
And your point is?
If you looked at that clip and have to ask, and are still ripping Reid for trying to keep this unprincipled hack out of the U.S. Senate, then I’m not sure you’d understand my putting it into words, but I’ll try, anyway:
Roland Burris was dissing the shit out of Blago, and joined the Ill. A.G., Lisa Madigan in calling for the Ill. Supremes to oust Blago.
Then, about 17 days later, AFTER Blago had picked HIM for the seat, Blago suddenly became a whole lot more fit to stay in office and make important decisions.
The capper was in that last interview, when Burris, cleverly trying to cover all the bases, just in case, refused to say whether or not Blago should resign.
He was like: “Yeah, he appointed me to the U.S. Senate but I’m not sure he honest enough that I should say he shouldn’t resign.”
And if you think that we need more of that kind of politician in the U.S. Senate, then I guess that’s why you had to ask “And your point is?”
First off, I never said I wanted Burris in the Senate, and I challenge you to find a place where I said that I did. Knock yourself out.
Fact of the matter is I do not desire Burris to be Illinois’ junior Senator any more than you do. However, what I want is irrelevant. Blagojevich is the duly elected Governor of Illinois, the Illinois Supreme Court summarily rejected the argument that Blago is not competent and legitimate so as to carry out the functions of his office therefore he has the power to carry out said functions, the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution says the Illinois legislature has the power to set the succession mechanism for their Senate seats and the Illinois legislature has unequivocally given the power to the governor to appoint the replacement. Burris meets the Constitutional criteria to serve.
The foregoing being the case, I believe that Burris is legally appointed and that it sets a heinous precedent for the Senate Majority Leader to take it upon himself to frustrate the clear edicts of the law and deny Illinois the service of their full complement of Senatorial representation in the process. And I believe that whether I like or dislike Burris, and I would feel the same way if he was a Republican. To me, upholding the law, and the clear intent of the law, is far more important than my, or your, petty views on who is appropriate.
And, by the way, I have not seen any visible effort by the Republicans to plead for Burris as you bandy about, perhaps you can edify me about that too.
Reid has been way too comfortable with bloody stupidity of George Bush’s policies for years, but if he can put Roland Burris so far back into Rules Committee limbo that they have to feed him with a slingshot, while the Illinios legislature moves on Blago, then, my 2c, he’ll deserve major points.
It’s no accident that the repubs have discovered their inner civil-rights-worker selves, as they weep crocodile tears for Burris’s “rights”, in the hope that they will have him sitting in the Senate to point to, when the roof falls in on Blago. But I think the Dems will have none of it, and all they have to do is seat Burris provisionally, without voting or speaking priviledges, and wait for the legislature to do it’s job.
After all, what’s the hurry? Is Obama’s administration going to collapse if this unprincipled sleaze has to sit in limbo for a few weeks, while this plays out?
tanbark, you seem to still be missing some points here, including the very big one that, as far as anyone can tell, Burris didn’t buy the appointment, and Blago has the legal right to appoint him.
Just because Burris has a monumental ego doesn’t make him unqualified – that would rule out a lot of politicians.
Until I retired I reported on Illinois politics for more than 30 years. To assume Burris didn’t buy his appointment with something Blago needed simply because no one has found out what it was yet, does not mean it didn’t happen. In fact, in Illinois politics, the prudent course is always to assume anyone dealing with a bent politician is also bent until the investigation’s over.
My newspaper endorsed Burris twice (I wrote the endorsements) but that was back when he was relatively ethical and made a certain amount of sense. Lately, he’s become a lot closer to a black incarnation of Lar “America First” Daley (you whippersnappers can look him up on the Google).
For the last eight years, we’ve been assured that creeps from Cheney to Rove are fine upstanding people because they haven’t been convicted of anything yet. I had hoped we’d gotten past that sort of thing in November. But I guess we’re just going to change party labels and motor along with corruption dripping from those who haven’t been indicted yet.
I agree with your general skepticism, it is healthy; especially from where you hail. That said, until there is some proof, heck even prima facie evidence would do, of improper conduct surrounding Burris, he must be considered duly appointed under the law. The precedent Reid is setting is already proving to be a butt biter with Franken; it will prove much more so over the future years and opportunities for mischief. This is horrible precedent, not to mention contra to the clear intent of applicable law.
And, yes, I know that doesn’t make it any easier to swallow, it does not for me either; however, it does make adhering to the established law and precedent all the more important.
Well, bmaz, I luv ya 8^}
But tanbark@88 said it better than I did, especially in the bit that I’ve copied above.
And RAMA also said it better than I could.
IF the Senate had no rules whatsoever on who could be seated (and under what circumstances), then I would agree with you.
I respect the law. But not when it’s being deliberately manipulated and used as a smokescreen by cheaters. That kind of legal fetishism is Addington’s area of expertise. And Haynes. And Abu Gonzo’s. And Yoo’s. And Bybee’s. Of course they’ll claim Burris has to be seated, because they think the law functions to get whatever they want.
That is baloney. You are confusing seating the man in the Senate and seating him in the caucus and/or committees. So far, assuming the ministerial matter of Illinois Secretary of State bit is resolved in his favor, and I assume it will be, the man is entitled to his seat in the Senate. And failure to provide that is a very dangerous and ill advised precedent to set. Now, on the other hand, I do not have the same objections as to his caucus/committee treatment; and I can see both sides of the argument for what to do on that and am not sure which is correct. As to whether he gets the seat itself on the floor, I am adamant that, assuming the situation continues to play out as it is now, he is legally entitled to that. I agree with your, tanbark’s and RAMA’s emotions on this completely; nevertheless, that cannot be allowed to be the basis for ignoring and subverting the law.
I suspect that you (rightly) fear that down the line, this could set a precedent for a Senate to decide who to seat. And who not to seat. And that’s a legitimate worry.
At present, the Gov of Illinios holds the office, but his legitimacy is almost completely destroyed.
Assuming Harry Reid to be accurate in pointing out that Burris supported a white candidate (rather than BO) in 2004, the ‘racist’ charges against Reid should also be dispensed with.
Suppose Richard Shelby were Majority Leader, and suppose his Gov were caught on tape selling the seat. The allowed to appoint the seat, even after this information was made widely known, including a US PA making the information available to the whole world.
Now, perhaps the Gov, under their state laws, has the legalishly claimed ‘right’ to appoint.
But it’s clear that an investigation has occurred.
Blago is not yet guilty in court, and he may escape charges.
But even if he does, we’ve all heard what he said — and it’s not as if he was just selling a garbage contract to Vinnie. He was selling the Senate seat.
Any action taken from that moment forward is susceptible to legal questions and challenge.
And we’ve all watched the Plantation Caucus, and Rove in the background. Nothing would be more in character than for them to oppose seating Franken, AND ALSO claim that Burris should be seated. AND THEN after Burris votes, waste all kinds of energy and become a drag by raising procedural questions about Burris and his votes.
Here’s another way in which you and I probably differ.
I’ve not served in a legislature, but I’ve definitely been in situations where procedures and rules need to be followed. You’d better damn well get the best legal advice you can find, because you KNOW that all the parties who oppose what you are slogging to achieve is going to be the subject of at least one law suit the instant it passes.
(And BTW, all that ’slogging’ is meanwhile damaging your health in the process by working too many damn hours, yadda, yadda, just to underscore my point).
Given my perspective, if Burris – or ANYONE else’s bona fides, credentials, mothers-maiden-name, blood type, financial history, etc, etc, etc — even look like they may not pass muster, or even look like they’ll invite a procedural challenge, or a future lawsuit, then you need to move into AssholeMode and say, “He ain’t steppin’ foot in the door.”
**IF** Harry Reid were simply expedient, he’d have seated Burris. Why do I make that claim? Because I’ve counted votes.
And Reid, with his hair’s thin margin, really needs Burris’s vote.
