Illinois Gov. Charged With Trying To Sell President-Elect Obama's Former Senate Seat
 

If the Feds' allegations correct, then what he did was breathtaking in both its audacity to try this, as well as his stupidity to try this.

Now that he's been charged, does he have to vacate his seat as Governor?
Does he still have the authority to appoint a senate replacement for Pres.-Elect Obama?
Does this give Jesse Jackson, Jr. a shot at being appointed, or does this change anything at all?

Yeah, Blago is a creep.

We here in Illinois knew Blago was going to go down soon for something...but I must admit I'm pretty shocked and incensed that this bastard had the audacity to try and sell Obama's senate seat after he had been brought up in Tony Rezko's trial and was put on the Feds radar. Hopefully they find enough evidence for the other things he's suspected of as well.

As for what this means with regards to the senate seat, it's hard to say. Hopefully Blago will step down sooner rather than later so that Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn can name the appointment. Who that will be is anyone's guess now.

Step One: Sell Obama's Seat
Step Two: If Step One fails, take seat yourself.
Step Three: Run for President in 2016
Step Four: PROFIT?

Blagoevich is no Ray Blanton. I'm sitting at O'Hare, so I can't link to wikipedia, but that's my personal high water mark for corruption.

Honestly, I wouldn't have had a problem if he were just trying to get an ambassadorship for himself. That sort of horse-trading is ok so far as I'm concerned since its still public service and he couldn't do much harm. ALL the other allegations, though, bother me a lot.

I read the indictment, and there are NO allegations that Obama knew anything about this, and its hard to see how he would given the way Illinois law works on replacing a senator.

You missed a step.

Step One: Sell Obama's Seat
Step Two: If Step One fails, take seat yourself.
Step Three: Run for President in 2016
Step Four: ??????
Step Five: PROFIT!!!!

Oh, you can do plenty harm as an ambassador. Look at what John Bolten did for us at the UN.

Yeah, but how much bad could he have done as ambassador to Lichtenstein, Liberia or Mongolia?

UN ambassador is something completely different, as I think you're seeing with Obama raising back to Cabinet-level.

How long until Blago resigns? Does he last the week? Wait to be impeached? This is going to be nuts!

one can only hope that somehow this comes with some backlash against daley as well.

Grease the right palms, he probably would've had them in the WTO with favored nation trade status.

Blago is a class A douchebag, and I fully expect to see him hang on as long as he can.

It's looking more and more likely that we'll end up having a special election for senate. This should be interesting!

Why would they have a special election? From what I have read the Lt Gov will become governor and he will make the appointment.

The Lt Gov will only become Gov if Blago is removed or resigns. It's very unlikely he will resign, and it's very questionable whether or not he will be removed before a replacement is needed. Senator Durbin has called for the state legislature to pass a law creating a special election, considering the circumstances now surrounding this appointment. The indications are that the legislature may do just that.

A special election makes alot of sense, but will Republicans in the legislature go along?

The person appointed by Blago and having to run in 2010 as the Senator appointed by the state's sleaziest governor would be a bitch of a burden to carry in a campaign.

I'd say just impeach him and let the successor make the pick...

The U.S. Senate will not seat a Blago appointment, even if he makes it.

Impeachment proceedings take time, and no one is interested in waiting months until all of that is done for Lt. Gov. Quinn to take over and make the appointment.

A special election makes a lot of sense. As for the Republicans, a special election wouldn't be terrible for them either because they can ride on the wave of disgust over Blago, who is a Democratic governor.

Rekna: I find your opposition to a special election interesting. Why not have a special election? As a Democratic-leaning resident of Illinois, I think a special election is the best way to go, and I say this knowing full well that it could lead to a Republican senator taking over when the seat was otherwise guaranteed to be held by a Democrat.

Ah, Blago. You know, just when I felt like my home state wasn't quite measuring up in the corruption category, our dear governor steps up to the plate and really hit one out of the park.

Everyone - EVERYONE - in Illinois has seen this day coming for three years. Honestly, the only part I'm surprised by is selling the Senate seat.

Incidentally, the people I really feel bad for are his kids. Blago lives a couple of blocks from my parents' house, and the only time I met the man was when I gave his kids candy on Holloween. It looks like both Blago and his wife might go to jail, and his kids are going to suffer because of it. I was talking to my dad as he drove home from work, and he said that there were 15 news vans parked outside his house. Poor kids.

I had to deal with the ambassador to Luxemburg once. It could have been a much more unpleasant experience had the ambassador been someone like Blagojevich.

First, I generally don't like "sting type" operations by government. I think they should act on real crimes. Certainly conspiracy to do illegal activity can be a crime, but in this specific issue regarding the IL Senate seat, I think we really need to see the case being made by the government before making judgment. On the surface a senate seat does have value and it is not uncommon for political favors to be exchanged between politicians. Even at the Presidential level candidates negotiate what they may be willing to do, for example, in exchange for an endorsement. Usually it happens in a manner that is implied rather than expressed. If the only thing the governor is guilty of is saying the appointment has value and that he expects something in return but never made any expressed demands, I am not sure there is a good case against him on that specific issue. From what I have read they do have enough on some other issues to make a good case of corruption against the governor.

Two reasons: 1) its the current law and 2) it would save lots of money.

Reading today that my current jerk of a congressman is considering running if there's a special election, I'm inclined to agree ;)

Actually, I'm kidding, it just means I'll vote against him a second time within one year. It's true that it would be expensive, but I can't think of a better way to ensure that our new senator is cleanly picked and unencumbered by the idiocy of Blago.

Lt. Gov. Quinn has come out in support of a special election as well, so it doesn't seem he has much interest in making the pick.

Goddamnit, say it ain't so.

