Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Picking him apart
Next Post: Enough with the games already
Posted in:
* Today, the Tribune continues its crusade to convince the General Assembly to include a recall provision in the state Constitution in order to oust Gov. Blagojevich…
A constitutional amendment to let voters fire inept state officeholders is almost halfway to the Nov. 4 general election ballot. There appears to be strong support in the Illinois House. Whether such an amendment is approved for a ballot slot by the May 4 deadline rests primarily with Senate President Emil Jones and his fellow Senate Democrats.
For too long those Democratic senators have been inexplicably willing to let Jones, their leader, enable the frantic antics of Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
Will Jones’ timid followers in the Senate keep letting him further the governor’s bizarre behavior without challenge? Or will Senate Democrats inform Jones that citizens
* The Daily Herald plays “Me, too” on its editorial page today, as does the Belleville News-Democrat…
[Rep. Jay Hoffman] claims elections are our state’s recall mechanism. Well, generally, but if we had a governor caught with an expensive online hooker habit and without the grace to resign, we’d want a recall mechanism. If we had yet another indictable governor who was selling state jobs or favors for donations, we’d want a recall mechanism.
Elliot Spitzer didn’t have the “grace” to resign, he left mostly because he was under threat of almost immediate impeachment and removal from office.
* Questions: 1) Should the House reject the recall measure on its merits? Explain.
2) Should the House abandon the recall measure (which won’t even be brought up in the Senate) and move to impeach Blagojevich instead? Illinois has no specific requirement for impeachment other than 60 votes. The Senate then must put the governor on trial and vote on whether to remove him from office.
3) Should the House proceed with the relatively meaningless “feel-good” recall measure regardless of the merits because the governor’s proven behavior has not yet warranted such a serious action as impeachment?
Try to stay calm. No screaming. No exclamation points. Debate, don’t yell. Thanks.
posted by Rich Miller
Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 6:22 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Picking him apart
Next Post: Enough with the games already
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Impeach, Regardless of all the allegations and indictments, the gov has proven he cant run the state. Agencies are failing, the state is broke, he doesn’t get along with the legislature to pass meaningful legislation. He just needs to go. Make Emil do his job as well. Get rid of both of them.
Comment by Just Because Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 7:18 am
As Rich points out, the state Constitution has an impeachment provision to remove an officeholder. To kick-the-can down to voters with a recall amendment is a little spineless.
If lawmakers want rid themselves of Gov. Blagojevich, they should suck it up and do it themselves. However, by impeachment or by recall, also they would be taking a whack at the Office of Governor, weakening and smudging the institution in the desire to vent their spleen on the current occupant.
Take a deep breath and hold it for an hour or two.
Comment by David Ormsby Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 7:21 am
Slightly off point, but I am continually amazed at the inaccurate media descriptions of Emil’s relationship with Blagojevich. A review of the 1990s will show Emil has not so much love for the Governor. Rather, this is more about payback to the Speaker for Madigan’s treatment and lack of respect for Emil when Pate Philip ran the Senate. As long as Emil feels that way, he will use the Governor as a weapon in his ongoing war with Madigan. And if Madigan’s House wants recall? Emil is automatically against it - Blagojevich is secondary to the issue.
Comment by Smitty Irving Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 7:33 am
I don’t agree with Hoffman. Four years between elections can leave the state stuck with a real ‘dud’ for a long time.
As for the option of Jones letting a recall vote through, not likely. But then impeachment in this situation would likely not get any better results. One can almost see/hear the trial now ‘I don’t know, sir’; ‘I hear no comment, sir’; ‘I can’t answer that question, sir’ with a bit of sighing and eye rolling tossed in.
I have not read of abuse of recall system from states that have it, but this is Illinois and I usually expect the unexpected when it comes to Illinois politics.
Comment by Princeville Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 7:36 am
Why does it have to be either or. Impeach him now even a casual observer could come up with a number of incidents to point to. And, put a recall provision in place; would this governor already be impeached if he were of a different party? Does it have to come to something like the Elliot Spitzer to get someone incompetent out of office? Impeachment should not be taken lightly nor should the gross mismanagement this state has been subjected to for five years.
Comment by lifer Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 7:55 am
The recall amendment is a direct response to the governor’s treatment of the members of the general assembly. The issue is too emotional for any reasonable vote. The only outcome from a recall vote would be another political season every few years. Recall votes are no different than elections. More fundraising and more elections. Illinois does not need that.