It would have been easier for Reid to simply seat Burris, then work behind the scenes to screw him while having an extra vote. But from where I sit, Reid did the thing that really takes cajones — he gave up a ’safe vote’ to stand up for principle.
But he’s also thinking ahead: who on earth wants to get a vote passed, only to have the Plantation Caucus raise procedural issues after the fact?
And who wants to let Blago’s weak legal claims be more important than the US Constitution and Senate rules?
The Illinois Supreme Court says he is competent to function as governor, that makes his actions, absent any further information to the contrary, legally legitimate. That is the law at this moment. Period. I have never said Reid was racist. Never. I said that his acts as reported could, and would, be seen as such; and they have already. Not by many, but the reality of him barring Burris has not been seen and realized yet and it will be a powerful and negative visual as it occurs to many people.
As to the Constitution and its panoply of protections, that is exactly what I am advocating be upheld.
Actually, the fact of the matter is that we have not seen, heard or read any of the tapes or transcripts in full. And I can flat guarantee you that the allegation of “selling the Senate seat” is far weaker than most everybody claims. First off he didn’t sell it; he may or may not have been about to, but it is uncontradicted that there was no sale to date. Secondly, the detailed hospital, ballpark/editorial stuff and other standard Chicago graft stuff looks fairly solid so far (it still must be subjected to cross examination and trial to know for sure), but from what we know now, without more, the “selling Senate seat” allegations would not hold up for convictions. I am fairly certain that Fitzgerald has much more material evidence that will firm that up, but we have not seen that yet.
you absolutely serve this, baby!
i love reading your soapbox!
hope mine’s not too overbearing. or what i finally got around to in our previous interaction.
thanks again so much for your insights about reid. i could not agree more.
“I respect the law. But not when it’s being deliberately manipulated and used as a smokescreen by cheaters. That kind of legal fetishism is Addington’s area of expertise. And Haynes. And Abu Gonzo’s. And Yoo’s. And Bybee’s. Of course they’ll claim Burris has to be seated, because they think the law functions to get whatever they want.”
you had so many good comments, i somehow skipped this one.
yeah; what you said. and then some!
OT
Juan Cole’s post today is excellent.
A great history (and EW’s favorite, a partial timeline) on Israel and Gaza. The best summary and insight I have read anywhere.
PJ, look at the clip. Burris utterly reversed himself, AFTER Blago chose him to be the appointee. It was more clearly a quid-pro-quo deal than anything we’ve heard, about the tapes.
Bmaz, I’m not interested in that disclaimer. You’re ripping Reid for trying to block Burris, whose opinion of Blago was unspinnably for sale. Doing that at the same time you’re claiming that you don’t support Burris is just Bushian hair-splitting, to me.
You guys have been trying to stampede Burris into the Senate with the legality argument. It doesn’t hold water.
Here’s a little something for all the “legality” pearl-clutchers:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200…..senate_q_a
And RAMA is spot-on. This nonsense about “not indicted” is setting the bar so low that an arthritic cockroach could get over it. Which is why the repubs are taking the same line as you, so that they can have Burris to point to, when the roof falls in on him.
We’re paying for the “not indicted…neener-neener” stuff now. It’s time to stop it, and all that Reid and the dems have to do is stick Burris in the Rules committee cloakroom for a relatively short time, while this plays out.
Once the Illinois legislature starts moving on Blago, the price of playing “Let’s put Burris in because it’s LEGAL!” poker is going to go through the roof. And you guys’ pile of chips is getting smaller every day. :o)
Yes, I understand you are not interested in the rule of law and think that your own muddled reactionary thinking is more important and precious than said rule of law and historical precedent. You have made that crystal clear. You are simply the flip side of Cheney/Bush advocating and doing what makes you feel good and happy. Oh, and by the way, that little Yahoo article doesn’t say much; every point therein has been analyzed and discussed in infinitely more depth between here and FDL. I am not sure where you come up with the phrase “not indicted…neener-neener”, but, to the best of my knowledge, “not indicted” has never been the standard discussed as to Burris here. However, the fact that there has been not one shred of material evidence of substantive impropriety as to Burris is significant.
You are hysterically ranting; may I suggest you take a slightly more calm and even handed demeanor, we will all be the better for it. I enjoy the discussion as long as it is polite and meaningful.
Way to go, BMAZ!!!!
Here’s a thought:
If it were the repubs trying to shoehorn a GOP Burris in, in this situation, the dems would be howling in outrage.
And, we would be right.
Quite frankly, and I have previously said this clearly, I would have the same exact position if it were a Republican. Both sides are entitled to equal protection and application of the law.
I absolutely believe that to be true of you. No doubt in my mind.
But I see Reid having more latitude in this instance.
And I also see how this comes across to ‘non-verbal learners’ who don’t follow the fine linguistic distinctions that you excel at making. That’s a compliment to you, while noting that I see things here you don’t.
rOTL, I enjoyed the New Yorker article. Bennet got his sup job easily, but it seems deservedly. I think he learned his education lesson early on from Julisa:
I just wonder what the end of the story is?
I don’t feel like I’m ranting at all. I’m pointing out the holes in the case for seating Burris. Through which you could drive a truck.
And, the article doesn’t say much?
And the Constitution saying:
“Each house shall be the judge of the elections, qualifications, and returns of it’s own members…”
Doesn’t “say much”?
I beg to differ; the best that you can can say for the argument of seating Burris is that there is legitimate doubt about whether or not it’s legal, and that’s cutting the people flacking for Burris to be seated, a lot of slack, to begin with.
Which brings us right back to the question that none of the people supporting Burris for the Senate (and the legalistic stuff, which is specious, at best just doesn’t hold water…) seem to want to talk about, which is:
What’s the hurry?
Why is it so important to you guys (and the republicans, I’ll point out…) that Burris HAS to be seated immediately, while the politician who appointed him is probably going to be impeached next week.
And if anyone thinks that isn’t going to change anything about the degree of support for Burris’ appointment, then they’re in for a shock. :o)
Put it this way, when/if Blago is removed from office, will you guys be posting on here about how Burris should be seated, to preserve the precious “rule of law”?
The clause you refer to must be read in conjunction with the 17th Amendment, which by its language, superseded Article I, section 3, the companion provision of the clause you purport to rely on and, more importantly for the instant discussion, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s indication in Powell v. McCormack, modifies Article 1, Section 5, the clause you and Yahoo do rely on. You are incorrect when you claim that there are all these truck sized holes; there simply are not.
And, when you say that all “the legalistic stuff, which is specious, at best just doesn’t hold water…” well, you are being disingenuous at best and spewing statements from inappropriate places at worst. If you want to argue Constitutional law with me, fine; but please bring respectable and coherent arguments and do not mislead our readers about the nature of the law, which you are clearly not particularly well educated on.
That kind of legal fetishism is Addington’s area of expertise. And Haynes. And Abu Gonzo’s. And Yoo’s. And Bybee’s. And Reid’s, and Schumer’s and …
So what is it that you think “the rules” are, now? That if Blagojevich appoints someone with a fowl reference in their name, Reid can seat them at his imperial discretion, but if it’s someone not on his list, he can bar them? Or is it the rule that if a Gov is linked to a scandal, they can no longer appoint? And if the legislature does nothing to revise the legislation, then basically Reid can determine that IL is a one Senator state? Or he can just threaten the legislature that they better impeach, or he won’t allow them to have their right to Constitutionally required representation? Or wait – maybe he gets to pick for IL?
What is the list of the kind of scandals that can be claimed that will bar a Gov from having his state legislature empowered right to appoint? If we decide that most of the elections in IL probably involved scandal ridden politicians, can Reid also decide that no one in IL can appoint electors?