Remember, all we have is what Blago said. Fitzgerald made it very clear that Jackson and the others are not targets of the investigation. That said, we'll see how this all plays out. For now, I see no reason not to give Jackson the benefit of the doubt.

The news coverage of this is making me sick. The right wing is trying desperately to link this to Obama though there is no evidence nor even suggestion from anyone involved in the investigation that Obama was involved. They have even tried to coin the phrase blagogate.... give me a friggen break...

Obama is linked to this. There is no evidence that Obama did anything wrong, but it was his seat, his state, his party, a governor he knows from his state, people he knows interested in his seat, a group of people involved from his city, etc,etc,etc.

So, why don't liberals take the "advice" given to Bush during his "scandals"? Let's put everybody under oath, ask them very detailed questions, and if they get it wrong charge them with perjury. Worked on Libby.

Yeah it worked so well on Libby Bush pardoned him.

Using the six degrees of separation game like this you can connect almost anyone in politics to this scandal. The question isn't whether he's connected to this- it's whether he or any one in his staff have engaged in inappropriate actions.

ace...the difference is Fitzgerald said repeatedly that Obama was in no way part of the investigation and those around him were cooperating....unlike the Bush WH crowd.

Libby was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice because the jury determined that he lied and impeded the FBI investigation! But you know better than the jury.

How many times has Bush gone under oath since he was elected President?

Zero. I would expect Obama to go under oath zero times as well. You will find my opinion on Executive Power won't change based on who is in the WH.
-----Added 15/12/2008 at 11 : 29 : 36-----
We know what happened and we know Fitzgerald knew who leaked the information at the time he had Libby under oath and knew it was not Libby.

Do you support Emanuel being placed under oath and possibly being set up for a perjury charge?

Do you acknowledge the fact that Fitzgerald could easily set Emanuel up for perjury?

Is that acceptable to you?
-----Added 15/12/2008 at 11 : 35 : 26-----
We certainly don't need six degrees of separation in this case. I think there has been direct contacts between all the parties, they know each other pretty well.

One thing I am not clear on. I lived near Chicago an I am familiar with Chicago politics, but I am not really familiar with inside the beltway politics.

So, is Obama bringing Chicago big league cronyism/corruption style politics to Washington or is Obama going to the big leagues of Washington cronyism/corruption style politics from Chicago?

We dont know the extent of the WH participationg because Libby lied unmder oath and impeded the investigation....and the WH destroyed e-mails related to the WH actions.

There is nothing to suggest that Emaual is a suject of the investigation or even a material witness. If so, he should cooperate

And stop with the bullshit the Lbby was set up for perjury. Its simple to avoid perjury......TELL THE TRUTH!!!!

I remember a statement from the Obama camp that they had no contact with the governor regarding the Senate seat, then I heard there was. Which was the lie?

The Obama camp is fully cooperating with any request from Fitzgerald.

You just wont accept that.

The extreme right wants Obama to be corrupt so badly that they can't even take a fair look anything he does or doesn't do. Fortunately something like 80% of the population currently approve of Obama so it seems to me that the extreme right has been very limited in their influence.

BLAGOJEVICH: They are unwilling to give me anything but appreciation. Fuck them! I’ve got this thing and it’s fucking golden, and, uh, uh, I’m just not giving it up for fuckin’ nothing. I’m not gonna do it. And I can always use it. I can parachute me there, motherfucker Obama… Fuck him. For nothing? Fuck him.

That, said in a conversation he wasn't aware was being recorded, was all I needed to vindicate Obama. I don't think this can be lumped in the Hannity-esque "I'm questioning his character judgment" attack - I don't see these two being terribly close.

I accept what has happened so far and I see no reason why Obama and his team won't cooperate in the future. In fact, I am not even sure there has been a crime regarding the Senate seat. I think Fitzgerald was force to make the arrest because of an article being released by the Chicago Tribune. I am sure his preference would have been to capture the actual payoff agreement on tape if it was going to happen. And if it was not going to happen what is the point of all of this?

However, you simply choose not to respond to my question(s).
-----Added 15/12/2008 at 01 : 51 : 52-----
Obama is a politician, and a good one. Nothing political happens in Chicago without favors being exchanged. I am not saying he broke any laws, but there is no doubt he plays the game and played the game in a machine geared for cronyism and corruption.

So Obama is corrupt because he is from Chicago... Good to know there is no prejudice here at all.... Might as well say he is corrupt because he is black (after all its the same type of logic).

I thought I made it clear that I was not saying he broke any laws, most Chicago politicians stay within the law. However, I grew up about 30 miles outside of Chicago, I saw Chicago news on TV daily, I listened to Chicago Radio, I read Chicago Newspapers, and read books written by Chicago insiders (One of the best was Mike Royco, a columnist for the Trib before he died, he wrote opinion pieces and books, a true insider with a good use of humor, he won a Pulitzer Prize) and in my experience and based on what I know a Chicago politician can not be a true independent, he can not exist without being beholden to someone. In order to get in the game you have to play the game, your connections and exchanging favors is everything. You have to have a toughness and be willing to do what needs to be done to win.

So you think Obama is in the pocket of someone else? That is funny because what I have read has said Obama owes less favors than any of our recent presidents because he raised his money primarily from individuals instead of lobbyists.

So tell me if Obama has done nothing wrong then why are you trying to stain him with Blagovich's sins?

Obama owes Rev. Wright but I would not say he is in Wright's pocket. I think Obama owes Emil Jones but I would not say Obama is in Jone's pocket. That just two. Here is a quote regarding Jones and Obama:

Barack Obama: toxic mentors start to corrode pristine campaign - Times Online

You can pretend Chicago politics is something it is not, but I don't. I was not in the Chicago area when Obama rose to power, but I know a bit about Chicago politics. the politics in Chicago has not changed over the years.


