FREE TAPATALK APP

Alferd_Packer · 13th November 2008, 06:52 PM

Good. Light a fire under that shifty, no-good, political wack-job govenor BloJo.

He's had all summer to think about who will replace Obama, but he's trying to milk the decision for all the political clout he can.

Ashhat

dudalb · 14th November 2008, 01:46 PM

Hey, it's Illinois politics, what do you expect?

geni · 14th November 2008, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by Alferd_Packer

Good. Light a fire under that shifty, no-good, political wack-job govenor BloJo.

He's had all summer to think about who will replace Obama, but he's trying to milk the decision for all the political clout he can.

Ashhat

Is it actualy illegal to auction the position off?

Alferd_Packer · 10th December 2008, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by geni

Is it actualy illegal to auction the position off?

Apparently, yes it is.

PitPat · 10th December 2008, 10:34 AM

I saw a press conference yesterday with Bobby Rush, Chicago's US Rep, who demanded that the seat be filled with an African American. This seemed really odd to me; it suggests that Obama was elected statewide for his blackness rather than his fitness. I'm for affirmative action and all, but this goes kinda beyond the pale.

Of course, Rush says he has no interest himself in the position, which could be true, I have no idea. When asked if he had been in contact with Jackson Jr or other potential black candidates to discuss the possibility of pursuing it, he said no -- that he wanted to stay "above the fray".

drkitten · 10th December 2008, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by Alferd_Packer

Apparently, yes it is.

Ironically, I'm not sure it would have been if the governor had been up-front about it and doing it on behalf of the Illinois instead of himself.

If he had said "All right, Illinois is having financial troubles, so I will auction the senate seat off to the person who makes the largest donation to the state treasury," he might have been in the clear (legally).

Kaylee · 10th December 2008, 10:51 AM

Yesterday, I watched a news show on-line that briefly discussed this. Apparently it was legal to negotiate pledges to cover future campaign costs for the governor at least until January 1 of 2009, but it wasn't legal to negotiate a new job for the governor.

The January 1 cutoff probably has to do with new ethics laws passed this past fall.

I didn't bookmark the video, I'll see if I can find it later today.

Darth Rotor · 10th December 2008, 11:02 AM

Originally Posted by PitPat

I saw a press conference yesterday with Bobby Rush, Chicago's US Rep, who demanded that the seat be filled with an African American.

WTF, Is this a chocolate Senate Seat? (Reference to the Ray Nagin and his New Orleans Chocolate City barb.) Do you have a link to his remarks, I'd like to get them in context.

Quote:

This seemed really odd to me; it suggests that Obama was elected statewide for his blackness rather than his fitness. I'm for affirmative action and all, but this goes kinda beyond the pale.

How about his "blackness" and his fitness both? It need not be either or. Being black hardly implies unfit, eh?

DR

Kaylee · 10th December 2008, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by drkitten

Ironically, I'm not sure it would have been if the governor had been up-front about it and doing it on behalf of the Illinois instead of himself.

If he had said "All right, Illinois is having financial troubles, so I will auction the senate seat off to the person who makes the largest donation to the state treasury," he might have been in the clear (legally).

I respectfully disagree, drkitten. I don't think that legally the senate seat is regarded as an asset of the state. The power of government, at least theoretically, resides with its citizens. (Lincoln's quote of "A government of the people, by the people and for the people" comes to mind.)

Also, if a governor's appointment could be sold then theoretically the state could demand compensation when the seat is decided by election also. For example, potential candidates would be expected to pay the government for the privilege of being put on the ballot. Except for filing fees in many jurisdictions, that doesn't occur. The filing fees, when they occur, are nominal and probably serve to cover justified clerical expenses. It doesn't bring in anything like what an auction would if that was the way political business was legally done in the US.

For nonUSAsians -- who becomes a senator is almost always decided by an election. The Senate does allow a governor to appoint a senator temporarily but only when the state's original senator has died, resigned or been expelled by the Senate. A special election must be held to determine who the permanent senator will be for the rest of the original senator's 6-year term.

Some states override this special exception allowed by the Senate, and don't permit their governor to appoint a temporary senator. The special election must be held immediately.

Kaylee · 10th December 2008, 11:35 AM

Anybody recall when most president-elects resign from their previous political job? I think most of our previous presidents have been governors or senators.

I would assume that normally most of them resign closer to November 4th, election day. The fact that Obama didn't -- could that be a clue that he knew about the federal investigation?

PitPat · 10th December 2008, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

WTF, Is this a chocolate Senate Seat? (Reference to the Ray Nagin and his New Orleans Chocolate City barb.) Do you have a link to his remarks, I'd like to get them in context.

