Illinois Governor Arrested

@mysteryman,

Nixon would have been impeached and convicted, but he resigned beforehand. Also, he would have been tried and convicted after that of various crimes, but Ford pardoned him.

2 Replies

@revel,

Quote:

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.

I've no doubt that Democrats want to believe it is, but it, by no means, is, and here's why.

Burris really really wants the seat. He's not going to go away quietly, unless he is promised that he will eventually be picked by Blago's successor and won't that be sweet when its leaked.

I doubt either Blago or Burris will back down, and so there will hundreds of news cameras around the Capital when Mr Burris comes to Washington. Will Harry Reid have him escorted out of the building?

The MSM has showed us that they don't really care what the American people are interested in. If it interests them, they will run the story, and this really interests them.

I think it does, actually, interest the American people - or at least the ones who watch the news.

People love scandals, and this one has legs.

Whatever time it occupies in the nightly news is bad news for Obama and Democrats.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Do you use a crystal ball to see what would have happened in an alternative universe, or is the equipment more sophisticated?

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

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.

What I love is the rationale we hear for why a Republican politician involved in a scandal is always identified by party and Democrats never are:

It's the hypocrisy. Republicans involved in scandals are hypocrites!

Which leads to (not begs) the question: Why isn't it hypocritical for a Democratic politician to be involved in a scandal?

Are they simply being true to their nature?

3 Replies

I have not been paying a lot of attention to the new lately...by design... but why are the democrats so set against Burris getting this seat? Is it merely because blago gave it to him? because by all accounts I've heard, this guy is clean as a hounds tooth...

1 Reply

@Bi-Polar Bear,

He may or may not be, but that's not the problem.

A Blago appointee, whomever it might be, is tainted, and Senate Democrats want no part of being seen to be tolerant of highly publicized taint. Particuarly with their own Culture of Corruption so quickly coming to the fore. The press can only help them so much --- i.e. Charlie Rangel's kid glove treatment.

In addition, Blago is, with this appointment, shoving it up Reid's...nose. He's daring Harry to refuse to seat what would be the only black in the US Senate.

You just have to look at and listen to Harry to know what a testosterone infused, macho bad ass he is. He wasn't about to back down on his accusation that American citizens visiting the Capital have BO, and god dammit, he's not going to back down before a clown in tight running pants and a plastic wig.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

What I love is the rationale we hear for why a Republican politician involved in a scandal is always identified by party and Democrats never are:

Your statement is false Finn. What is your rationale for making such an obviously false statement? I can't wait to hear it.

Ryan's party not mentioned -
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/28/nation/na-ryan28
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14703115/
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/custom/newsroom/chi-060417ryantrial,0,4525779.story?page=1

Blagojevich's party mentioned
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008/12/source-feds-take-gov-blagojevich-into-custody.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-blagojevich-1210,0,7494354.story

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

I consulted Reagan's astrologer.

0 Replies

Burris is a bit of a clinker relative to past lies, egotism, racism, and malpractice as a prosecutor.

IL should have better representation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Burris

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

What I love is the rationale we hear for why a Republican politician involved in a scandal is always identified by party and Democrats never are:

It's the hypocrisy. Republicans involved in scandals are hypocrites!

Which leads to (not begs) the question: Why isn't it hypocritical for a Democratic politician to be involved in a scandal?

Are they simply being true to their nature?

Good observation. There is not the same level of moral standard in the Democratic Party. They use the issue only on Republicans. After all, which party flows better with the modern trend of "don't be judgemental?"

I have posted this numerous times, but it is fitting to make the observation again, Democratic Party morality is their "public morality," which is defined by good works done by government, translation - tax the rich and the working people to give to the poor and the non-working. Their morality is not defined first by private morality. Buying an election, foreign campaign funds, kickbacks or political favors, embezzlement, harassing your political enemies with the IRS, drug use, cheating on your wife, drowning a woman in a car accident and not reporting it, etc., all of those things are private and are none of the taxpayers business, if the politician dedicates his life to "public service," in the mold of a good Democrat, then he or she has aspired to the highest form of morality.

Thus, the above makes me think there is more to the Blago case than meets the eye, or that is yet known. This guy must have stepped on a few toes of some important Democrats along the way, he must not be just another run of the mill corrupt Democrat. Somewhere along the line, this guy has made somebody (or sombodies) in the most powerful Democrat heirarchy very angry for not cooperating with the party, otherwise they would be circling the wagons around him. Also if they decide this is all going to result into just bad publicity in their vendetta against him, they might decide to back off and all of this will subside. I do not think the press really wants to make this front page news, so I look for them to get together to find a way for all of this to go away as easily as possible. Already, we do not hear much like we did for a while that the guy is virtually insane.

2 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

What I love is the rationale we hear for why a Republican politician involved in a scandal is always identified by party and Democrats never are:

It's the hypocrisy. Republicans involved in scandals are hypocrites!