I am not too concerned about this issue and think it will blow over fast. I am not even sure if the Il gov. committed a crime regarding the Senate seat. I just find it interesting that some say without a doubt Obama was not involved or aware and that he is cooperating, and is being transparent at a higher level than other administrations would be. I think Obama has been slow to disclose information.

Washington Wire - WSJ.com : Obama Team's Statement on Blagojevich Contacts

What do they know today that they did not know last week? If they can go far enough to say nothing happened illegally why can't they say what they know now? I guess we will findout, perhaps on X-mas eve (slow news day with most focusing on the holiday).

Because the US Attorney has asked them not to... Do you think they should interfere with the requests of the US Attorney? I know that interfering with investigations is par for the course when it comes to this last administration but that doesn't make it right.

You really should read Audacity of Hope, ace. I know it might be nothing more than opposition research to you, but I think it'd be worth it. The first chapter discusses the very thing you're talking about, from the politics of the 60s to the politics of Chicago. He isn't ignorant of his roots, nor his city's history.

It's awfully pie-in-the-sky for someone so jaded (realistic, depending on how you look at it) to believe that someone could rise to power outside of the power-brokering you rightfully believe exists, but keep in mind that there are still plenty of people who rightfully have the audacity to hope for something abnormal in our world of politics (like intellectual honesty).

I think if one were to objectively review Obama's time in Illinois politics, you would find he has been one of the few to attempt to balance the interests (and influence) of the South Side, the Hyde Park reformers and the long-time Democratic establishment.

You accomplish that by engagement rather than disavowing any one interest group.

I gave a real example from an alleged quote from Obama. He goes to a Chicago power broker and asks for the mans help. I did not say they did anything illegal, but Obama could not, would not have risen to power without playing the game. That is just a reality of Chicago. In some places, like in New York, perhaps a person can come in a buy an election, like billionaire Mike Bloomberg (again not making that charge but money can make a big difference in getting elected in some places), in Chicago that won't work, it is all about the "machine". I am not making a value judgment, because if I had political ambitions in Chicago, I would have played the game also. I just say yhat we shoul not prtend.

There are many ways to get ahead in politics.

One is to build connections to, and engage with, as many constituencies as you can. Another is to have a daddy who was president.

With many other methods and means in between.

I agree a few others include being married to a former President or having a name like Kennedy.

I don't have a problem when people use available resources to get ahead, I only have a problem with dishonesty about it.

Obama used components of the Chicago political machine to rise to power and in some cases he turned his back on those who helped him. Again, I am not passing judgment, perhaps the people he abandoned deserved it, my only point is that Obama is a politician and he is good at it. That is a compliment, he is probably the only person who could have done what he did in such a short period of time. The man has "mad skills", as they say, when it comes to politics.

ace...I am just trying to understand how any of that fits into this discussion and why you raised it.

First, it was your suggestion that Obama and staff should disclose what they know (despite the request from Fitzgerald that they wait). Then some remark about subjecting themselves to perjury if they told the truth about not having a role in the governor's actions.

And then you felt a need to raise Obama's "connections" to the Democratic machine in Chicago, ignoring his "connections" to numerous other constituencies in Chicago. What was your point?

Here's an interesting tidbit. When Obama was in the IL state senate he co-sponsored an ethics bill that did not have the support of Emile Jones or the Chicago political machine (or Republicans in the Senate). It died for lack of support.

But it was revived last year and Obama, long removed from the IL senate, called Jones, using his "relationship" to convince Jones to support the bill this time around and it passed.

It was this ethics bill that indirectly contributed to where Blago is today.
-----Added 16/12/2008 at 12 : 20 : 08-----
LOL.,...I read the same thing...."using the political machine, turning his back on others....BUT I'M NOT PASSING JUDGEMENT" from Rush Limbaugh last week!

You are our very own Rush!

Guess what? The TFP community is smarter and more informed than your average Rush ditto head.

to say obama is a politician is like triumphantly identifying that shiny metal thing that takes cold bread in and spits it out later warmed and brown as a toaster. MY GOD. LOOKIT THAT! IT'S A TOASTER!

at this point, ace, it really seems to me like you're still beating a straw man from the campaign.
'the basis for it is the sequence of conservative-friendly screen images floated by the mc-cain campaign and others concerning obama as "the chosen" and all that "be afraid he's the antichrist" idiocy.

given that the point of that screen action was to reinforce the sense of panic amongst the evangelical set (i'm surprised the adverts weren't loaded up with references to 144k and such) and nothing else, maybe it's time to stop restating the obvious as if you've just discovered it.

Read the thread.

Then tell me how any of my posts have not been related to issues raised by others in the thread, other than me bringing up Libby. I raised the issue of Libby because of the link with Fitzgerald and the potential for a perjury trap, I think you knew that is why I raised that issue - but I have been know to be wrong from time to time.
-----Added 16/12/2008 at 01 : 35 : 49-----
If you don't think there is a perception held by some that Obama is above normal "politics", you certainly are entitled to that belief - I know better and I point it out to those who may be holding that view.

ace--no doubt there is as wide a range of beliefs concerning obama in a positive sense as there are in a negative sense. but the fact is that here, in our collective teacup, you aren't talking to anyone who corresponds to your preferences--if you could define The Obama Supporter, it'd be someone who thinks him Above the Fray. there are folk who are more and who are less optimistic about what he might be able to do....speaking for myself, i've been pretty interested in the cabinet nominations because there's an emergent profile of at least the tactical approach obama is taking to governance--but i hope that does not translate into lame centrist policy. there's no time for that horsepucky any more. the thatcher-reagan/neoliberal period is over.

the upshot---everyone knows full well that obama is a politician.
so your repetition machinery seems strangely directed.
maybe it's time to move on.

