Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich was arrested Tuesday on charges of conspiring to get financial benefits through his authority to appoint a U.S. senator to fill the vacancy left by Barack Obama's election as president.

According to a federal criminal complaint, Blagojevich also was charged with illegally threatening to withhold state assistance to Tribune Co., the owner of the Chicago Tribune, in the sale of Wrigley Field. In return for state assistance, Blagojevich allegedly wanted members of the paper's editorial board who had been critical of him fired.

A 76-page FBI affidavit said the 51-year-old Democratic governor was intercepted on court-authorized wiretaps over the last month conspiring to sell or trade the vacant Senate seat for personal benefits for himself and his wife, Patti.

The affidavit said Blagojevich discussed getting a substantial salary for himself at a nonprofit foundation or an organization affiliated with labor unions.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081209/ap_ ... tion_probe

He is a slime-ball of first degree - can't stand the guy.

Apprently he saw the win by Obama as his retirement fund...

His Chief of Staff has also been arrested...

How Conky a thing to do!

Very disappointed.

What do you expect from an Illinois politician?

It's been a good month for America - no more Ted Stevens, Jefferson from New Orleans, and now this guy. Maybe we can get rid of a few more.

As more comes out...this guy gets scummier, and scummier...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelca ... rmick.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... erfer.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/ ... fett_.html

I was listening to the radio this morning and some talking head said that under Illinois law the governor can appoint Obama's successor from jail. Illinois legislators are supposedly talking about how to impeach him before he can appoint somebody to the seat.

HI54UNI wrote:I was listening to the radio this morning and some talking head said that under Illinois law the governor can't appoint Obama's successor from jail. Illinois legislators are supposedly talking about how to impeach him before he can appoint somebody to the seat.

I think you meant to say he CAN appoint someone from jail, which is what the impeachment is designed to prevent.

The Republican Party in Illinois bears some responsibility for this. I know many, many people that would have liked to have vote against Blago in the last election, but could not bring themselves to vote for the far-right religious extremist the Republicans ran.

Twenty-five years ago, the Republican Party in Illinois was moderate, and nominated moderates. Then the far-right religuos extremists took over the party, and Illinois has turned into a one-party state.

A moderate, pro-choice Republican can win in Illinois, but the Republicans will never nominate one. They have turned into a one-issue party, and have become so marginalized that there is no competition.

dbackjon wrote:The Republican Party in Illinois bears some responsibility for this. I know many, many people that would have liked to have vote against Blago in the last election, but could not bring themselves to vote for the far-right religious extremist the Republicans ran.

Twenty-five years ago, the Republican Party in Illinois was moderate, and nominated moderates. Then the far-right religuos extremists took over the party, and Illinois has turned into a one-party state.

A moderate, pro-choice Republican can win in Illinois, but the Republicans will never nominate one. They have turned into a one-issue party, and have become so marginalized that there is no competition.

The extreme, far-right elements of the Republican Party have made it difficult for the party but the Repubican candidate in 2006 (Judy Barr Topinka ) was considered a moderate Republican. She was weighed down more by association to the last criminal to hold the Governor's office (George Ryan currently sitting in federal prison for corruption - selling commercial trucking licenses to line his friend's pockets and fill his campaign fund while Secretary of State) and because the ultra-conservatives didn't really support her.

The Republican Party couldn't have asked for a better opportunity but I don't think they've pulled their collective heads out far enough to take advantage of it.

dbackjon wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:I was listening to the radio this morning and some talking head said that under Illinois law the governor can't appoint Obama's successor from jail. Illinois legislators are supposedly talking about how to impeach him before he can appoint somebody to the seat.

I think you meant to say he CAN appoint someone from jail, which is what the impeachment is designed to prevent.

DOH! You're right. My bad typing!

Fixed it above.

Thanks jon!

Democrats urge special election to succeed Obama

WASHINGTON – Democratic leaders in Washington and Illinois called on the Illinois legislature Tuesday to quickly schedule a special election to fill President-elect Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat rather than leave that power in Gov. Rod Blagojevich's hands.




http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081209/ap_ ... ich_senate

dbackjon wrote:The Republican Party in Illinois bears some responsibility for this. I know many, many people that would have liked to have vote against Blago in the last election, but could not bring themselves to vote for the far-right religious extremist the Republicans ran.

Twenty-five years ago, the Republican Party in Illinois was moderate, and nominated moderates. Then the far-right religuos extremists took over the party, and Illinois has turned into a one-party state.

]A moderate, pro-choice Republican can win in Illinois, but the Republicans will never nominate one. They have turned into a one-issue party, and have become so marginalized that there is no competition.

This is especially true downstate, even in coal mining country.

dbackjon wrote:The Republican Party in Illinois bears some responsibility for this. I know many, many people that would have liked to have vote against Blago in the last election, but could not bring themselves to vote for the far-right religious extremist the Republicans ran.

Twenty-five years ago, the Republican Party in Illinois was moderate, and nominated moderates. Then the far-right religuos extremists took over the party, and Illinois has turned into a one-party state.

A moderate, pro-choice Republican can win in Illinois, but the Republicans will never nominate one. They have turned into a one-issue party, and have become so marginalized that there is no competition.