Illinois has already proven that it does not use powerful tools for the right reasons. The Governor is the biggest offender. This all has to end but we have to wait 2 more years. The people of Illinois made the mistake 2 years ago of giving the governor another chance and we have to pay for it. That is democracy.
Comment by Sionilli Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 7:58 am
Itsfunny to me that people are talking about this as if even if it passed, it would happen. Do any of you realize how difficult it is to get the number of signatures required in the amount of time allowed in this bill? Without a massive, and I mean MASSIVE, coordinated effort, nobody will be recalled in this state if this bill passes.
Comment by anon Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 8:01 am
When the governor expends funds at his own whim, and which funds have been allocated for other purposes by the General Assembly, he has illegally usurped the legislature’s power to expend funds. He has violated the state constitution. For that alone, he should be impeached. But, politics being what they are here, he won’t be impeached, or surely won’t have the worry of there being enough votes against him should he actually be impeached.
Recall? This isn’t California. This is just posturing and, as Rich has said, a “feel-good” measure. Too many problems in this state to waste time with “feel-good” legislation.
Comment by Snidely Whiplash Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 8:02 am
There was a mention in this blog a day or so ago about the “tyranny of the majority.” It would seem we are indeed hostage to that tyranny, the majority of politicians in state office are Democrats. But a majority of the majority are hapless wimps, so we actually have a tyranny of the majority leadership. If there is a real reason, or reasons, to recall the Governor, then that should be a good enough reason for impeachment. Use the law already in place, back up your whining with action. Isn’t that why we representative democracy instead of direct democracy? If recall is so popular, then impeachment should be vehicle for it.
Comment by anon Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 8:08 am
I’m deeply concerned over the amount of time and energy that would go into the political negotiations surrounding the terms and structure of any form of a recall provision. All this, while the state economy and business envinment is in the toilet.
It’s akin to a husband and wife negotiating a pre-nuptual agreement (after they’ve been married for 5 years) while their mortgage holder is seizing their house!
Comment by Downstater Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 8:08 am
Rich,
1) Should the House reject the recall measure on its merits?
1A) Yes. A recall is wildly and unnecessarily expensive when the option of impeachment is available in cases that merit removal. It seems that the recall option is designed to provide political cover for those who want the effect of impeachment without the corresponding responsibility.
2) Should the House abandon the recall measure (which won’t even be brought up in the Senate) and move to impeach Blagojevich instead?
2A) If the House members feel that this Governor merits recall — and is willing to stand on their hindlegs and say so — they should move to impeach him.
3) Should the House proceed with the relatively meaningless “feel-good” recall measure regardless of the merits because the governor’s *proven* behavior has not yet warranted such a serious action as impeachment?
3A) The measure in question is pointless and, as such, merits no expenditure of time or money, no matter how minimal.
– SCAM!!!
so-called “Austin Mayor”
http://austinmayor.blogspot.com
Comment by so-called "Austin Mayor" Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 8:10 am
I’d have to go with #3 just for scare-value to Blago, however Downstater is right- too much time would be wasted (and we’ve had enough of that).
Comment by Shallow Pharnyx Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 8:27 am
There is no need for a recall measure,just give the feds. a little more time..
Comment by NIEVA Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 8:56 am
The General Assembly seems to always be reacting to issues instead of giving thoughtful consideration and planning. This has always been true.
If we should have a recall measure it should not be in reaction to this Governor but instead something carefully planned for a broader reason. I say this even though I wish he had never been re-elected.
Blagojevich showed how bad a governor he was before the re-election. He had lied to the public, to schools, to voters and to the General Assembly repeatedly. I did not see the Democratic party leadership do anythign except support him in re-election or ag best keep silent. So now is not the time for them all to get religion.
Impeachment would not succeed and it would let the Gov pretend to be a martyr.
Instead, the GA should pass legislation that clearly curtails the ability of the Governor to circumvent and should pass budget meaaures that reverse his misuse of special funds. They are smart people and can stop most of the nonsense.
It would be good to see some leadership from someone in a positive tone. I doubt that we will see that in our lifetime. Instead, name calling and blame will suit the needs of most state politicians.
Comment by Just an Observer Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 8:58 am
Well, if the House is busy trying to impeach Blago, maybe legislators will have less time to think up ways to raise taxes on the middle class, a favorite state legislator pastime (after giving themselves hefty raises unconnected to performance, of course).