I can only speak for myself and have never held or expressed the sentiment that Obama is above "normal" (whatever that means) politics. I dont expect him to be a savior or miracle worker.

But I am of the opinion that he approaches politics in an inclusive manner, encourages a diversity of ideas and opinions from both politcal allies and adversaries, will be more pragmatic than ideological and will restore confidence in the WH.

All of which, again IMO, represent a fresh change from the last eight years!

But you know better.

The concept of ideology has been coming up frequently, and I agree that A) I am driven mostly by my ideology, I think Bush was also (his ideology, not always the same as mine); and B) Obama is more "pragmatic" than ideological. So, as you put it succinctly in the words you used, I used the word that Obama is a good "politician". Over the course of our exchanges it is clear your preference of pragmatism often conflicts with my preference for clear ideology. I noticed that some see "ideology" as something less than a good thing in certain circumstances just as I see "pragmatism" as something less than a good thing in certain circumstances. I am certainly willing to give Obama a chance to succeed, but I don't understand him or more specifically what he will stand for, I don't think anyone else does either. I think that is a problem and I am not sure how I can move on given that uncertainty and what is at stake.

to clarify something, i use ideology in almost exclusively it's marxist sense---it refers to a class-specific set of statements about the world that are presented as if they were general basically, and then to particular political worldviews (to the extent that they're predicated on this same structure, but each differs from others around it...) so i don't mean the same thing by it as you do, ace.

it's doubly confusing because pragmatism can be understood as a tactic rather than an ideology, one that entails cobbling together elements from a range of positions using a criterion of efficacy, say. but this says nothing about the ideological position occupied by the pragmatist---it simply points to tactics.

i was more interested in obama early in his campaign when he was running vaguely left. i understood why he shifted center as the candidacy became more serious--this (illusory at worst, self-confirming at best) notion of "centrists" as holding popular power.
i hope that he is more familiary with social democratic style action than his centrist campaign would have us believe simply because the territory that the us is heading into in order to manage this economic and political meltdown, brought to you by 30 years of degenerate neoliberalism, will be a type of social-democracy. if he knows this area and understand its logic, we'll collectively be in far better shape than would be the case if reality presents him with on the job training.

o and i do not consider myself to be particularly driven by ideology---i simply think that capitalism is a giant farce and expect that sooner or later it will either be taken apart or will implode. given that i have little more than contempt for conservatism in all its forms, i would prefer to see this process sped along by folk who operate from "the left"---whatever that means in 2008. but the particular situation in which we find ourselves does not provide folk like me the luxiry of ready-made belief systems, so i remain a kind of critical observer. just to say this.

ace...if you cant move on, then dont.

I would suggest that conservatives and the country are better served by heeding the advice of guys like Newt Gingrich on this issue rather than Rush Limbaugh:
-----Added 16/12/2008 at 03 : 40 : 52-----
QFT...only to add:

If Obama governs in a pragmatic, inclusive, consensus-building and open manner that will be far different from the last eight years, as IMO, I think he will, my guess is that he will be characterized

as a marxist by many on the far right for his domestic agenda

as only marginally better than the PNAC crowd by many on the far left for his foreign policy/national security agenda

and most Americans in the center left/right will initially support him on both and withhold judgement until they see results.

Newt Gingrich is right. They didn't offer any solution to the problems that normal Americans are facing and they lost.

Is it possible that IL could hold a one party special election to pick a senator, or if they hold a special election, will it be open to anybody?

It will be open to anyone.

dc---if my leftoid friends are any indication of a broader trend (and it's obviously impossible to say, given how odd we all are), left folk seem to be witholding judgment for the time being. the cabinet appointments are differentially alarming, but like i said above governing from a center coalition does not necessarily lock in anything at the level of policy. these are extraordinary times and i suspect that most of the old distinctions left/right are going to come down.

given the astonishing incompetence of at the level of the bush squad both at the level of reactions (in the strongest possible sense of the term) to the various modalities of implosion of the neoliberal order (talking a different game then they play, writing a blank check to the financial sector while looking to fuck the uaw in manufacturing and playing chicken with the american auto industry in the process; doing fuck all for people who find themselves in danger of losing their homes on and on) and on regulatory enforcement (madoff-ponzi confection anyone?)--and the political miscalculations--and the squandering of american credibility internationally--and so forth---i think the relief over the fact that these idiot reactionaries will soon be gone is very considerable indeed.

i'm torn about obama's position on afghanistan---the more i dig into information about what's happening there, the more ambivalent i become, simply because the logic of his statements on policy leads directly to military action against pakistan--not against the central government, but rather against the staging areas for militant groups that pakistan has de facto condoned and which are fundamental (along with astonishingly stupid and badly executed policies) for the deteriorating situation in afghanistan.
what concerns me about this is the regional spiral this could very easily unleash, one that would involve india as well...but even here, i'm waiting to see what actually happens.

what's sure is that obama will have no honeymoon. a more massive pile of shit passed from one administration to its successor i have never seen or read about even.

edit:

one thing i was wondering about with respect to governor rod is whether he actually committed a crime or if he simply appears to be a sleaze---which is not illegal.
i heard this question raised somewhere on the vast pool of idiocy that is television last night...the correlate question is why the district attorney moved when he did, and whether this leaves the investigation more or less dead in the water.

what it looks like happened is that the fitzgerald moved early in order to maybe
(a) save his job
(b) prevent a compromising situation linked to obama from arising very early in his administration

but most likely it's

(c) stuff i don't know about that motivated it.

any ideas about this?

What i heard was that the Trib was going to come out with something that would blow the cover off the investigation, and that forced Fitzgerald to come out with the indictment before he was ready.