This is inherently a state’s rights issue and all the remedies were available to the State legislature for a pretty decent interval, and they opted out of action. If someone shows up tomorrow and claims that the Colorado gov shared hookers with Spitzer, will that seat be barred? And then there’s Paterson – – – he’s likely to get something he wants no matter who he appoints in NY. He has admitted to drug use and illicit sex, and what if there are tapes where he discusses what a great fundraiser C Kennedy will be — is that another seat to be barred?
If someone antes up with Burris (and it says all you need to know about Burris that he took the appointment) being involved in a true pay to play for the seat, then I think you have one thing. But to say that bc Blagojevich is under a cloud, all his Executive actions are somehow void, that makes no sense.
And really, when you talk about what you do and don’t want more of in the Senate, let’s just be clear here – Reid engineered legislative efforts to destroy habeas and he was on board with propagandized wars of aggression and occupation and the Patriot Act and has helped block any efforts to curb use of cluster bombs in civilian areas. He was on board with amnesty to FISA felons on a massive scale and for war crimes of mind boggling depravity. But God forbid he should seat Burris rather than start a precedent that any scandal that can be created around a gov can be used, politically to serve as a bar to recognizing any appointment made by that gov.
‘cuz heaven only knows that kind of thing could never go wrong.
I don’t really care a huge amount in the end whether or not Burris gets seated, but it’s kind of trite to pretend that he’s tainted by his non-criminal association with Blagojevich, but Reid isn’t tainted by his non-criminal association with Blagojevich (or by helping to insure special favors were legislated to Exec Branch criminalsfor that matter- what did Reid get for those efforts?)
But if you think there’s some ultimate win-win to be achieved from blocking Burris, I’m not going to say you’re wrong. If playing footsie over Burris holds up Reid from more pro-cluster bomb, pro-torture, pro-destruction of Exec Crime evidence, anti-accountability measures, who am I to complain?
Heck, I say we all declare ourselves to be sgt at arms and we all take to the Senate and bar all the criminals and accomplices from being seated.
Or not.
Heh, I suppose they couldn’t function much worse with no members than the full compliment of fools and malefactors.
Fact: All Dem Senators are said to have asked Blago to refrain.
Fact: The Illinois State Sec of State refuses to sign Blago’s order, even though Blago may find a way around that.
Fact: Harry Reid publicly, cordially requested Blago to hold off.
Fact: Blago is under a huge cloud for selling the very seat that he then took it upon himself to ‘appoint’.
Mary, I really find it exceedingly insulting to have it implied that I don’t give a shit about the law. Why ELSE would I spend my time reading and commenting here?
Honestly? You really, truly think that I do not give a rat’s ass about the law?
That I just think it’s some kind of ‘game’?
Here’s another fact, Mary. A woman that I know is from Eastern Europe. A thug who wanted to inherit money from her brother snuck into his house, poured lighter fluid everywhere, and burned up the man, his wife, and child. Now, the law is kind of underfunded in that country, as are forensics labs. Do you think that my friend will ever, ever get over this kind of injustice?
And that’s only one story.
To tell me that I don’t care about the law is kind of like telling me that I don’t care about food, water, or breathing.
I’m damned if I’m going to sit by and watch one more cornered thug – in this case Blago – take advantage of ambiguities, confusion, and commotion for his own desperate purposes.
That hardly makes me a person who does not care about the law.
Please don’t be so insulting.
sheez, yet again, you nail it.
think i already shared this story here, but at the risk of repeating myself….
being a huge einstein fan, i have been reading of his conversations with godel, not least of all because the review i saw mentioned that godel found a flaw with the constitution.
and here it is: any system that depends entirely on rules/laws will fail.
this is inherent in his theorem, essentially that no system can be both comprehensive and coherent.
this is precisely why rules/laws must always be remembered as guidelines.
and if anyone needs more reminders of this point, there is always les miserables. and of course dozens of other examples.
fact is, our founders – expressly jefferson – fully recognized this weakness, which is why he recommended regular revisions and even revolutions at frequent intervals. that part of the plan has not worked out so well.
instead, we just keep making more rules.
Assuming that the hooker was not being appointed to the seat, nor had paid for it, it’s not relevant.
Blago’s ‘crime’ is SELLING the very thing that he then pretended he still had the legal authority AND the political legitimacy to assign. I call bullshit.
Again, he does not have to pretend in the least; the freaking Illinois Supreme Court has affirmed exactly that. Constantly stating that he doesn’t have the authority or legal legitimacy to act is simply contrary to the truth and fact.
Seems like Burris couldn’t help himself from taking the senate seat, even if he’d really tried. Guys been running for offices forever, and losing. He’s got himself a crypt you’d see in a third world country and named his kids Roland and Rolanda. It was beyond his capacity to turn down the golden goose.
He’s ready to play ball.
Heh, yeah Burris is in for the game methinks. He heard all the cries for him to step back and down. then he called and booked his flight to DC.
“I respect the law. But not when it’s deliberately being manipulated and used as a smokescreen by cheaters.”
Bingo!
I wonder how many of the protectors of “rule of law” think, and will post, that Blago picked Burris because of his judicious, honest, statesmanlike qualities?
This has gone so far that there are frantic defenders of this nonsense who are saying that as long as Burris hasn’t broken any law, he should be appointed. Which is a strange “qualification” for getting appointed to the U.S. Senate.
That ground-level bar is what gave us the bush court we now have, as well as Abu Gonzalez and and a lot of other rightwing charlatans and warpimps.
If it gets any lower, it’ll be under the ground…and so will we, starting with the mid-terms.
Thank you.
AND they got away with it because the Dems didn’t stand up for principles, nor did they have enough spine to stare down a donut.
If this country is going to achieve “change”, more stringent expectations than, “He hasn’t committed any crimes we know of” need to be driving the train.
holy crap. there’s so much of it flying here, hard to know where to begin.
first off, pjevans, burris DID buy that appointment. it’s right before our puny little eyes, folks, and blago is just cunning enough to grasp this. he did not even have to pull an illegal purchase for the deal to seal. what blago got in return for the burris appointment was precisely what he wanted and needed, that burris would in fact reverse his position on blago’s competence and right to appoint ANYone. moreover, he does so now withOUT any illegal purchase, providing just what has been noted here as that squeaky clean credibility blago needs to try and sully fitz’s efforts to snag him. blago’s playing fast and loose because he’s a desperate man, and he’s leaking like a sieve to muddy the waters, just as reid and the rest of the dems accuse him.
because, second, blago is beyond slimy. rama is right. i noted in an earlier comment on this topic that a chicago pal who knows a reporter there who has dogged blago for years is saying the man is beyond corrupt, and that obama has maintained nothing more than a polite tolerance of him. i mean, why would we give such a creep any credibility at all? what we DO know about this man, without speculation or leaks – specifically, directly from fitz’s indictment – is that he ASSUMES he is ENTITLED to quid pro quo. that is about at the bottom of the barrel, in my book. so until shown otherwise, i offer him nothing resembling the time of day on credibility. blago lying? you think??
third, we have no reason to suspect anything from the obama camp or the dem leadership that they did anything more than one would and should expect from them with regard to a senatorial appointment. i noted earlier, but got no response, that if we were to consider this situation as if we were the guv of a state in need of a senator by appointment, i cannot imagine NOT consulting with the national dem leadership. that does not mean they make the choice, but certainly their input is valued and must be weighed strategically. there is nothing at all unethical about that. and i don’t think fitz believes there is, either.
fourth, not only do i find reid’s response to blago’s planted accusations of racism more than credible (for more on mine and readeroftealeaves’ admiration for reid, review ew’s previous blago post comments), i find the accusations predictable from blago. he is beyond pathetic. he’s a small time crook who’s managed to get away with a lot till now and he’s grasping at anything he can to take down with him, hoping someone along the way will yell uncle and bail him out. it’s pretty sad to my mind that his nonsense is actually working so many liberals into a froth, as many as the rightwingnuts. what kind of statement does THAT make???