"Now THAT was funny!!! Whew!"





Earth to Jon! Earth to Jon! The last Republican left Illinois over 50 years ago.

(...now you're starting to sound like Tod)

Holy smoke...funny stuff. Blogger "The Chicagoist" had contest going from April 30th, 2008, on what method of "political death" would end Blagojevich's career...

...Check out the reader's comments...too funny!

http://chicagoist.com/2008/04/30/rod_blagojevich_1.php

Rod Blagojevich Death Pool

April 30, 2008
With his enemies waiting in the wings, and federal prosecutors seemingly closing in, now seems like as good a time as any to start our Rod Blagojevich Political Death Pool. In the comments below, write the date you think Blago will go down and why. The person who gets closest to the actual date and reason will win one of our super sexy Chicagoist t-shirts,

Good ways the governor might go down include, but aren't limited to:

Indictment
Recall
Impeachment
Arrest

Losing an election and general idiocy don't count

t-man - stick to CA politics...

Remember, Blago's predessor was a moderate Republican (who served on the Kankakee County Board of Supervisors with my grandpa).

dbackjon wrote:The Republican Party in Illinois bears some responsibility for this. I know many, many people that would have liked to have vote against Blago in the last election, but could not bring themselves to vote for the far-right religious extremist the Republicans ran.

Twenty-five years ago, the Republican Party in Illinois was moderate, and nominated moderates. Then the far-right religuos extremists took over the party, and Illinois has turned into a one-party state.

A moderate, pro-choice Republican can win in Illinois, but the Republicans will never nominate one. They have turned into a one-issue party, and have become so marginalized that there is no competition.

Congratulations Jon. Only four posts before you figured out a way to blame this on the Repukes.

Using your "logic", Dems are fully to blame for 8 years of George Bush, because they couldn't come up with better candidates than Bore and Fairy.

dbackjon wrote:t-man - stick to CA politics...

Remember, Blago's predessor was a moderate Republican (who served on the Kankakee County Board of Supervisors with my grandpa).

And that was the cause of Blago's corruption?

This sounds like the "Kerry" problem. Since Gore and Kerry were both garbage candidates not worthy of serving as President, everything that's happened since 2000, the war, deception, the economy, EVERYTHING that Bush has gotten "wrong" is the Dems fault.



Okay, if you insist, Jon.

AZGrizFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:The Republican Party in Illinois bears some responsibility for this. I know many, many people that would have liked to have vote against Blago in the last election, but could not bring themselves to vote for the far-right religious extremist the Republicans ran.

Twenty-five years ago, the Republican Party in Illinois was moderate, and nominated moderates. Then the far-right religuos extremists took over the party, and Illinois has turned into a one-party state.

A moderate, pro-choice Republican can win in Illinois, but the Republicans will never nominate one. They have turned into a one-issue party, and have become so marginalized that there is no competition.

Congratulations Jon. Only four posts before you figured out a way to blame this on the Repukes.

Using your "logic", Dems are fully to blame for 8 years of George Bush, because they couldn't come up with better candidates than Bore and Fairy.

Only to blame for 4 years of bush. Gore won in 2000, but Kerry was a lame ass candidate

AZGrizFan wrote: Congratulations Jon. Only four posts before you figured out a way to blame this on the Repukes.

Using your "logic", Dems are fully to blame for 8 years of George Bush, because they couldn't come up with better candidates than Bore and Fairy.

Crap...beat me to it!

dbackjon wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote: Congratulations Jon. Only four posts before you figured out a way to blame this on the Repukes.

Using your "logic", Dems are fully to blame for 8 years of George Bush, because they couldn't come up with better candidates than Bore and Fairy.

Only to blame for 4 years of bush. Gore won in 2000, but Kerry was a lame ass candidate

Nope. Still the Dem's fault. Had Soros and the Hollywood/NE Elitist Dem's blown the dust off their checkbooks and hired some REAL lawyers rather than relying on the DNC enlisted "volunteer" attorneys during the FL recount...the results might have gone Gore's way. Ergo, Dem Greed caused Gore's loss.

Keep trying.

Whatever T-man...


Neither you or Z addressed the point of the Republican Party putting themselves into oblivion because of allowing religious fanatics to hold the party hostage.


And what happened in Illinois is happening on a national scale to the Republican Party, which is really sad.

dbackjon wrote:Whatever T-man...


Neither you or Z addressed the point of the Republican Party putting themselves into oblivion because of allowing religious fanatics to hold the party hostage.


And what happened in Illinois is happening on a national scale to the Republican Party, which is really sad.

And when America wakes up and realized they've handed the keys to the kingdom to a bunch of free spending communists, they're realize that THE DEMOCRAT party is being held hostage too.

Then again, remember, we're deep into stage 6.

dbackjon wrote:Whatever T-man...


Neither you or Z addressed the point of the Republican Party putting themselves into oblivion because of allowing religious fanatics to hold the party hostage.


And what happened in Illinois is happening on a national scale to the Republican Party, which is really sad.