Obama announced Duncan as his Education Secretary. Duncan is currently the head of Chicago schools, among the worst schools in the nation. Duncan's performance in Chicago has been poor based on actually improving academic performance relative to other professionals who may be better qualified, yet he was selected - why? Could it be that Duncan and Obama are pals? Could it be they play ball together? Could it be the both graduated from Harvard? Is this the fresh change you refer to? Or, is it just cronyism? Or, just business as usual in the world of Chicago style politics?

like who, ace?
and what information are you relying on for this post anyway?
it seems to me that you're ideologically opposed to public schools, have a problem with the main teachers' union and would have preferred someone who might continue the republican policy of attempting to destroy the public school system in the name of reforming it.

from what i read in the chronicle of higher education, obama seems particularly interested in the fact that duncan has been consistently data-oriented in his approach to the school system in chicago.
do you have a Problem with the use of data?

I live near Charlotte, the superintendent of Charlotte schools, Dr. Peter Gorman, has been doing a good job. I have not had the opportunity to review a long list of available candidates. Are you really interested in who I think might be better qualified? We could start with anyone leading a school system performing better than Chicago. We could even pick Washington D.C..


I still have family in the Chicago area. I have family/friends in the teaching profession in and near the Chicago area. I am going to visit next week. When I do visit and spend time in Chicago, I interact with people who recently graduated from the school system. I read. If you have information showing Chicago schools are performing and doing the job, please share it. Hell, even Obama sent his kids to a private school in Chicago.

I am ideologically predisposed to rewarding results. Duncan may be a nice guy, a highly educated guy, etc., but he gets an "F" in terms of improving Chicago schools. If you argue he needs more time, then let him take the time and show some results.

Do you have any studies, facts or data to support the claim that he's not done anything to improve the school system? I mean other then the anecdotal stuff you've posted.

Here are a couple of links to sources, the first gives Chicago schools a rating of 3 out of 10 (with 10 being the highest), D.C. schools were rated 4.

I assume you want this because of uncertainty regarding the performance of Chicago schools. In my experience it is and has been common knowledge that Chicago schools perform poorly and have performed poorly for decades. I probably could spend more time giving more links, but I am not sure the time will be worth the effort. Regardless, of what follows it will either be "cherry picked", not all the data, or whatever they shot of the day will be.

Chicago Schools - Chicago Illinois School Ratings - Public and Private

The second is from the Chicago Tribune actually commenting on the discrepancy on how graduation rates are calculated but it shows Chicago with a HS graduation rate of between 52% and 54%

The real dropout rate | Chicago Tribune

IMO, in the case of the performance of Chicago schools, a better measure of some level of success would be before and after Duncan...not relative to other cities. I agree that the high school graduation is low by national standards, but it went up 6-7% under Duncan. In the elementary schools. reading skills went up, math skills went up.....

Or maybe measure his performance against Bush's first Sec. of Ed....who, it turned out, fudged the city schools records to show greater success in improving Houston's schools than was actually achieved....the so-called "Houston Miracle" was a sham.

In the case of the two cabinet appointments made today, Interior and Agriculture, they are eminently qualified and equally important, and unlike Bush's appointments, they are not mining or agribusiness executives. I am more confident that they will not abuse their position of public trust to the benefit of the industries regulated by their respective departments.

The change from the current administration is that it is not a cabinet of sycophants and industry whores. A diversity of opinions on policy will be encouraged and the public interest put first.

DC forgot to mention that Newt was referring specifically to the video, and it's timing. The entire very short letter was posted except for these two references, which quite change the meaning:

The recent web advertisement, "Questions Remain," is a destructive distraction. Clearly, we should insist that all taped communications regarding the Senate seat should be made public. However, that should be a matter of public policy, not an excuse for political attack.

This ad is a terrible signal to be sending about both the goals of the Republican Party in the midst of the nation's troubled economic times and about whether we have actually learned anything from the defeats of 2006 and 2008.

I happen to agree with him on the ad. But to suggest that Newt wants people to "move on" from Blago and that this is not a matter worth discussing is stupid. This was about the simplest opportunity one could really have to go straight to the source:

Focus on solutions, not negative attacks: an open letter to RNC Chairman Mike Duncan

Why did you quote Ben Smith Bloggers on Newt? Don't you get tired at telling people to move on from things you don't want to hear about?

Mathew...I really dont know what your point is here? That I linked to a Politico, a marginally right-leaning pub?

My point was that if I were a Republican, I would be focusing on the abysmal party brand image and less obstructionism and more policy alternatives that are not the same old tired far right talking points instead of slinging bullshit in the hope that something might stick.
-----Added 17/12/2008 at 06 : 53 : 29-----
If I were a Republican, I would be focusing on this:

http://pollingreport.com/images/ABCparty.GIF
Only one out of four Americans trust your guys in Washington.

None of the data you presented from either of these links constitute "studies, facts or data to support the claim that he's not done anything to improve the school system".

In order to gauge whether or not someone has done something to improve something else you might want to compare how things were before and how things were after. Not only that, but you also need to have a sufficient understanding of the underlying forces at work, because it is quite possible that he has gone above and beyond the call of duty to improve things, but other forces at work foiled him.

In other words, these words, I do not think they mean what you think they mean.

In fact, one of aces' links, Great Schools (whoever they are) praised the appointment of Duncan:

Of course you don't get my point DC, that's no surprise. Why do you bother telling me that anymore. That's a given - that and you want me to "move on" from whatever my thoughts are on any given topic.

With the exception of that video, anytime I've heard anyone mention Blago, has made clear that there is no evidence of involvement by Obama, and what evidence there is points to the contrary. But this is a story that needs to be investigated, I know you don't want to hear about it, but it does.

DC, it's hilarious that you really think if you were republican you would be focusing on that irrelevant chart, and not this. That's comedy. I would love to see how this board would light the fuck up if the situation were reversed.