fifth, i agree with bmaz that there is no legal standing to refuse to seat burris. however, i understand fully reid’s furry that this has happened, that blago has tied their hands, and that reid would float the possibility of refusing burris. my suspicion is that ultimately tanback is correct and that burris will be forced to resign under pressure from everyone in the damn party because there is such a tremendous cloud over him and the whole nightmare. (ew’s suggestion of no committee appointments is good, as would be a censure, though not clear what grounds they would use, though it would disallow him to speak on the senate floor.) whether or not he will submit to that pressure is another matter. that gawdawful crypt he has erected to himself does not bode well on that count….
sixth, tanback, i have no idea what you mean by saying reid’s opinion of blago was unspinnably for sale? where is the evidence for that??
seventh, raina is right; reid has gone so far as to go on record that he did NOT pressure anyone, nor did he make any attempts to keep blacks off the list. this is not trivial, and reid knows it. moreover, reid knows that fitz knows it. in other words, there is a record of this, and reid is willing to put his money on it. moreover, this position is consistent with where the obama camp has been coming from. and if my source is accurate, there has never been any love lost between the obama and blago camps. in fact, i suspect blago – with his bizarre fantasies of the presidency dancing in his pointy (and way-too-close-together-eyes) little head – has harbored tremendous resentment against obama and rahm and their DC ilk, resentment that rivals what sarah palin exposed to us for nine seemingly terminal weeks last fall. blago’s motives for taking everyone down are not limited to his meanness in general; he specifically has harbored hatred for these elitists who would not let him play on their field. by his rules, i should add.
eighth, almost forgot, though again i noted this in an earlier comment on an earlier post: nate silver analyzed the numbers on jjj’s electability, and frankly makes a very good case that there are risks involved because though his numbers are strong, they’re 80% black, with very low white rankings. i just don’t think it’s racist for the party leadership to take note of this in their calculus for future elections. i should add here that i’ve long admired jjj and tried to watch his career closely; it pains me that he’s gotten all tangled up in this, and i hope he comes out smelling more like a rose than a blago stinkbomb.
ninth, this has exhausted me, frankly. i’m finding it a bit bizarre that there is so much willingness to assume the worst of the democrats with so little to go on. and on that note, i also find it a lot sad that so many folks take such issue with reid. readeroftealeaves and i agree on this (again, we commented copiously on it in the previous blago post by ew); reid is a fine and good man, very principled, and a most admirable leader, at least in our books. i suppose i can understand that folks are upset with him that he and pelosi did not take a more aggressive stand against bush et al. in the past two years, but i have an understanding of that that is in the comments i reference above.
briefly, i don’t pretend to know what it must have been like to maintain as a principled member of congress in the past 8 years. leahy’s life was threatened with real anthrax, and so was daschle’s; wellstone was threatened and then dead within two weeks. what do you do with that kind of adversary? especially in the utterly bizarre echo chamber we were mucking through for all that time? these people play for keeps. my god, they insisted on being able to torture people, torch the constitution, ignore dead soldiers and drowning citizens! they don’t play by anyone’s rules, and they keep changing their own, so how does one deal with that?? you can’t even make deals; they break them!
my choice for myself, projected into that situation, would be to put my head down, meet with trusted comrades as often as possible, and work very much behind the scenes to keep as much of what we value in tact until these criminals finally spin themselves completely out of control and out of power. which is what has happened to them. granted, not all the dems would be even approachable for this kind of strategy, and so many of them went along to get along, which is what most human beings do when they are actually face to face with such threats. what makes any of you think that you would behave any differently?
it’s so damn easy for us to pass judgment from the comfort of our armchairs and laptops, but that doesn’t catapult us into that reality. it never can. it dismays me that so many find it so easy to fault these folks without much evidence whatsoever. faulting the bushies was quite another matter; you couldn’t drool without hitting an outright crime with them. and they just kept coming, day after day after day.
ticked they didn’t impeach the assholes? me, too, but i can also see, given how completely the bushies have stonewalled every single investigation (giving contempt of congress all manner of new meaning), and how the supremes lean, that it had a high risk of failing; and then what??? i don’t like those consequences, even less than failing to impeach.
but perhaps it would be worthwhile to consider a reflection on just what we’ve been through over the past few years, and what it really might have been like to be in their shoes. i just can’t say, had i a family and young children and an anthrax letter floating around the mail, what i’d have done. i can’t say, after wellstone’s plane went down, how i’d feel about being a martyr. i can’t say how well i’d be able to herd democratic cats into some semblance of strategic purpose. especially in the nightmarish climate of media talking heads and bush’s approval ratings. it must have been something like an endless rabbit hole. and again, these guys play for keeps.
it seems to me that THIS is what we have to keep in mind. you think these guys are going to go out without their heels dug in deep? they’ve got their tendrils so far into our national viscerals, it’s like the alien; we may never get them out, and they could still easily destroy us. they’ll just bide their time; they’ve done it before, they’ll do it again. and what are we liberals doing? eating our own.
frankly, if we continue to lose this government to those tendrils – tendrils they’ve worked to implant for decades with great and determined design – it will be due far less to our democratic leadership than to our shallow and sniping insistence on this democratic propensity to eat our own.
and let’s not kid ourselves. this propensity stems from the same ideological fundamentalism that drives the religious rightwingnuts who insist with all the entitlement of a tyrant that their way is THE RiGHT way and that anything less than that is betrayal that should be punished.
last time i checked, that does not square so well with my understanding of a democracy.
Beautifully described. Bingo.
Additional evidence: that hospital visit surely impaired Ashcroft’s recovery, and Comey, Muller, the top levels of DoJ and FBI knew that THEY were being tapped?!
And just a reminder about that curious plane crash a week or two ago in which the man who’d set up the 2004 Ohio election servers, plus gwb43.com emails had a fatal plane crash? Oh, yes it happens. But an experienced pilot…?
These people play for more than keeps.
These are the same people who, BTW, can’t tell Congress or anyone else where $350 billion in TARP money went.
And should we mention planeloads of cash to Iraq?
But hey, pay no attention to my comments, because evidently you don’t think that I care very much about that whole ‘law’ thingamajig.
I think you meant to reply to Mary here, not llphd. That said, I also think you are taking too personally and negatively Mary’s generalized statements and arguments. I have known and dealt with both of you for years now, and can say with certainty that Mary did not mean to insult you and that you should not take it as such. She, as I, get very persnikity about not sidestepping the law and rule of law on the basis of personal whims, desires and beliefs, no matter how righteous or well intentioned. You both are cool, don’t take a negative personally where none was intended.
Thanks bmaz, I appreciate it.
Relevant comments by lllphd and I on end of last Blago thread, FWIW.
But I did find Mary’s phrasing incredibly insulting.
I think anyone unfamiliar with our history would find it to be the same. So it goes.
hey, thanks for adding the recent connell crash; i’ve been following the 04 ohio fiasco since then, very closely, and that event is beyond suspicious. yet another in the string. right along with those suspicious events surrounding the seligman whistleblower, her burning house, etc.
it’s the bush mafia. and i don’t mean 43, either. which is yet another reason why i say that their tentacles are into us so deep all they have to do is take a little break while we make all these democratic noises and they plot the next stage. two steps back, three forward, each election, as far as they’re concerned.
and i think i understood that your last complaint against the ‘rule of law’ business was meant in the generic and not for me personally. quite clear you weren’t confusing my comment with mary’s.
whose comments i always respect tremendously. still, what i said at 113 still holds; there really does exist something beyond the rules, the principles they are designed to express. those principles have a lot more staying power than the rules/laws do. which is why i wish those principles (as expressed in the preamble) were given more power in the courts.
Reminds me of when Pelosi said in the summer of 2007 (speaking with bloggers like EW) that “we don’t know the half of it.”
