Illinois Governor Arrested

This issue is so dead no matter what happens in Illinois with the Governor. Most people are more worried about the state of economy and other more important concerns which has something to do with their day to day lives.

As revel epitomizes in the last post, the Democrats don't care about it, Finn. Corruption is not an issue, unless it is Republican corruption, then and only then is it even interesting or an issue at all. Learn it, love it, live it, Finn. I learned that lesson very well during the miserable 8 years we spent with the Clintonoids.

Okie, you are attacking a strawman. No one is defending Blago, and no one will defend O or any of his people should they be complicit.

I really didn't see this attitude in the Reps. I remember, when really damning info was coming out about Nixon, virtually every Rep defended him almost to the bitter end. They even cried when he resigned.

all of Illinois state politics is alleged to be crooked, GOP and Dem, so this is not a partisan issue. I find the idea that a DEM Presient elect would have no contact with his home state DEM GOV to be unreasonable. It would look very strange for Obama to treat his Gov this way.

This is not true ...a relatively large number of Republicans (about one third of them) on the Judiciary Committee joined Democrats in approving the articles of impeachment against Nixon. And significant numbers of Republicans in the House and Senate indicated they would support those articles when the vote was taken. Therefore, Nixon resigned (at Republican urging) before any votes could be taken on the floor of the House or Senate.

You should contrast that with the Judiciary vote on the articles of impeachment for Clinton. Not a single Democrat on the Judiciary committee voted to approve the articles of impeachment for Clinton. And this proceeding actually went to the floor of the House where only a handful of democrats (less than five) voted Clinton guilty. When it went to the Senate, not one Democrat voted Clinton guilty.

Both the Democrats and Republicans will defend their own...to the bitter end. And the bitter end is always when the "really damning info" comes out...in Blago's case, the bitter end arrived when Fitz arrested him and quoted Blago's comments from the tapes. You and the Democrats shouldn't claim virtue because you no longer support an obviously guilty individual.

As slkshock7 points out, no, Republicans did not defend Nix0n in the same manner. In fact I recall certain of them that went to him and said, pal, its time to go. Not one lousy Democrat did that with the corrupt Clinton, in fact Clinton is still the star of the party. The Democratic Party is run like the mafia. Most Republicans that are shown corrupt are also shown the door.

To refresh you on history, I have pointed out many times, and if you would study your history, both JFK and LBJ used the FBI to conduct surveillance on their political enemies, every bit as serious as Nixon ever did, yet this is seldom mentioned. Nixon was drummed out because the press hated Nixon, as did all Democrats and liberals.

I remember people voting for Nixon, grudgingly, Nixon was not well liked even by Republicans, but as is common in the Republican Party, the nominee generally is nominated because they paid their dues, worked their way to the top, and Nixon had done this, so he was next in line. I do not hold Nixon in high esteem, never did even before he was elected, but to be perfectly accurate, Nixon is not and never was any worse or as corrupt as many of our presidents. LBJ was one of the most corrupt in my opinion, although not quite as corrupt as Bill Clinton.

And I guarantee you if this Blago guy was a Republican that had tried to sell a Senate seat to Bush, the media would be digging, digging, digging, excavating the entire city of Chicago to find dirt, and they would find it because there is plenty there for anyone that cares. They don't care in this case. They would rather send a few plane loads of investigators and reporters to tiny Wasilla, Alaska, than they would Chicago.

Regarding Nixon, some Reps only went against Nixon only when the mountain of evidence against Nixon made them look ridiculous. Nixon ran a burglary ring, arranged for bribes, tried to burn down the Brookings Institute, cheated on his taxes, subverted government agencies. etc., all of which was known early on.

Clinton had an affair, not something that rose to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. There is absolutely no doubt that Dems would not have supported Clinton were he guilty of real crimes.

No Clinton was not impeached "because of an affair"...he was impeached for perjury to a grand jury and obstruction of justice. And frankly there is little doubt he was guilty of those offenses...after all he was fined for contempt of court and had his law license suspended because he was guilty of those offenses.

What is interesting is that Clinton's defense team did not argue that he had lied to the Grand Jury, nor that he obstructed justice. In fact they admitted he had....However, they argued that he was driven to the lies and obstruction in a misguided attempt to avoid embarrassment to his wife, daughter, staff, and the American people. His lawyers said...it was "not a breach of the public trust, not a crime against society, the two things Hamilton talked about in Federalist Paper number 65 --but it was a breach of his marriage vows." They argued that Clinton had suffered enough mental anguish already...a punishment even more severe than removing him from office.