Thanks for your insight into my thought process. I guess you think you know me better than I know myself! :)

I'm pleased you think the chart is irrelevant....keep thinking that way.:thumbsup:

Others beat me to it, but with out context of before and after the data you've posted is useless.

all i'll add here is that i would rather have someone who operates on the basis of data and who has had some success in dealing with an extremely complex (byzantine might be better) system appointed to head the department of education than someone without that predeliction and experience. this not only in itself, but also because the problems with the educational system are systemic. changing the public education system, moving it away from idiotic pseudo-solutions like "no child left behind" for example, will be a quite difficult matter---but i think it is one of the most important political and practical issues facing obama's administration, to at least make some headway in this regard.

as for what he actually does, i'll withold judgment until there's something to talk about.

How about this piece of data: Obama did not send his children to Chicago public schools.

O.k. granted he is rich, etc., so I ask you and for simplicity lets take out the top and bottom 10% of Chicago public schools so we have the remaining 80%, would you send a child you loved to one of those schools chosen at random? I would not. I don't know anyone who would, if they had a choice. However, in most other places in this country I would have no problem with that choice.

ace--what exactly are you interested in demonstrating here? that you don't like obama? if that's the point, why bother with all this mishandled infotainment?

This is a cabinet choice were we can actually look at the nominee based on some objective measure of performance in a role consistent to what they will be responsible for in Obama's cabinet, that is why this selection is interesting.

For clarification, do you think Obama's choice is the best available candidate for the post based on actual performance?

My view is that he is not and the selection is an example of cronyism, very typical of Chicago style politics.
-----Added 18/12/2008 at 12 : 16 : 13-----
Obama supporters are not willing to admit to Obama's obvious faults. They have a distorted view of Bush and by comparison have unrealistic expectations of who Obama is, what he is about, and the "change" he is going to bring to the WH. Obama in my view is like a snake oil salesmen. I enjoy pointing out his faults to the most faithful Obama supporters.

How about this for a question- take out the top and bottom 10% of restaurants in Chicago. That leaves 80% of them, would you pay to eat at one of them?

What does this have to do with whether or not the person in question increase or decreased the educational system in Chicago? Nothing as far as I know. But it probably has the same relevance as the blurb you posted.

So, after asking twice now and getting basically anecdotal claims and gibberish for answers, I take you don't have any actual facts or data to support you're claim he's done nothing to improve the Chicago public school system.

Why stop there? Why not eliminate the top 34% and the bottom 65% so that all that is left is the one school that is 66% as good as the best school. Would you send your child there? Did Obama? Ladies and gentlemen, Chewbacca is a wookie. I wouldn't send my child to any 72nd percentile schools ever, and no one I know would either, so this is proof, ipso facto that Obama's nomination for Secretary of Education is unqualified. Need I even say it? Okay, I will: QED.

The only interesting thing about what you've said in this thread in the past few days is how much stamina you have when it comes to pretending that you have any sort of objective reason to believe the things you believe.

ace---i've made my positions on obama pretty clear.

you've made yours even clearer, though you seem to have trouble simply saying it "nope, i don't like the guy." and instead, as filtherton pointed out just above, are busy as a beaver trying to find "evidence" that will make your arbitrary personal distaste seem to you more than that.

Hell yes! Chicago has the best restaurants in the country if you ask me.:thumbsup:

They don't publish the information you really need to analyze the Chicago Public School System as a whole. You certainly can look at the data they do publish (biased just as you think the data I give is and does not give comparative information to other districts), you could look at rating websites often related to general area demographics (like I did), or the National Assessment of Education Progress data (which also has flaws), but I would generally measure the effectiveness of a district based on the disbursements or ranges from the mean or the standard deviations. When we take the middle 80% we are only looking at about 1.5 standard deviations from the mean. A school district being run well will have a tight distribution in my opinion. Chicago's is wide, meaning they have many good schools and they have many poorly performing schools, almost making the mean meaningless if you were faced with a random selection. It also means that those managing those schools either don't care about the school performing poorly or they don't know how to fix them. there are many school districts and systems in this country where the differences or the range between poorly performing schools and those performing well is small, even when there is a diverse population of students and income levels.

So, short of me going to Chicago and going through their raw data, there is no way for me to objectively prove to your satisfaction what everyone who is paying attention already knows.

I throw up the white flag. But, for the record I would never enroll a child of mine in a Chicago Public School.
-----Added 18/12/2008 at 03 : 04 : 57-----
Nope, I don't like the guy.

Great. Perhaps we can all agree you don't like Obama now. Wasn't so hard was it?

But it seems odd to me that you would argue Duncan hasn't made any improvements in the Chicago Schools when all I've read is he's done several positive things. Like this article out of Seattle-


Link Here

Am I sure Duncan, or for that matter Obama, will be good for the country? No, not at all. But I'd give him a better chance for success in the field of education then I would someone who had a background in running horse shows as the head of FEMA.

Every election and subsequent appointments are a crap shoot to some degree. I would have chosen different people for some of Obama's cabinet, but that doesnt mean any of those he selected are not qualified.

ace...it sounds like you want to use only one measure (with no data to support it) to "prove" that Obama did not select the "most" qualified person? WTF? Only a fool would hire someone based solely on one measure (and misrepresent that measure), and not consider a range of factors including personal traits and character, vision, experience, etc.

What is clear to most objective observers is that the country's satisfaction with Bush as he leaves office is the lowest of any president since Nixon and that Obama brings the best opportunity for taking the country in a new direction.

I suspect that the 20-25% of Americans who still believe that Bush was good for the country are the same ones who wont be willing to give Obama a chance.

Yep...ace, I include you...but it would be nice if once in awhile, you have facts on your side.