I don’t think we know 1/10th.
a friend points out to me that i meant “tentacles” not “tendrils.”
man, this plague in my sinuses has got to go. it’s making me crazy and keeping me awake!
wah.
I hope that you get better. Ailments of the head and sinuses are very distressful – and that is not a snarky comment.
that was much nicer, and thanks; i truly appreciate it.
hope we can get past this wrinkle. no need for it, doncha agree?
Thanks, Mary.
from my armchair it bears repeating for skimmers …[we can’t] pretend to know what it must have been like to maintain as a principled member of congress in the past 8 years. leahy’s life was threatened with real anthrax, and so was daschle’s; wellstone was threatened and then dead within two weeks. what do you do with that kind of adversary? especially in the utterly bizarre echo chamber we were mucking through for all that time? these people play for keeps. my god, they insisted on being able to torture people, torch the constitution, ignore dead soldiers and drowning citizens! [and planes keep dropping out of the sky] they don’t play by anyone’s rules, and they keep changing their own, so how does one deal with that?? you can’t even make deals; they break them!
from my armchair how can we as citizens outside the direct horsehairs help our elected (& appointed) representatives?
Sorry my above post was quoting lllphd–without faces I can’t keep my postings apart. Thank you, llphd our national pyche is splintered- we see evil masquerading before us but we are in the balcony, a few Pidillas have fallen over the railing, but we are certainly safer than others…for now
agreed. and not to worry about the ID thing; i can’t keep anything straight here.
i’d also like to say that you earlier post about racial sensitivities merited more and better responses. yet another point about how complex this all is. thanks for that.
tl;dr
Apparently Obama isn’t into putting up with any more questionable appointments. I’d love to know the nitty gritty of Richardson’s departure as Secretary of Commerce.
rotl, tanbark and lllphd, you folks are really long winded. Do you think anyone (other than BMAZ) actually reads all of your opinions?
What I do get from a speed reading is that you do not believe in the rule of law, you have strong opinions, and everyone that disagrees with you (regardless of the facts of the issue) are wrong.
Sleep tight in your little cocoons of infallibility.
I actually read them. I read all comments when I can.
Your comment is shocking!
Good for you – you must have more time and a stronger stomach than I do.
formerfed, it might do you some good to actually read before forming opinions. nothing could be further from the truth.
i’ll avoid insulting you on that point.
and thanks, loohoo, for your point. pretty shocking, indeed.
loohoo clearly has more manners and patience and decency than you do, formerfed. it’s just not necessary to be rude here. if you don’t want to read something, don’t. but don’t pretend to have a credible opinion on it.
that’s not even academically viable.
130 & 131 – I can feel for you as a human being, but that doesn’t mean my feelings on your opinions changes. Believe it or not, my speed reading is pretty good. As to manners, etc. I feel I have been as patient with some of your nonsense as I can be. You are long-winded, bombastic and know-it-all. You have no regard for dissenting opinions and you are not overly concerned with facts.
As far as “shocking” I guess Loo Hoo is easily shocked. I think my comments are pretty mild considering some of the things I read here.
Again, good health.
um, bombastic and know it all?? reach for the mirror.
no regard for dissenting opinions? or facts?
any room for specifics here? or no patience for that, either?
honestly, this sort of commentary does not encourage anything but dismissal.
you’ve shared here virtually nothing but opinions about me (and rotl and tanbark), and you admit to not having read them thoroughly; where’s that at? certainly not the format of this forum.
typically it’s understood that we share opinions about the post and the topics noted therein. what i like most about this site is that most everyone refrains from getting personal. there’s just no need for those opinions anywhere. in my opinion.
but then, opinions are like assholes; everybody’s got one.
FACTS – Blago is gov, IL has a senate vacancy, it is Blago’s duty to fill the vacancy, the Senate acts on qualifications, etc., Burris has all the qualifications required by the Constitution.
Hence seat the man. The rest of Reid’s nonsense is just distracting politics based on Reid’s life experience.
And I see you are now an expert on posting protocols. If Marcy or Jane or Christy feel I am out of line, they will set me straight.
your point is made ridiculous by the fact of my comment. my point the “fifth, i agree with bmaz that there is no legal standing to refuse to seat burris.”
i added: “however, i understand fully reid’s furry that this has happened, that blago has tied their hands, and that reid would float the possibility of refusing burris.”
this understanding is based on the same sentiment rotl expressed with such power: “I respect the law. But not when it’s being deliberately manipulated and used as a smokescreen by cheaters. That kind of legal fetishism is Addington’s area of expertise. And Haynes. And Abu Gonzo’s. And Yoo’s. And Bybee’s. Of course they’ll claim Burris has to be seated, because they think the law functions to get whatever they want.”
seems like solomon’s decision to slice the child lends something here.
not sure at all what you mean by “reid’s nonsense…distracting politics based on reid’s life experience.” to my mind, reid is responding in much the same way rotl and i have, with justifiable outrage. this may be legal but it ain’t right, and it sure as hell ain’t ethical. and on that point, i feel reid has every responsibility to make a strong case to do what he can to resist seating burris.
because, as rotl and i have tried to emphasize here – she with far greater eloquence than i – blago’s actions, however ‘legal’ they might be, violate in a profoundly fundamental way the spirit of the law.
(rotl’s references to reid’s life supported my own sense of the man’s integrity; this was in response to what seem to me to be mindless and kneejerk reactions here to his leadership. again, you might earn an informed opinion on this part of your complaint by actually reading what we’ve said. but god forbid you might actually engage a dissenting notion, let alone opine on real factual material. sheez, talk about bombastic; this is really just silly.)
but if you had actually read what we had each written, you might actually know that. and you might disagree with that position, which is quite fine; you’re entitled. but frankly, if you do, i’d have to wonder out loud if you’re not a lawn order republican.
as it is, given that you will wait for the “authorities” to guide your behaviors (consistent with your apparent lawn order bent), i suppose we can only surmise that you check your own manners and conscience at the door when you are reading those legal briefs and depositions as well as other opinions.
as for the “longwinded” comments, it’s mysterious why you would complain about them if you (a) are offended by their length so don’t read them, but (b) insist on opining on them anyway. if thine eye offends thee, pluck it out.
and for the record, acting as an expert plenty myself, have done my share of combing through depositions and medical records and legal documents. it makes a world of difference to read them in detail and with great care before asserting an opinion. a very LEGAL world of difference. as you have so abundantly demonstrated for us.
thanks for that.
Yes, I am longwinded.
Infallible? Not so much.
But when punks run the show and engage in legal deceptions and finely-diced claims, the letter of the law is used to destroy the spirit of the law. After 8 years of watching punks run the show, I’m really fed up with this kind of nonsense.
ditto on that!
all of it.
I am long-winded.
Too many long, long documents in my background.
And if you think my writing sucks, you should see some of the obscure stuff related to metallurgy and chemistry that I had to slog through part of today.
It must leak into these comments.
BFD, do you think that a lot, if not most of us, don’t deal with long documents in our careers? Try being an expert witness for a while and reading depositions.
BTW, I don’t believe I ever said that your writing sucks – this just illustrates how you jump to conclusions while ignoring the facts.
Or me. Now I don’t think that anybody has crossed over a bridge too far. Yet. But the tone and usefulness of it all has reached the point of severely diminishing returns. For all concerned.
My recommendation is that one and all understand that each of the others are well intentioned, deliberate and intelligent people equally passionate about the topics we work on here, and treat each other as such.
I also recommend that all give it a rest for the day and start out with a clean slate tomorrow. We may not all always be on the same page, but we are mostly on the same team as far as our interest in bettering the society we are part and parcel of.
bmaz, apologies; you posted this while i was writing my own at 142, not to be undone.
thanks for the intervention, though it should not have been needed.
and thanks for reiterating the point; we’re all on the same team.
formerfed, i again hope we can get past this w’inkle.
it ain’t about blagoff any more, it’s about US
Fitz an ried managed to FUCK THIS UP big time
now all we got is the rule of law, and ourselves to answer to
seat the prick already
fitz an the legislators of Illinois screwed the pooch, but we gotta stand for something
Wowsie. Point, counterpoint.