If there is one year that the legislators should ease up on the middle class, this is it. But they don’t care. They’re all rich. The recession doesn’t touch them.
It’s fine to have a recall provision to make future guvs a bit nervous now and again (the embarrassment factor, even if the recall is unsuccessful). But in just two years there will be a Dem primary. It would be more practical at this point for unhappy Dems to convince a viable opponent to oppose Blago in the primary and start beefing up that person’s campaign chest, while convincing Obama to recommend Blago for a nice do-nothing high-level (but not too critical) federal job. If not, it’ll be Blago Term III before you know it, recall provision or no.
Comment by Cassandra Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 9:00 am
The more the issue of the bad governance is on the front page, the more likely the con-con question will pass. For a variety of reasons, the more the Legislators and Constitutional officers argue about recalls, amendments, impeachment, etc. the more it will look to the average voter like the Constitution needs a serious overhaul. Actual impeachment or a recall amendment on the ballot would furhter reinforce that perception.
I find it ironic that many of the people who profess opposition to a con-con are playing right into this.
I have a suggestion. Why not work together, write a few laws, pass a reasonable budget with a small revenue “enhancement” to start paying down the debt and go home. The infighting is a waste of time and treasure.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 9:12 am
The situation regarding the removal of an elected official from office is very different from what is found in the private sector.
In the private sector, no one is immune from removal for performance related issues. Furthermore, should the employee be convicted of a serious crime, their removal is also a given.
When looking at the potential removal of public officials, the officeholders are a protected class. In most cases, they cannot be removed even if the don’t show up to work.
It is time that elected officials were held to a higher standard of accountability than they are now. The excuse of he/she was voted in and they have a guarantee of a full term cannot be accepted in this time where things move at a lightening pace. Lives and real money are at stake.
I think the citizens deserve a chance to remove officeholders from their jobs. The standards need to be high to buffer against political mischief, but there should be a way to push a officeholder out of their position because they are doing a lousy job. Reliance on other elected official to ‘do the right thing’ leads to disappointment.
Whatever process is put in place, it should apply to all offices in the state, Governor down to school board member.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 9:16 am
When impeachment and recall are being discussed within governments, it is understandable that in that political environment legislators recognize these processes as useful tools when necessary, but also recognize that refining when/if these tools are used, shoves the debate into a political arena stalling the debate and resolution.
This is why these things seem so fuzzy. They are deliberately so, so that could be entered into a constitution with bipartisan support.
So we need to remove Blagojevich when debating the merits of a recall because when we include him, we add politics and circumstances into the debate, which is too much.
We need a recall. If not for Blagojevich, than for a future official. We already have the ability to impeach. If not for Blagojevich, than for a future official.
When applying these tools, legislators will need to weigh the evidence against the public official at that time with the demands heard from their constituents and their own personal political needs.
We are not helping the current debate on recall by applying these concerns at this time.
Pass it. Empower citizens in another way besides impeachment. Spare us your concerns about costs and time. Nothing is cheap or quick for these situations, so spare us your political worries over what passing a recall could mean to you or to Blagojevich.
Comment by VanillaMan Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 9:17 am
I go with ‘Just Because’. Forget the recall, it would be such an energy sucking waste of time. It is time to impeach since this instrument is already available. Yes, it is time for at least one body of the legislature to quit whining and get a backbone. One more day wasted in this current climate is another day further down the tubes! I think the Feds will get the job done eventually, but that may not be soon enough! I’m ready for a statesman or 2 to step forward and really mean it when it is said that they are serving the people of IL. This climate is horrible to work in. It has to end. RB cannot perform as a governor. I think deep-down even he knows it.
Comment by cardsmama Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 9:23 am
Cassandra, all legislators are not rich…most of them have a second job to help pay the bills…
Jack Franks is a poser…he has had a personal dislike of the Gov for a long time and now that everyone else does too he is using it to call attention to himself…
Emil has other issues pending in his chamber and doesn’t have the time or inclination to mess with this nonsense…
Unfortunately, Blago will probably finish his term and not be re-elected in 2010, leaving the State in financial turmoil…I hope the Democratic leaders have the intestinal fortitude to tell him to take a hike when he attempts another term…PLEASE!!