This is a fundamental problem. There is data that supports my view, you just don't like it, so then you say there is no data - "WTF?" Then you create a strawman argument, that a fool would hire someone based solely on one measure - "WTF?" So, now I am left with a dilemma - do I respond in a manner that illustrates how a decision like this is made and how the deciding factor among qualified candidates may come down to one or two factors. This general decision making 101 explanation then offends people who then say that I am stating the obvious, or I come across as offensive because I can't believe what I am having to explain and will do it in a mocking manner. It is a no win situation. so I choose the latter.

Duncan is highly educated and in charge of the third largest school district in the nation, these factors alone make him worthy of consideration. He has lead the school district to some improvements, he has accomplished some of his goals, he has the respect of many of the constituents interested in Chicago schools, i.e., teachers, parents, business, political leaders, etc., all of that is good and he could be put on a short list. Now it get interesting, what final criteria do we use to make the final selection, and then how much weight do we give to each? Here is a clue - the decision maker decides, or as Bush would put it - "I am the decider". The decision made tells us a little bit about the "decider". In this case, Duncan has not completed his job in Chicago. Chicago schools are well below the national averages in almost every measure of a successful school district (If you don't think that is true and is not a fact, I challenge you to show me, I have already given some reference sources, and you don't like them), the Chicago school system is failing, so it is clear that Obama did not use actual performace as a criteria for the selection, or if he did he put a secondary weight to it. So, the question is what was given primary weight? An honest person can admit when they select someone based on familiarity, loyalty or some other intangiable. And that is all I have put on the table, my belief is the selection was cronyism, I could be wrong but I have not seen anything to contradict my view.

"New direction?" I stated several times that the US under Obama won't be much different than the US under Bush, just the US was not much different than when Clinton was President. The "new direction", "change is coming", etc, etc, are campaign slogans. As Pelosi recently told one of Obama's guys, "This is a House matter, we will handle it", Obama is not going to change anything without the buy in of others. The bush myth that is perpetuated is that Bush acted unilaterally, that is B.S. and we know it. the dissatisfaction ratings Bush has are related to a war weary nation in a recession and is related to the overall dissatisfaction with Washington politics as evidenced by Congress' approval rating.

I repeat, I am willing to give Obama a chance. And, I think his public works announcement may be the spark to triggers renewed economic growth. I have said that in the past as well. My view of Obama is not blinded by my dislike of him, the way manny liberals were blinded by their hate of Bush.

You presented nothing to dispute what I have stated, the information I have provided or the references I pointed to. Your fantasy like view as illustrated above,and it is repeated, is interesting and I think I have gotten a handle on why. Every once in awhile it is worth the effort to step outside of the box and take a look in, it is very worth while. And the funny thing is when you go back into the box, it is alot more fun.
-----Added 19/12/2008 at 05 : 35 : 33-----
I did not think that issue was in doubt. I thought anyone who reads my posts on this forum when they involved Obama would have known I don't like him. I also thought I gave reasons why I don't like him. Perhaps, I engage in tautology more. Learned that word here, it means needlessly repeating an idea. Did I tell you that I don't like Obama.



There is a difference between doing positive things and being the best qualified person. When I payed football, I did some positive things on the field, but that did not get me an NFL contract. Gee, I wish I had you as my agent.


Why don't you folks respond to my premise. I think the selection was cronyism. Even cronies can do good things in the jobs they get, but sometimes you want the best. I would certainly pick BFF for somethings just becasue he/she is my BFF, but when results are most important, I go based on someone who can get the job done and has a proven track record. I would not want a trainee doing surgery on me, do you?

Cronyism is appointing a friend without regard to qualifications.

You agree that Duncan is qualified ("most" qualified is purely subjective and includes your bias), so where's the cronyism?

I would argue cronyism is showing favoritism to those who are your friends or to those who you owe favors. And in this case, given the seriousness of the need for education reform, I truly would have considered this post one of the most important and would have selected an innovator with a track record of real success.

Hey, I loved that you responded to the point.:thumbsup:

Your premise was that the nominee was unqualified because he failed to improve Chicago's public schools. You had absolutely no real reason to think that he had failed to improve Chicago's public schools because you could produce absolutely no real data even comparing meaningful changes in school quality during his watch. All you could do was repeatedly assert that you wouldn't send your kids to a Chicago public school.

We all get your premise, and have been waiting and waiting for you to provide some sort of objective basis for it. Instead you just offer up tangential information about standard deviations and means, as if those things actually conclusively measure the quality of the person running the show.

Even if schools had improved dramatically on his watch, that wouldn't be conclusive proof that he was a good leader. School systems are complex beasts.

How's this, ace - I'm very seriously sending both of my kids to the local elementary school instead of Catholic school like we planned. That's because the school is quite good and offers a variety of programs and has excellent teachers.

Pretty much torpedoes your theory, doesn't it?

What, this thread died?

It is hard to imagine a more delicious scene than Teddy Kennedy explaining why Burriss shouldn't be seated because the person who appointed him is CHARGED with a crime.

We can't have people in the senate who know someone who might have committed a crime!

It's not any more silly than Republicans refusing to seat the certified winner of a close election because the court assisted recount procedure didn't go their way.

Tuesday should be an interesting day in the Senate.

I suspect Burris will get floor privileges but no office or desk on the floor.

And Coleman will lose his office and desk on the floor, but Franken will be shut out by a Republican fillibuster unless 2-3 Repubs show a little class.
-----Added 4/1/2009 at 12 : 58 : 57-----
But nothing will be as entertaining as the end of the last session when Senators of both parties heaped hours of praise on the convicted felon (Alaskan Republican Stevens) in their midst.

In Mn. someone wins and someone loses, right? How could the GOP in the Senate block someone who's been certified the winner of the state*? Wouldn't that mean those citizens would have no rep.?