I was gone yesterday but just read The Debate.
Riveting. Good points on both sides.
I’m a fucking Libra and cannot make a decision to save my arse.
But, what sealed the deal to me was the Bush v Gore legal decision.
I lost a lot of respect for the law on that day…. “the day the
music died.”
I’ve been in legal remission, depression ever since.
Thanks to lllphd for your comment on Einstein… (It resonated)
Thanks to ROTL for your storyline and examples, and fine writing skills
Thanks to Bmaz and legal commentators who illustrated the law, with
clutch hitting and triple crown intensity.
The citizens of Illinois are the real losers in this mess.
How about initiating a “Recall Provision” to prevent this shit from happening…
“Where have you gone Joe Dimaggio”?
A whole lotta people get into the US Senate without my voice mattering a smidgen. The people of the state of Illinois should have their say in this case, and they will eventually. In the interim, it is the responsibility of the Governor of Illinois, regardless of whatever clouds he might be under, to appoint a replacement until such time as an election can be held. He made his choice.
We don’t have to like who Blagojevich chose, we can sputter and rant and point out the many flaws in the process. But if we don’t follow the process, we’re subverting the process.
and you don’t think blago is subverting the process?
this requires more details. i am not suggesting that just because blago has subverted the legal process that this allows us to do the same.
instead, i’m with rotl in her point that blago subverts the spirit of the law here. i’m saying it should be our responsibility to see that that spirit is upheld.
or else we’re doomed. rotl’s point about how adhering obsessively to the letter of the law at the expense of that spirit throws us in with addington and yoo and their ilk.
i cannot believe that’s where we wish to be.
Well, this is rolling right along, and good for that. :o)
If I said that Reid’s opinion of Blago was for sale, I just misspoke. What I meant, and have been saying since I got on this thread, is that BURRIS’S opinion of Blago was for sale, which, unless you’ve got the cognitive skills of a paremecium, it was.
Has anyone answered the question I put to all the “legalists”?
That being: What’s the mad rush to seat Burris?
ah, that makes sense. i do agree; burris opinion of blago was clearly for sale.
as for the rush, my humble opinion is that there is this longstanding grudge blago has against the rahm/obama camp, sour elitist stuff, and blago just wants to make this last power play so he’ll win something, anything, that will tick them off.
i swear, i know that doesn’t sound that sophisticated, but i just don’t think blago is that sophisticated.
Blago may not be sophisticated (whatever that means) but he sure is politically smart as hell. He is one step ahead of Fitz, the IL legislature, Reid and the entire Senate, and even Obama (regrettably). And it looks like his appointee is going to be seated.
i suppose i might have said better that blago is a bit ham-fisted. i would not agree that he is smart, politically or otherwise. ham-fisted can land an efficient and effective blow on occasion and look “brilliant,” but that does not make him brilliant. and that hardly puts him one step ahead of everyone; imho, he’s just trying to stay one step ahead of the feds, and most of his actions are looking pretty desperate at this point. burris, in particular. his appointee will be seated, sure, but what does that really buy him (pardon the pun)? because there may be no tangible quid pro quo there how will that convince anyone that he had no intention of the same previously or elsewhere? all he’s managing to do is dump a huge stink bomb in his “elitist” rivals’ general direction. that’s nothing more than spite. that might have some sway in chicago politics, i don’t know. but i think reid’s assertions are attempting to keep as much of that stink bomb away from the hill as he can. and away from obama, who reportedly merely tolerated blago, which appears to have rankled blago the same way ‘elitists’ rankled palin.
it’s all just a very stupid, ham-fisted, unsophisticated, adolescent snit on blago’s part. he’s doing his best to do damage, and he may land some punches, but that hardly makes him politically astute.
Again, what is your definition of “politically astute”? As I said, he is one step ahead of the opposition and they don’t really seem to know what to do about it. I’m afraid that Fitz (much as I admire him) got a little panicked on this one.
I don’t want to speak on behalf of lllphd, so I’m going to take an educated guess here and say that he/she’s distinguishing between short term and long term.
Short term, he may look smart.
But if you look at his conduct over a longer timeline (say, 10 or 20 years) then it’s collassally stupid.
It may be that the two of you are looking at very different timelines, which would explain why you are both correct in your statements.
And FWIW, your screenname ‘FormerFed’ led me to assume that you surely have extensive knowledge of long, long documents; probably revisions and updates, and all kinds of detailed minutia. I only meant earlier that I’d been reading sloggy dreck, and that it probably seeped into my thought processes, making me even longer-winded than usual.
I dare say that in ten to twenty years, most of us will barely remember Blago and certainly not Mr. Burris.
I do enjoy the political nonsense going on between Blago, Reid, Burris, et.al.
However, the pressing problems of the world around us are what are really important.
Heartily concur.
Quite the amazing bits of political theatre going on, aren’t there?
However, I agree that Burris will be a future Trivia Pursuit question.
With Franken and the new CO Senator being sworn in, the IQ points and sense of humor in the Senate seem likely to move in a positive direction very shortly.
And not a moment too late.
Now, to sit back and watch McConnell and Corker be foolish… but I’ll count on Al Franken for some quick one-liners about that. Well, Al Franken and TBogg ;-))
i also heartily concur; this is such a tempest in a teapot, and that was actually a small theme in the comment you opined about but did not read.
far more important things to be discussing and debating, and a great lot of the details that do go down on this blago/burris rag will not make any real difference to the ultimate outcome. so i’ve wondered out loud why we’re wasting so much energy – not to mention the tensions! – on this trivia.
and correction; i did use the phrase ‘politically astute.’ readeroftealeaves gave a very reasonable interpretation that does not conflict with my own at 174.
don’t think “politically astute” is a phrase i used, or would use to describe blago. my definition is not limited to effectiveness. political and polite share the same roots; being a street fighter may get you a role as the gang leader, but it not much further than that.
not at all sure what your point is here, but surely you’re sensitive to the differences between say ted kennedy and oh say tom delay. though delay became quite powerful, i would not even consider referring to him as politically astute or even that smart. he was a brute and a bully; still is, and always will be. he wielded his power like a neanderthal, and if we’re lucky he’ll spend time in jail.
like the difference between a gentleman and a thug, i suppose. lincoln and bush. need i go on?
specific to blago, so what if he has cornered his adversaries? it’s temporary and not ultimately that damaging. and i’m not at all sure i agree that fitz moved too quickly on this one. i noted to ew in a later post today that it seems simply that the wiretaps strongly suggested blago was about to commit a crime, whoever might be a taker was irrelevant. is it not a law officer’s duty to prevent a crime from being committed if it will have comprehensive consequences? my sense of him is that he would feel a duty to this notion, and acted accordingly. the rest of all this is just fallout; blago is behaving desperately and threw a lucky punch because the IL legislature was so slow on the uptake. he’s going down and he’ll drag the ref with him if he can. cuz that’s the kind of classy, politically astute guy he is, doncha know?
And, I still read that part of the Constitution in the link, to mean that the Senate and the House are the final arbiters of who they seat. (Not counting the Supremes, which is where this might wind up)
And I haven’t seen anyone post anything to negate these words:
“Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of it’s own members.”