How about his "blackness" and his fitness both? It need not be either or. Being black hardly implies unfit, eh?

DR

Couldn't find a transcript; I saw it on C-SPAN. Video here: http://www.cspan.org/Watch/watch.asp...aId=HP-A-13277

That he was African American surely played a factor for many voters, hard to believe it wouldn't and I didn't intend to imply that fitness and race are mutually exclusive. Just doesn't sound like a good idea to require it in the replacement process.

drkitten · 10th December 2008, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by Kaylee

The fact that Obama didn't -- could that be a clue that he knew about the federal investigation?

I doubt it. I think most resign later (closer to inauguration day). He's also been one of the most active president-elects in history; he campaigned on a platform of being able to introduce competent change, and won the election in a "historic" period (meaning that historians will be arguing about the 2008-9 economy and the Bush-Obama transition for decades if not centuries).

I can't think of any other equally "historic" transitions since FDR, or perhaps since Lincoln. Everyone else took over in the middle of a relatively quiet watch.

casebro · 10th December 2008, 05:26 PM

Unless the economy does get better under Obama, anything historic about his presidency will be from some other phenomenon. His presidency may be historic, but not for reasons having economic impact.

drkitten · 11th December 2008, 07:11 AM

Originally Posted by casebro

Unless the economy does get better under Obama, anything historic about his presidency will be from some other phenomenon.

I can't imagine the economy NOT getting better under Obama.

Or to put it another way --- if the economy does NOT get better under Obama, that will itself be a fact of historic importance, since it will represent a substantially deeper and longer depression than the one from the 1930s (remember that the stock market had mostly recovered from the 1929 crash by late 1930; the overall bottom was reached in [[March] 1933 and then things started "getting better").

So we're looking at 41 months there. If things haven't improved by the end of Obama's first term, we're looking at more than 60 months of continuous decline.

On a more personal note, after the train wreck that was Bush's economic policy, anyone could improve the economy.

13th November 2008, 06:52 PM	#1
Alferd_Packer Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 7,279	Obama to resign from the Senate this Sunday Good. Light a fire under that shifty, no-good, political wack-job govenor BloJo. He's had all summer to think about who will replace Obama, but he's trying to milk the decision for all the political clout he can. Ashhat
	__________________ No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post

10th December 2008, 09:47 AM	#4
Alferd_Packer Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 7,279	Originally Posted by geni Is it actualy illegal to auction the position off? Apparently, yes it is.
	__________________ No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post

10th December 2008, 10:51 AM	#7
Kaylee Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3,874	Yesterday, I watched a news show on-line that briefly discussed this. Apparently it was legal to negotiate pledges to cover future campaign costs for the governor at least until January 1 of 2009, but it wasn't legal to negotiate a new job for the governor. The January 1 cutoff probably has to do with new ethics laws passed this past fall. I didn't bookmark the video, I'll see if I can find it later today.
Kaylee Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3,874	__________________ When everyone think alike, no one thinks very much. -- Walter Lippman''

10th December 2008, 11:02 AM	#8
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Rat cheer Posts: 34,378	Originally Posted by PitPat I saw a press conference yesterday with Bobby Rush, Chicago's US Rep, who demanded that the seat be filled with an African American. WTF, Is this a chocolate Senate Seat? (Reference to the Ray Nagin and his New Orleans Chocolate City barb.) Do you have a link to his remarks, I'd like to get them in context. Quote: This seemed really odd to me; it suggests that Obama was elected statewide for his blackness rather than his fitness. I'm for affirmative action and all, but this goes kinda beyond the pale. How about his "blackness" and his fitness both? It need not be either or. Being black hardly implies unfit, eh? DR
	__________________ Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission. "Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

10th December 2008, 11:19 AM	#9
Kaylee Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3,874	Originally Posted by drkitten Ironically, I'm not sure it would have been if the governor had been up-front about it and doing it on behalf of the Illinois instead of himself. If he had said "All right, Illinois is having financial troubles, so I will auction the senate seat off to the person who makes the largest donation to the state treasury," he might have been in the clear (legally). I respectfully disagree, drkitten. I don't think that legally the senate seat is regarded as an asset of the state. The power of government, at least theoretically, resides with its citizens. (Lincoln's quote of "A government of the people, by the people and for the people" comes to mind.) Also, if a governor's appointment could be sold then theoretically the state could demand compensation when the seat is decided by election also. For example, potential candidates would be expected to pay the government for the privilege of being put on the ballot. Except for filing fees in many jurisdictions, that doesn't occur. The filing fees, when they occur, are nominal and probably serve to cover justified clerical expenses. It doesn't bring in anything like what an auction would if that was the way political business was legally done in the US. For nonUSAsians -- who becomes a senator is almost always decided by an election. The Senate does allow a governor to appoint a senator temporarily but only when the state's original senator has died, resigned or been expelled by the Senate. A special election must be held to determine who the permanent senator will be for the rest of the original senator's 6-year term. Some states override this special exception allowed by the Senate, and don't permit their governor to appoint a temporary senator. The special election must be held immediately.
Kaylee Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3,874	__________________ When everyone think alike, no one thinks very much. -- Walter Lippman'' Last edited by Kaylee; 10th December 2008 at 11:36 AM. Reason: clarity

14th November 2008, 01:46 PM	#2
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 23,023	Hey, it's Illinois politics, what do you expect?