*I'm going with the thought Franken wins it, as it looks now he's up by a couple hundred. But if Coleman wins and he's certified by the state then they should seat him as well.

The counting, including all the questionable absentee ballots, is over in MN and Franken won.

The problem he faces is that MN is the only state in the country that wont certify an election UNTIL all legal challenges have been resolved. Colemen intends to take it to court and could potentially draw it out for months.

I almost think Coleman is a bigger douche than Blago. At least Blago seems to be certifiable. Coleman's just a sore-loser asshole.

Coleman is a douche bag who is also currently under an FBI investigation for allegations of taking $$$$ from benefactors w/o reporting it on Senate personal disclosures form - a charge very similar to that which resulted in the conviction of Ted Stevens....another felon in the Republican ranks?
-----Added 4/1/2009 at 06 : 19 : 05-----
The really wild scenario would be for Blago to show up at the Senate on Tuesday, along with Burris. Under Senate rules, Blago could not be prevented from access to the Senate floor (all sitting governors have access) so that he could make the case, one-on-one with Senators, for his appointment.

Beyond that, if Burris wants to pursue it through the courts, I dont see how he can lose. The appointment was legal, by any measure.

The funny thing about Coleman: the day after election day, when he had eked out a small margin of victory, claimed victory and called on Franken to concede in order to "save the taxpayers of Minnesota money". He did this despite the fact that MN election law (and any sort of commonsense understanding of statistics) prescribes a recount for such infinitesimal margins. Now that he's losing by a small margin, he clearly isn't so concerned with fiscal responsibility.

He is a douche, but he's popular with the Michelle Bachman crowd, and those dipshits apparently make up a sizable portion of the middle part of the state.

I think its fair to say that he is not all that popular, having the distinction of losing to a professional wrestler (Ventura beat him for governor in 98) and now to a comedian. He only won his term in the Senate in 02 because the incumbent, Paul Wellstone, died in a plane crash a week before the election.

Get the bum out now!

When Franken gets sworn in and if Burris does as well, the Democrats will have their largest majority (59) since 1979....and a lot to prove!

Actually, I think Blago's nomination of Burris was pretty shrewd. On the one hand, he can say "look, I didn't sell the Senate seat. No matter what spin you put on my words on the tape, the fact is that I nominated someone who really doesn't have any scandals in his past and I didn't get anything out of it personally." So he uses the nomination as part of his defense to impeachment and to the criminal charges. Yes, it's after the fact, but he still is going to say "no harm, no foul, folks" -- and who knows, it might just work.

It's also shrewd because he now has the Bobby Rushes of the world, and their ilk, sniffing around for "racist" opposition to Burris. Burris himself is, to all appearances, clean and honest (at least by IL standards), and he's been trying unsuccessfully to move up to higher office for a long time. Here is his chance. Blago gets points with the African-American political powers in Chicago and elsewhere and forces the rest of the Democratic party into either accepting his choice or having to publicly refuse to seat the only African-American face in the Senate. Understand, I'm not sure how the Democratic caucus can legally refuse to seat him -- he was duly appointed by the sitting governor (who is legally innocent until proven guilty), and he meets the constitutional qualifications for a Senator. How can they not seat him? And besides, if he does a marginally decent job (which shouldn't be that difficult; it's hard to screw up royally in less than two years) he will be the incumbent coming into the next election. What on earth are Reid, et al. thinking?

I would not have selected him based on his failure to actually improve the schools to a level that would make Chicago schools competitive with other school systems. I know he took on a big job, my point is give him time to prove he can actually accomplish something of note. I say reward results.

You don't accept my knowledge, experience or the information I provided. Do your own homework, if you conclude Chicago schools are good, so me how you came to that conclusion.
-----Added 6/1/2009 at 11 : 22 : 39-----
No.

Chicago is a great city in many ways. There are a lot of good hard working people in the city and some of the schools are excellent. However on a whole the school system has been a failure relative to other school systems for decades.
-----Added 6/1/2009 at 11 : 28 : 57-----
I think it further illustrates the lack of conviction on the part of Democrats. State legislators failed to act and Blogo simply exercised his power to appoint. Burris is a safe pick and should be seated, I doubt anyone expects that Burris would either run for reelection or gets reelected if he ran, so they should let him serve out the term. The state should be represented by two senators. Burris is going to tow the party line, I am not sure what the problem is, other than the fact that Democrats got caught up in their own empty rhetoric.

I agree....shewed on the part of Blago.

Inexplicable on the part of Reid and the Senate Democrats. ..other than not wanting to face a barrage of Republican ads for the next two years with photos of Burris and Blago leading up to the 2010 election for the full term of that seat.

Their Constitutional argument is that the Senate "shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members..."

The Senate could, for example, refuse to seat a person who won an election where there was compelling evidence that the election was corrupt. To extend that to invalidating an appointment by a governor facing compelling evidence that he is corrupt is a stretch of their constitutional authority.

I think Burris will be certified and seated by the end of the week and he will agree not to seek the full term in 2010.

I understand their consitutional argument, but I don't think it flies, especially in light of the Adam Clayton Powell case.

Burris was barred from being seated today.

Empty rhetoric is hardly unique to the Democrats.
-----Added 6/1/2009 at 12 : 35 : 11-----
I agree....invoking the Senate rules, particularly Rule II - the rule requiring certification by the state's Sec of State, would not stand a Constitutional test.

Reid in particular. Did you see him on Meet the Press Sunday? He even admitted there was virtually no legal authority not to seat Burris. So, what's the point? And when is Reid going to tell us what he said to Blogo regarding the seat? So much for "open" government and Obama's hope and change campaign rhetoric, and he has not even been sworn in yet.