The Defense admited Clinton's perjury but argued that "there's a very big difference in perjury about a marital infidelity in a divorce case and perjury about whether I bought the murder weapon or whether I concealed the murder weapon or not. And to charge somebody with the first and punish them as though it were the second stands justice, our sense of justice, on its head. There's a total lack of proportionality, a total lack of balance in this thing. The charge and the punishment are totally out of sync." Note that they only argued against the severity of the punishment, not the guilt or innocence of Clinton. In fact throughout the impeachment, Clinton's defense lawyers readily conceded his guilt on the charges, just that the punishment of removing him from office didn't fit the crime.

Whether you feel the charges warrant removal from office or no, perjury and obstruction of justice are "real crimes" that Clinton was guilty of. Yet Democrats, almost to a man, defended Clinton throughout his impeachment, despite his own admission of guilt to the crimes. In the case of Nixon, Republicans stopped supporting him when his guilt was made clear.

This was only the tip of the iceberg. It was the other numerous abuses of power that Clinton did that never made it to the fore, but the use of the IRS to intimidate his political enemies, the pardoning of terrorists, the taking of foreign campaign money, the use of FBI files, the Whitewater affair where his friends went to prison but not him, the list goes on too long to list here, but the man was a terrible president in my opinion, the worst and most corrupt ever.

Okie,
I might agree with you, but those abuses of power by Clinton were never proven in a court of law or otherwise, so add little to the argument. However since Advocate also throws in a number of unproven abuses of power by Nixon, I guess your argument holds as much water as his.

I guess you forgot. He was never convicted of a crime, and was acquitted in the impeachment. Nixon's crimes were truly horrific, not comparable. Nuff said!

I guess I agree to a point, but let us take just one issue, the IRS, all you have to do is talk to the conservative think tanks and other prominent opponents of Clinton, they will tell you about the audits. I am not here to express my opinion based upon a court of law to confirm something beyond any doubt whatsoever, I make observations based upon high probability from evidence that is out there. Most of the people I know are fully aware of how corrupt Clinton was, and is, not everyone was blind to what transpired. And most people also can read history, and although JFK and LBJ were not convicted for abuse of power, the record of their use of the FBI to spy on political enemies, its there for anyone to find out, it does not have to be proven in a court of law. The same applies to Clinton, his record has been written, and it doesn't have to all be proven in a court of law to be true.

Absolutely. US Senators are a state's spoon in the federal stew, and there would have to be contact and communication between them and a state's governor's office. But Obama had begun to distance himself from Blagojevich at least a year earlier. In his December 12 article on the subject, Washington Post writer Eli Slaslow made it seem as if it was done for personal reasons; it seems they didn't get along, but also because Obama saw Blago's downfall coming.

Obama Worked to Distance Self From Blagojevich Early On

. . .

Long before federal prosecutors charged Blagojevich with bribery this week, Obama had worked to distance himself from his home-state governor. The two men have not talked for more than a year, colleagues said, save for a requisite handshake at a funeral or public event. Blagojevich rarely campaigned for Obama and never stumped with him. The governor arrived late at the Democratic convention and skipped Obama's victory-night celebration at Chicago's Grant Park.

. . .

"Obama saw this coming, and he was very cautious about not having dealings with the governor for quite some time," said Abner Mikva, a former congressman and appeals court judge who was Obama's political mentor in Chicago. "The governor was perhaps the only American public officeholder who didn't speak at the convention, and that wasn't by accident. He's politically poisonous. You don't get through Chicago like Barack Obama did unless you know how to avoid people like that."

back on topic...

It looks like the IL legislature will take up the question of impeachment next week.

I forgot nothing. Clinton was acquitted by the Senate but found in contempt of court and had his law license suspended by the Arkansas BAR. Nixon was never convicted of even that much.

Nothing like another fluff piece from the MSM on the miraculous prescience and unparalleled wisdom of the "One"...



I guess they forgot about Rev Wright, Rev Pfleger, Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers, Emil Jones, and Rashid Khalidi....

Not to be rude, slkshock7, but the story of Rod's demise is pretty big around here. I know for a fact that there are other threads that are actually about Obama.

Illinois politics is about both the governor and Obama. The same system produced both.

Would you be so kind as to list even one crime that Nixon was CONVICTED of.
After all, if you are saying that Clinton wasnt convicted so his crimes dont matter, then you must hold Nixon to the same standard.

What do you call that: guilt by association?