Comment by Loop Lady Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 9:29 am
Rod has done himself no favors during his time in Springfield and he has managed to keep very few friends, but any legislator who is pushing this recall measure instead of going for impeachment is a tranparently craven human being. The recall provision is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. Rod Blagojevich will soon be gone and if this wrongheaded legislation passes, the citizens of Illinois will all we elected mini-legislators, with the power to run an unpopular politician out of office based on their whim and caprice. This does not strike me as good government.
It would take an act of political courage (oxymoron intended) to pursue the more direct path of impeachment. I’m not saying it is warranted, but in this instance it would clearly be a more direct way of dealing with the problem.
The Tribune’s cheerleading is remarkably hollow when you consider that they were applauding George Ryan when they should have been encouraging HIS impeachment.
This too shall pass.
Comment by chiatty Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 9:37 am
This is a perfect opportunity for Sen. Watson & Co. to begin the mantra that Obama & Co. have been using so effectively. We need change. Watson (and Cross) should take that theme and start with this idea never being called for a vote (assuming it won’t) and use it against Emil’s memebers who are up this year like Holmes, Kotowski & Link, etc. and beat the ‘we need change in Springfield’ drum hard. If these members can’t force a vote on this, then there needs to be change and they should go. Bring the message back home to those districts. Start with the change message now.
Comment by GOP Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 9:44 am
No. Just put an amendment into the Constitution that if you are named “Public Official A” in any Federal indictments, you must leave office immediately. It would solve the problem and we wouldn’t have to live through more of Rod and George would have been sent home too.
Comment by Dirt Guy Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 10:06 am
Why waste time, energy, effort and money trying to fix our mess? Let’s start over by having three new states. Northern Illinois is north of I 80, Central Illinois lies between I 80 and I 70 with Southern Illinois south of I 70. Rich Miller for Gov of Central Illinois.
Comment by Enemy of the State Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 10:09 am
This issue if let go is going to consume all of the time of the House and the Senate with both sides posturing, and dissension increasing, more lines will be drawn, rhetoric will get to the point of no return, and the media will have a heyday. The legislators need to set this issue aside and deal with the more important issues facing the state. They need to get along and work together and work around Blago. If a thinking majority begin to work on the real problems of the state and start sending legitimate bills to the Senate President for passage he will eventually have to start letting them on the floor or it will become very evident where the problem lies. Stop the name calling and finding fault and get to work. Let us the voters see that you can act like adults. If the governor vetoes something, override it. Make him even more impotent than he is. There are other avenues other than impeachment or recall, make him ineffective. He only has the power that the lawmakers give him. If he can disrupt the process by his antics, which he has done effectively, it is only because they have let him. Let’s move on with the important business at hand and if after that is all done then talk about getting rid of him. But I am betting by then it will be unnecessary.
Comment by Irish Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 10:21 am
I think SCAM nailed it.
I believe in the republican (small r) form of government. Legislators, you already have the power. Impeach or move on. Lots of work to do. If leadership is holding you back, direct your energies to rebellion against leadership. You weren’t born mushrooms.
Comment by wordslinger Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 10:23 am
1. Yes. The option should always be on the table. If the recall amendment has real teeth, pass it out of the House and then watch Emil & Co. bungle it. It would give Martin Ozinga firepower against Debbie Halvorson; you can’t rail against “corruption” in D.C. if there is blatant “corruption” here at home.
2. If nothing substantive can be accomplished, move towards impeachment. Don’t let our illustrious leader off the hook. And maybe, just maybe, impeachment proceedings are what we need to get Blago to work and play well with others.
3. No. Fluffery is the political version of cotton candy. It’s more expensive than it should be and it never really fills you up.
Comment by Team Sleep Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 10:38 am
Governor Jet Fuel has escaped impeachment thus far only because the federal wheels of justice are moving slower than the feds normally work. I imagine that he has already alienated well more than 60% of the rank and file legislators. The recall method seems to me to be a tool of the populist, cumbersome and expensive.
Comment by Jake from Elwood Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 11:04 am
I like the idea of a recall. After the last legislative session where a sales tax was rammed down the throats of Lake County residents who twice rejected it with separate referendums it would have been useful to intimidate those state senators and representatives who decided to follow not the will of their constituents but the will of their party leaders.
It would also have been useful in Cook County and the City of Chicago after their tax increase mania behavior.