Which leads to (not begs) the question: Why isn't it hypocritical for a Democratic politician to be involved in a scandal?

Are they simply being true to their nature?

Good observation.

It would be a good observation if you were completely blind, deaf and dumb.

Finn starts with a statement that is patently false. You think it is a good observation. I'm leaning toward a synonym for "dumb" as the reason why you think it was good.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

Buying an election, foreign campaign funds, kickbacks or political favors, embezzlement, harassing your political enemies with the IRS, drug use, cheating on your wife, drowning a woman in a car accident and not reporting it, etc., all of those things are private and are none of the taxpayers business,

Are you really that stupid okie?

That was a rhetorical question okie.

1 Reply

@parados,

Okay, Mr. Lawyer, I would rephrase Finns statement to read:

What I love is the rationale we hear for why a Republican politician involved in a scandal is almost always identified by party and Democrats usually are not:

0 Replies

@parados,

Not stupid, just observant, Parados. By the way, I forgot to include illegal possession and use of FBI files and placing kickback money in your freezer, just a couple more that I thought of. William Jefferson was finally kicked out of office by the voters, narrowly. One wonders why Congress was far less animated about getting rid of him than they are blocking the legal appointment to the Senate by Blago?

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

A Blago appointee, whomever it might be, is tainted, ...

Consider sending one 'tainted' appointment to the Senate and then consider the hundreds of appointments made by cesspoolian GB. Not even Mike Rowe would take on the toxic job of sucking out that **** hole.

0 Replies

@okie,

For someone that was arguing we NEVER hear about the party when a democrat is accused of corruption, you are sure bringing up a lot of instances where EVERYONE knows the party because of coverage.

1. The possession of FBI files was NOT illegal under law at that time so claiming they were illegally possessed shows you don't know any facts.
2. Congress can't remove members that have not been indicted, let alone not convicted. See Delay, Cunningham, Ney. The Republicans actually changed the rules so a congressperson that was indicted on a felony charge could keep his leadership position.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

For someone that was arguing we NEVER hear about the party when a democrat is accused of corruption, you are sure bringing up a lot of instances where EVERYONE knows the party because of coverage.

Certainly not because the press mentions it all the time.

Quote:

1. The possession of FBI files was NOT illegal under law at that time so claiming they were illegally possessed shows you don't know any facts.

okay, highly unethical, abuse of their authority or power. Strange how all those Republicans files were requested for no reason, isn't it?

Quote:

2. Congress can't remove members that have not been indicted, let alone not convicted. See Delay, Cunningham, Ney. The Republicans actually changed the rules so a congressperson that was indicted on a felony charge could keep his leadership position.

Because of Ronnie Earle, I think, Parados, but how many corrupt Republicans would be allowed to stay around like William Jefferson was allowed, given the same circumstances? And any Republican president that had done what Clinton did would have been history without a doubt.

1 Reply

Interesting, the involvement of Harry Reid in all of this. Reid apparently made a call to Blago:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/03/spokesman-reid-called-blagojevich-senate-seat/

What business is it of Reids as to how Illinois conducts its own politics and who they send to the Senate?

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Certainly not because the press mentions it all the time.

What utter nonsense from you okie.
I googled "Jefferson indicted" and the first 10 responses, the ONLY one that didn't list his party affiliation was the DoJ press release. MSN, Yahoo, WPost, Fox, CBS were all on that page and all listed his party.
Why don't you find me 4 stories from major news sources that don't list Jefferson's party while talking about his indictment or investigation. I bet you can't do it with a simple google search on the first page. Your argument is complete BS. I haven't found a single news story that hasn't listed Jefferson's party.

Quote:

okay, highly unethical, abuse of their authority or power. Strange how all those Republicans files were requested for no reason, isn't it?

Not strange at all if you bothered to read the report on it. The report by the IC stated that the files were the result of an outdated WH pass list provided by the Secret Service. A little research on your part might help your ignorance.

Quote:

Because of Ronnie Earle, I think, Parados, but how many corrupt Republicans would be allowed to stay around like William Jefferson was allowed, given the same circumstances?

I am curious how Jefferson was allowed to stay around unlike the Republicans?
Delay continued to hold his seat and his leadership position for 7 months after indictment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/28/AR2005092800270.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/04/AR2006040400513.html
Ney was convicted of crimes on Oct 13th and didn't resign until Nov 3.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15550616/
Cunningham didn't resign until after he pled guilty.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/28/cunningham/

Quote:

And any Republican president that had done what Clinton did would have been history without a doubt.

What exactly did Clinton do that you think would have gotten a GOP President removed from office? Since you haven't bothered to read the IC report, I am curious what your lack of facts are on that statement since you have shown a complete lack of facts for most of your other statements.

2 Replies

@parados,

You needn't bother to ever reply to Okie's mad rantings again, Parados. Just refer him to (Post 3521549). It could stand as the exemplar for H2oman, Foxy, MM, Finn, ...

1 Reply

Illinois Governor Arrested

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know