154 – bmaz pointed you to both the 17th amendment and to Powell case (wherein the Sup Ct did hold that the Senate could adjudicate whether or not someone met the Constitutional requirements for holding the office (e.g., age) but they could not refuse to seat for a reason other than the Constitutional qualifications not being met)
***************
ROTL, I could offer up one of those circular nonstatements, “I apologize if you found what I wrote to be insulting” but those are the kinds of things I do think are insulting, so I won’t. I will say that if you point out where I insulted you, I’d be happy to address that and that I truly do not mean to insult you. I do mean to address arguments I think don’t hold water. For your consideration on the “insulting” front, I’ll toss out that the phrasing you used, that I quoted, comparing those in this thread who have made the legal arguments as to why the actions Reid is taking set terrible precedents with the “legal fetishisms” of Addington, Yoo et al — you dig deep and tell me that was meant to be something other than insulting, ‘kay? But it’s okay – it doesn’t make you a bad person and I’m not going to lose sleep over it, bc as shots go, it didn’t come close to touching a nerve. *g*
That is a horrible story about your friend from Eastern Europe and you and she have my sympathies and concern. I’m sure she won’t get over that experience. I’m not sure why you wanted to introduce her story on the thread, but I can tell it’s important to you.
I don’t know you personally to know what you do or don’t give a rats ass about. I do know that, like our friend in Eastern Europe, a lot of people have suffered a great deal because of the actions and inactions of the Democrats in the Senate, led by Reid and in particular Reid’s machinations to push through legislation such as telecom amnesty, the MCA, the DTA, etc. You don’t mention those on your list of facts, but they are facts as well.
I believe that all Dem Senators may very well have asked Blago to refrain from making an appointment, but “are said to have” isn’t a “fact” and it also wouldn’t make much difference one way or the other. I think all Dem Senators other than Feingold voted for the Patriot Act, but nonetheless, section after section have been stricken as unconstitutional.
The Il Sec of State is refusing to certify and that will be settled as a matter of state law. If the Il Sup Ct says the certification is something other than a ministerial act, then the issue is resolved by state law, as it should be. However, I think even the Sec of stat has admitted that there isn’t much argument that certification is anything other than a ministerial act, so he’s likely to be mandamused.
Harry Reid asking Blago”cordially” to hold off also has impact that I can see. Blagojevich is IL’s Gov and, scum or not, a Senator from Nev has political or legal ability to bind an IL gov’s hands on who he appoints or doesn’t appoint.
Fact: Blago is under a huge cloud for selling the very seat that he then took it upon himself to ‘appoint’.
This is part of the crux and it’s wrong. Blago is under a cloud bc of the prosecutor’s press conf, but even that press conf did not say he was facing charges “for selling” the seat. Because he never did sell the seat. So that’s not a “fact. “ The fact is that he is on tape having conversations about what he can get for the seat. The prosecutor may or may not be able to prove that those conversations were actual offers to sell by Blagojevich as opposed to political wrangling (in the nature of ‘well, if we appoint Caroline Kennedy she’ll be able to raise a boatload of money for NY politicians’ kinds of discussions). I’m thinking it is likely that the prosecutor will be able to sell a jury on this being more than wrangling, but on a “theft of honest services” kind of charge, where there is no definite, one on one offer and acceptance, it’s going to be a bit hard, esp with no actual completed act constituting theft.
Still, as you mentioned and as I think I respected by recognition, it’s incredible to the point of almost inconceivable that, in the context, Burris accepted the appointment. But there is no charge so far by anyone (and I am glad to see that the State Leg is doing what it should do and subpoenaing him for clarification) that Blagojevich offered to sell the seat to Burris or that Burris accepted. So you never respond to what I raised – what is the “rule” that you are proposing as to when, why, how, etc. you determine what acts by a Gov become illegitimate bc that gov is under a scandal? Is legislation or Executive allocation funding the children’s hospital that he signs off on “void” bc he also allegedly tried to get compensation for that act?
You acknowledge, “Assuming that the hooker was not being appointed to the seat, nor had paid for it, it’s not relevant.” but that is the case with Burris (presumably, until someone tosses out some facts to the contrary). He wasn’t the hooker and didn’t pay for the seat. So what is the rule barring him? Can the children’s hospital, above, never get any funding bc of the association with Blagojevich trying to exploit them?
The truth (or fact if you prefer) is that the IL leg could have blocked what has happened and it didn’t. It could have changed legislation or impeached, and it didn’t. The 17th amendment gave the IL Leg the ability to resolve this, and the state legislators chose not to follow through. It’s like giving prosecutorial discretion to someone who refuses to indict Cheney or Bush for war crimes, or giving legislative discretion to a Congress that attempts to disembowel habeas – frustrating beyond the ken. But the focus of the frustration should be the IL leg, bc it was the entity with the power and it chose to forego a timely exercise of that power.
If you allow Reid to now start making up additional qualifications for an appointee (that they be appointed by a Gov that isn’t under the cloud of a scandal unrelated to the person being appointed) then that’s a very bad precedent and one that IMO, and Tribe notwithstanding, isn’t going to be Constitutionally valid. Why anyone would want to have the Senators from the majority party be able to start making up qualifications and use those as excuses to seat or not seat whoever gives them the best outcome for their personal politics – I can’t understand that and don’t respect it as a position. I don’t think that not respecting that argument is the same as being personally insulting to you (who I can and do respect apart from the argument and with a sympathy for the emotions behind not wanting to seat Burris). If you equate not respecting the argument with not respecting the person, I can’t really fix that and I won’t try.
If you want to make the arguments that by agreeing to support Blagojevich, Burris “bought” the position, then just think that through vis a vis every other politician and political wheeling and dealing. You want the man who “sold” (under that standard) his own seat to corporate felons and Bush torturers to be barring Blagojevich’s appointee bc Blagojevich tried, less successfully than Reid’s “deals” involving his own seat, to sell the seat and in the end had to appoint it instead of sell it?
Whatever. When people who will give Reid metaphoric wet kisses despite his maneuvering to insulate and invigorate torture, but get so bent out of shape over Blagojevich that they feel personally insulted if someone argues that Reid isn’t god on earth for bravely blocking the appointment bc he has no grounds to block it, I’m obviously the odd man out here.
Mary, brilliant post. I love how you deal with facts, which some people have difficulty with. Have a great day.
great post, mary; most points well taken. don’t agree with all the perspectives, but wrt the blago/burris case, for the most part. interestingly, tho, i also agree with many of the points rotl made on the same topic. reid has no choice but to seat burris, but it is still possible to support reid’s resistance. it’s not as if blago’s appointment was done in the spirit of the law, despite being to the letter. as i said, that doesn’t give reid the latitude to go above the law here, but i do think he has a responsibility to raise loud objections.
Dear Mary, I note that in your thoughtful, judicious, way, you wound up your presentation by tarring Reid with his lack of zeal for going after bush’s torturers. Which I happen to agree with, but which has what relevance to the issue of Burris’ right to that seat? Or of Reid’s efforts to keep him out of it? I mean you’re doing the same thing I’m doing, which is pointing out Reid’s shortcomings as a Senator. But he’s already in office, and he’s elected; not appointed by a governor who, one way or another, is going to be removed from office in the not too distant future, and a governor of whom Burris unspinnably changed his opinion 180 degrees AFTER Blago chose HIM for the seat.
And I saw that from Bmaz, and I saw nothing in there that negates Article I, Sec. 5 of the Constitution.
As for the Powell case; this is from Wilkipedia:
“In January of 1967, following allegations that Powell had mis-appropriated committee funds for his personal use, and other corruption allegations, the House Democratic Caucus stripped Powell of his Committee chairmanship. The full house refused to seat him until completion of an investigation by the Judiciary Committee. In March the House voted 307 to 116 to exclude him. Powell won the special election in April to fill the vacancy caused by his exclusion, but did not take his seat.
Powell sued in POWELL v. McCORMICK to retain his seat. In June of 1969, the Supreme Court ruled that the House had acted unconstitutionally, when it excluded Powell, a duly elected member, and he returned to the House, but without his seniority. Again, his absenteeism was increasingly noted.”
After reading this, one thing that comes to mind instantly is this: the situations are not equivalent. Powell was IN the House when all this began. He was duly elected. If he’d been appointed by a governor who was about to be impeached, the court might well have ruled differently on the matter of the House’s fitness to deny him a seat.