Recalls are rarely successful but give the voters the threat to recall those who get out of line, and the folks who allegedly represent the voters may actually toe the line more often.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 11:10 am
Not a big fan of recalls. I don’t beleive the legilsature should elect or impeach a governor, it gives them to much power. Recall should not beused unless a gov is indicted or convicted of a felony, or dies in office.
We elect ‘em, were stuck with ‘em
Comment by pickles!! Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 11:14 am
I think they should just move to impeach the Gov. The IL GOP would benefit tremendously and it would play into the ongoing corruption scandals affecting the Dem party. The Repubs might be able to turn the 2006 “culture of corruption” theme right around on the Dems. While it probably won’t make the same impact as it did in 2006, it could bring the Dem brand right down to level of the GOP brand and make brand name a non-issue.
Also, it would be a powerfull tool for Repubs that the Governor’s of the two Dem presidential candidate’s states have been threatened with impeachment. Not good for BO or HC.
That being said, I don’t think it will happen unless something big comes out of the trial, coupled with something else that really irritates the GA. Judging from the events of the recent past, that is a real possibility, but I still don’t think it’s probable.
The GOP would have to get some solid Dem support, and I don’t think the Speaker wants this anti-Dem narrative in this pivotal election year. However, if the GOP makes some early threats at some of his seats, he might have to move against the Governor to save his own caucus. Jack Franks might sign up, and other Dem’s who are in trouble might want ot distance themselves from the Gov. As in everyhting poltical, time will tell.
Comment by Bud Man Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 11:30 am
Pass recall out of the House. We know Emil will lock it down, at least until the Governor has no more appointments to give to his relatives.
Then we have a basis for inserting it at the Con-Con
Comment by Truthful James Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 11:33 am
I think Austin Mayor is pretty much on the mark. Except I doubt that the legislature would actually move for impeachment. The precedent they would look at would be the Clinton impeachment. Clinton ended up more popular after that fiasco than before. And the whole exercise took several prominent impeachment proponents down with it. But, then again, Blago aint Bubba.
Comment by phocion Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 11:51 am
In a rush and don’t have time to answer all of the aforementioned questions, however I think it boils down simply to the fact that pure democracy is mobocracy. Impeachment or don’t, no recalls.
Besides its not like we’d get any porn stars running for gov, so the special election would be lame…
Comment by All Your Base, Are Belong To Us Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 12:48 pm
Rich, the House would begin impeachment proceedings and if they find reason for impeachment, does it then go to the Senate and definitely positively Blago would be put on trial? Or is there some maneuvering Jones could do to keep it from coming to that? Is this one time that Jones would be forced to actually go along with this, in spite of wanting to put the screws to Madigan instead of Blago?
Comment by Little Egypt Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 12:57 pm
Little Egypt-
If the House impeaches a sitting governor, then the Senate puts the governor on trial:
SECTION 14. IMPEACHMENT
The House of Representatives has the sole power to conduct legislative investigations to determine the existence of cause for impeachment and, by the vote of a majority of the members elected, to impeach Executive and Judicial officers. Impeachments shall be tried by the Senate.
When sitting for that purpose, Senators shall be upon oath, oraffirmation, to do justice according to law. If the Governor is tried, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside. No person shall be convicted without the concurrence
of two-thirds of the Senators elected. Judgment shall not extend beyond removal from office and disqualification to hold any public office of this State. An impeached officer, whether convicted or acquitted, shall be liable to prosecution, trial, judgment and punishment according to law.
(Source: Illinois Constitution.)
Comment by Kevin Fanning Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 1:15 pm
The electorate should have a recall option with a high singature threshold to ensure that it is not easy to mount a successful recall option.
I doubt that Todd Stroger would even have been slated to replace his father if there had been a recall option on the books.
A recall option would have precluded some of the Governor’s tactics last session - because he would have been constrained by the posssibility of a recall initiative.
I see recall based upon voter dissatisfaction as separate from the higher threshold required for impeachment. In other words dismal executive performance would be legitimate grounds for removal from office by recall, but it is not sufficient to warrant impeachment.
I don’t know that Governor A has committed any impeachable offenses that can be proven - he may have participated as a co-conspirator in activities that might be felonies, but that’s a question that has to be addressed through our normal legal channels. Admittedly, the wheels of justice grind slowly.
Neither recall or impeachment are appropriate remedies for actions subject to criminal legal investigation and adjudication.