14th November 2008, 02:13 PM	#3
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,642	Originally Posted by Alferd_Packer Good. Light a fire under that shifty, no-good, political wack-job govenor BloJo. He's had all summer to think about who will replace Obama, but he's trying to milk the decision for all the political clout he can. Ashhat Is it actualy illegal to auction the position off?

10th December 2008, 10:34 AM	#5
PitPat Muse Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Seattle Posts: 605	I saw a press conference yesterday with Bobby Rush, Chicago's US Rep, who demanded that the seat be filled with an African American. This seemed really odd to me; it suggests that Obama was elected statewide for his blackness rather than his fitness. I'm for affirmative action and all, but this goes kinda beyond the pale. Of course, Rush says he has no interest himself in the position, which could be true, I have no idea. When asked if he had been in contact with Jackson Jr or other potential black candidates to discuss the possibility of pursuing it, he said no -- that he wanted to stay "above the fray".

10th December 2008, 10:38 AM	#6
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by Alferd_Packer Apparently, yes it is. Ironically, I'm not sure it would have been if the governor had been up-front about it and doing it on behalf of the Illinois instead of himself. If he had said "All right, Illinois is having financial troubles, so I will auction the senate seat off to the person who makes the largest donation to the state treasury," he might have been in the clear (legally).

10th December 2008, 11:35 AM	#10
Kaylee Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3,874	Anybody recall when most president-elects resign from their previous political job? I think most of our previous presidents have been governors or senators. I would assume that normally most of them resign closer to November 4th, election day. The fact that Obama didn't -- could that be a clue that he knew about the federal investigation?
Kaylee Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 3,874	__________________ When everyone think alike, no one thinks very much. -- Walter Lippman''

10th December 2008, 11:46 AM	#11
PitPat Muse Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Seattle Posts: 605	Originally Posted by Darth Rotor WTF, Is this a chocolate Senate Seat? (Reference to the Ray Nagin and his New Orleans Chocolate City barb.) Do you have a link to his remarks, I'd like to get them in context. How about his "blackness" and his fitness both? It need not be either or. Being black hardly implies unfit, eh? DR Couldn't find a transcript; I saw it on C-SPAN. Video here: http://www.cspan.org/Watch/watch.asp...aId=HP-A-13277 That he was African American surely played a factor for many voters, hard to believe it wouldn't and I didn't intend to imply that fitness and race are mutually exclusive. Just doesn't sound like a good idea to require it in the replacement process.

10th December 2008, 11:56 AM	#12
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by Kaylee The fact that Obama didn't -- could that be a clue that he knew about the federal investigation? I doubt it. I think most resign later (closer to inauguration day). He's also been one of the most active president-elects in history; he campaigned on a platform of being able to introduce competent change, and won the election in a "historic" period (meaning that historians will be arguing about the 2008-9 economy and the Bush-Obama transition for decades if not centuries). I can't think of any other equally "historic" transitions since FDR, or perhaps since Lincoln. Everyone else took over in the middle of a relatively quiet watch.

10th December 2008, 05:26 PM	#13
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,884	Unless the economy does get better under Obama, anything historic about his presidency will be from some other phenomenon. His presidency may be historic, but not for reasons having economic impact.
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,884	__________________ Please pardon me for having ideas, not facts. Some have called me cynical, but I don't believe them. It's not how many breaths you take. It's how many times you have been breathless that counts.

11th December 2008, 07:11 AM	#14
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by casebro Unless the economy does get better under Obama, anything historic about his presidency will be from some other phenomenon. I can't imagine the economy NOT getting better under Obama. Or to put it another way --- if the economy does NOT get better under Obama, that will itself be a fact of historic importance, since it will represent a substantially deeper and longer depression than the one from the 1930s (remember that the stock market had mostly recovered from the 1929 crash by late 1930; the overall bottom was reached in [[March] 1933 and then things started "getting better"). So we're looking at 41 months there. If things haven't improved by the end of Obama's first term, we're looking at more than 60 months of continuous decline. On a more personal note, after the train wreck that was Bush's economic policy, anyone could improve the economy.