As I read it there was no formal investigation of Powell at any time, other than that by the Judiciary Committee. Or, if there was, it wasn’t mentioned by Wiki. No Federal Prosecutor. No State legislature set to move on the one person (not the Harlem voters) who was responsible for Powell’s appointment to the Senate.
It’s also worth noting that in spite of the Supreme Court’s finding for Powell, it wouldn’t even take the step of forcing the House to re-instate his seniority…The Seniority which he lost as a direct result of the House’s exclusion of him, which the court had just reversed.
The problem for all the pearl-clutchers is this: You’ve been acting and posting as if the legality of Blago’s picking Burris is graven in stone, and that the Senate has ZERO right to consider anything pointing to the relative fitness or unfitness of either one of these two people. You have clutched this certitude to your bosoms like it was your own child.
It’s nonsense. The very best you can say is that there is plenty of room for legal questions to be raised, and resolved.
You’ve tried to drag Caroline Kennedy into this. That too, is nonsense. Unless Kennedy has offered David Paterson some quid for the quo of his possible appointment of her, or unless Paterson is about to be impeached by the Illinois legislature, there is nothing comparable.
And in that long post, I note that you didn’t bother addressing my question of what’s the rush? The U.S. government isn’t going to fall if Burris is kept out, or is seated provisionally, even for a few months, while this plays out. (In the Powell case, it appears that he was kept out of the House for nearly 2 and a half years, while it worked it’s way to the Supreme Court. )
I have to admit, I’m a little dishonest in asking what’s the rush, because we already know what the answer is. :o) Every day that passes brings us that much closer to the probability that Blago is going to be impeached. It could happen as soon as this week, and when it happens, it’s going to make it that much harder for the people who want to see Burris seated, to keep arguing about it.
Mary, I ask again: If Blago is removed from office, and Burris withdraws, will you be posting about how corrupt and unprincipled is Harry Reid, and how the rule of law has been subverted? :o)
You clearly would not know a proper legal argument if it cracked you in the ass; why waste our time arguing with people that do? Jeebus
bmaz, is it really necessary to be so rude and personally aggressive?
or is there a restriction to making legal arguments here? i wasn’t aware of that, so please enlighten us.
No time to respond fully till the end of the day, but quickly:
I assume that you think I am throwing Reid ‘big wet kisses’.
I thought that I was being reasonable, open-minded, offering a perspective that others not from the arid West probably don’t have.
Bent out of shape over Blago? He’s a side issue.
He’s not what it’s ‘really’ about; he’s just the item that raised the curtain.
If you can find and quote where I claim that Reid is ‘god on earth’, please let me know.
I was pointing out that I do think he has more cajones than many on the left give him credit for, and I’m also in lllphd’s camp that because his strategy has been so understated, which given an atmosphere of criminal conduct and danger was prudent.
What I see as prudent, you see as craven. I think that I can follow why you’d see it that way, but I simply don’t see it as craven. The fact that I see it as prudent does not by any stretch of my imagination constitute ‘throwing wet kisses’, nor does it mean that I view Harry Reid as a god.
I do think that we are very much in the realm of psychology – with Blago, just as with Bush.
lllphd is a psychologist.
You are evidently a lawyer.
I hope it’s reasonable to state that I suspect lllphd and I tend to focus on what we see as some of the ‘psychological’ aspects of the people in the news; you are looking at it –and rightly so — through a different lens.
It was my understanding that Reid had more LEGAL latitude than he evidently does.
Okay, if the law absolutely, without any wiggle room states that Blago can appoint Burris, then so be it. I had understood the statutes were less clear.
If that’s the case, then there’s still a psychological aspect to this whole thing that lllphd and I obviously find engaging. If it garbages up EW’s threads, we can take it elsewhere. I’m sure that lllphd would be open to that option; I certainly am.
I must the very notion of me ‘throwing wet kisses’ to Harry Reid has me chuckling.
l8tr, as my kids say.
you’re truly courageous in your position, and i so admire that.
i think you have assessed our distinctions from the legal eagles here, but actually hope that there is room for all. it sure makes for a more interesting and comprehensive picture of things, to my mind.
if not, though, absolutely would be thrilled to keep it up elsewhere, so don’t hesitate to suggest.
meanwhile, i have been thinking even more about your western insights into reid’s background; that’s really had an impact on how i view him. thanks again for that.
“…but that hardly makes him politically astute.”
Couldn’t agree more. What it makes him is incredibly cyinical, and, not incidentally, perfectly willing to take a few laps in the racism pool, himself, since he’s clearly using that as a stick to beat the democrats with.
I would also make the point that (with Burris’ help) he’s taking a pretty extensive dump on the much-loved “rule of law” by ignoring the fact that the Ill. legislature voted 113-0 to begin the impeachment investigation.
If this situation involved a republican governor, why do I have this notion that Bmaz, Mary, and some others on here, would be posting about the need to fast-track that investigation, ASAP? Instead, I haven’t seen one post from them (I haven’t read them all…) asking for this to move forward quickly, so as to resolve it, one way or the other.
Lots of insight in your last two comments — LOTS of it. But I do think you are mistaken on this final point:
bmaz and Mary are, IIRC, both attorneys.
I can say in full confidence that probably both of them would defend anyone’s right – R or D – on what they see as the LEGAL merits of the case. In that sense, they really are looking at THE LAW, and not simply the identities of the individual parties involved in a case. (To their credit, IMHO.)
I think they are — rightly — concerned about setting a bad precedent.
Consider if Frist had been able to claim that because a Senator was appointed by a gov, but Frist didn’t like the person, Frist wouldn’t seat them. I assume that they are looking at how this incident could set a bad precedent for the future, which it will IF the law is not followed.
I understood that there was more latitude with respect to the specifics of the law.
I had also understood that once Blago was shown to be ’selling’ the seat (in these sense of spurning Jarrett because he wasn’t going to ‘give it for only a thank you’) that triggered other legal barriers to the appointment.
I do agree that some here are incredibly frustrated with the Dem leadership — it’s been just awful to see that torture has not been addressed. However, when I look at how carefully Levin set up his hearings last spring, but also at lllphd’s points about the sense of personal danger being aimed specifically at Dem Senators and leadership, then I suspect there are factors in play that we have no clue about. For that reason, I cut the Dem leadership a bit more slack than others seem to.
Either way, what matters is that you have to follow THE LAW.
Clearly, there’s a kerfuffle here about the nature and meaning of the law.
The good news IMHO is that Obama, Reid, the Dems (even Rahm) spotted Blago as a walking nuisance and kept clear of him. That’s the upside.
TeaLeaves…maybe so, about my speculation.
But since they’re both lawyers, maybe they can tell us what’s wrong with waiting for the…ummm…law to run it’s course with the Ill. legislature, and for that matter, Fitz’s investigation.
Again, Bmaz quoted Powell to us, and he was kept out of that House seat and the committee chairmanship for what appears to be at least two years, while that was being resolved. And don’t forget, he was repeatedly elected, and by landslides.
I believe we can function without Roland Burris for three months. :o)
Bmaz, goodness; I thought I was the one being personal and abusive.
So. What’s the rush? :o)
This is interesting…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..55244.html
Speculation about a deal in which Burris is seated, with his promise that he won’t run in 2010…
The problem is, after watching him do a backflip in that clip, I don’t know if the dems should trust him. :o)
And HuffPo again, being their rowdy selves:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..55208.html
I didn’t find that quote in the article, but if Burris really said it, or prayed it, loudly enough for a reporter to hear it, then it’s not unfair to assume that Burris believes that God thinks highly enough of him to intercede with Blago on his behalf.
Which, if it’s true, I would like to begin impeachment proceedings against God. :o)
Also; did Blago ask for a job for Patty?