Comment by Captain America Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 1:28 pm
I have no problem with the state house passing a recall measure because at least I know if there is some support even if it’s directed at the current occupant. I’m sure there are some decent grounds to impeach the governor especially his ability or willingness to co-opt the separation of powers between the branches of government. As well as his ineptitude in governing the state of Illinois. Why the state house hadn’t gone down this road I can’t say. Then again I’m no expert just a citizen who follows state politics somewhat closely.
Comment by Levois Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 1:47 pm
Thanks Kevin for the info. If Jones could get out of conducting a trial against his buddy, I thought he would.
Comment by Little Egypt Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 1:56 pm
The people should have the right to initiate a special recall referendum for any elected official, but no more than once a year.
Unfortunately, our IL Constitution prohibits direct amendments (or laws) by the people, except to the Legislature.
A special recall, by referendum instead of election, should require a special vote by about 2/3 to pass…in order to minimize political games and abuses of power by special interests.
Considering power in this state of over 12 million citizens is largely controlled by just four individuals, doesn’t it seem inevitable our government would have routine fits of dysfunction as the growing cash pile attracts more squabbles and abuses of power?
A hundred years ago, there were far fewer people, far less tax money, and poor communication systems, so the power of a centralized government structure was limited by circumstance.
Now we have far more people, far more taxes, and far better technology to communicate. Unfortunately, these changes have been used to centralize power and control, greatly increasing the potential and temptation for abuses, as well as greatly increasing the odds of dysfunctional government.
Given our growth and new technologies, isn’t it time to expand checks and balances by more directly including the root of government’s three branches..…the citizens?
Given our abysmal voter turnout compared to every other democracy (ie citizen apathy due to disempowerment and dependency), why not return meaningful power and control to the people via a referendum system with appropriate checks and balances between citizens and the three branches of government?
For example, require two years of non-binding referendums to ensure the public has a full debate of specific issues, as well as give elected officials direct public feedback on major concerns. Those two years give elected officials time to find a good compromise or consensus that satisfys the public.
If elected officials fail, the third referendum would be binding, but only if at least 2/3, perhaps more, of voters approve. The higher vote standard is a check and balance to prevent tyranny of the majority and encourage public debates to strive for consensus by seeking more inclusive compromises.
Four people ruling over 12 million people (and over $50B of the people’s money each year) is not a democracy with appropriate checks and balances of power, especially when over 12 million have no direct voice at the decision table on specific issues of wide concern.
Comment by Anonymous Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 2:19 pm
Should we have recall? Yes. The leadership across Illinois speaks for itself.
While we are at it, we should vote yes for a Const. Convention and fix the imbalance of power between powerless citizens and the overpowered and protected political class.
Illinois has far far bigger problems the big bad Rod. As a matter of fact, though I agree with him on little in terms of policy, I applaud Rod for his rapacity, as he has exposed the entire state for the kleptocracy that it has become.
Comment by Bruno Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 2:31 pm
Personally, I think this administration has been a complete and total failure, has decimated agencies within the State, and destroyed the economy. This whole discussion is a waste of time, as is the debate in the House. A recall will never go through and as of this date are there any impeachable offenses that will stand. Can a person be impeached for incompetence and stupidity?
Comment by ex state employee Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 3:15 pm
– “Can a person be impeached for incompetence and stupidity?” –
Yes, according to the state constitution. And would Blago not fit that description?
Comment by Bud Man Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 3:47 pm
probelm is, Bud Man, u gotta impeach a lot of people then.
Comment by pickles!! Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 4:13 pm
I’m game. If your imcompetent, you have no reason to serve the public. As has been observed above, if you are incompetent in the private sector, you get let go. The same standard should apply to elected officials. They should not be protected and rewarded for failing to do their job.
Comment by Bud Man Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 4:23 pm
Note to phocion….your logic is off on this one. The difference between Clinton and Blagojevich is what Clinton did to an intern, the gov is doing to the people of the state. One was a willing participant and one was not.
Comment by downhereforyears Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 4:31 pm
If ever there was a classic candidate or example for recall ….it’s Blago. Recall , though can be a very dangerous “tool” if it’s use & intent are not clearly defined & strictly adhered to. To throw someone out is serious business & should be a last resort in a category just under impeachment. I can understand the sentiment given the state of affairs & antics of this administration…but should carefully & thoughfully considered & written. On the other hand, at least in this case & the ongoing trials & investigations, it might rectify itself.
Comment by annon Friday, Apr 4, 08 @ 4:46 pm