This isn't just about religion spoiling a party with litmus issues. The entire American political process has been manipulated by special interests who divide and conquer. Regardless of that group's interests, forcing an issue into an "all or nothing" test, by it's nature, eliminates reason from the debate. This has gone on since the dawn of politics, yet folks who have had the power to force issues into the arena to be debated openly with all sides being represented, formerly called "statesmen", have vanished. There are a few left in Washington, but attempts to represent and debate get shouted down by the NGO's representing special interests.

This is not a Donk or Conk issue. The "Christian" right is not the Dark Force. Nor are the Gays. This is simply a period of time when special interests control the process.

Ask yourself, "If society would acknowledge equal rights for gays, including the rights to marriage, and marital benefits in the workplace, elimination of all overtly codified prohibitions against homosexuality, but absent the provisions to allow for the constitutional recognition of gay rights via court mandated decrees applicable to education, AND the prohibition of tort damages in any former case of discrimination, would that be acceptable to me?"

Think about it. Based on everything you've said in the past, equal rights, marriage, benefits; you'd have to answer in the affirmative.

But that IS NOT what the leaders of the gay rights would be willing to accept. I'd stake my life on it.

Why?

Because the Gay rights movement, just as with most other movements that have emerged in the past 40 years since CRA, have also included mechanisms to guarantee the beneficiary of the new law the ability to:

1) Collect tort damages on past and future acts of discrimination.
2) Compel the education curricula and government agencies to take action to affirmatively recognize and promote the recently empowered class.
3) Require reparation by organizations that previously opposed equal rights, either financial, or by public apology and affirmation, to the new class, including mandatory adoption of doctrinal changes to codify the "past error", and state the organization's support of the new class.

Say it ain't so.

The above is why the Christians, and all other groups who oppose homosexuality for doctrinal, spiritual, or philisophical reasons will never agree to accept the "equal rights" concept. It's not just about "equal rights", it's about forcing others to say "uncle", with their wallet out, a smile on their face. It's called "humiliation".

A good negotiation has both sides walking out feeling like they've accomplished something.

A war has one side forcing the other to admit defeat in total submission.

Take the money off the table, and the lawyers out of the process, Jon, and this stops being a war, and becomes a constitutional amendment.

(...back to my original comment regarding the religious right...don't allow yourself to get sucked into that "hate" corner by the special interests. Otherwise, you'll fall into the same category as the Phelps of this world. Just another hateful loon, on the other side of the street.)

travelinman67 wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Whatever T-man...


Neither you or Z addressed the point of the Republican Party putting themselves into oblivion because of allowing religious fanatics to hold the party hostage.


And what happened in Illinois is happening on a national scale to the Republican Party, which is really sad.

This isn't just about religion spoiling a party with litmus issues. The entire American political process has been manipulated by special interests who divide and conquer. Regardless of that group's interests, forcing an issue into an "all or nothing" test, by it's nature, eliminates reason from the debate. This has gone on since the dawn of politics, yet folks who have had the power to force issues into the arena to be debated openly with all sides being represented, formerly called "statesmen", have vanished. There are a few left in Washington, but attempts to represent and debate get shouted down by the NGO's representing special interests.

This is not a Donk or Conk issue. The "Christian" right is not the Dark Force. Nor are the Gays. This is simply a period of time when special interests control the process.

Ask yourself, "If society would acknowledge equal rights for gays, including the rights to marriage, and marital benefits in the workplace, elimination of all overtly codified prohibitions against homosexuality, but absent the provisions to allow for the constitutional recognition of gay rights via court mandated decrees applicable to education, AND the prohibition of tort damages in any former case of discrimination, would that be acceptable to me?"

Think about it. Based on everything you've said in the past, equal rights, marriage, benefits; you'd have to answer in the affirmative.

But that IS NOT what the leaders of the gay rights would be willing to accept. I'd stake my life on it.

Why?

Because the Gay rights movement, just as with most other movements that have emerged in the past 40 years since CRA, have also included mechanisms to guarantee the beneficiary of the new law the ability to:

1) Collect tort damages on past and future acts of discrimination.
2) Compel the education curricula and government agencies to take action to affirmatively recognize and promote the recently empowered class.
3) Require reparation by organizations that previously opposed equal rights, either financial, or by public apology and affirmation, to the new class, including mandatory adoption of doctrinal changes to codify the "past error", and state the organization's support of the new class.

Say it ain't so.

The above is why the Christians, and all other groups who oppose homosexuality for doctrinal, spiritual, or philisophical reasons will never agree to accept the "equal rights" concept. It's not just about "equal rights", it's about forcing others to say "uncle", with their wallet out, a smile on their face. It's called "humiliation".

A good negotiation has both sides walking out feeling like they've accomplished something.

A war has one side forcing the other to admit defeat in total submission.

Take the money off the table, and the lawyers out of the process, Jon, and this stops being a war, and becomes a constitutional amendment.

(...back to my original comment regarding the religious right...don't allow yourself to get sucked into that "hate" corner by the special interests. Otherwise, you'll fall into the same category as the Phelps of this world. Just another hateful loon, on the other side of the street.)

Once again, the cs.com voice of reason has spoken.

All hail the voice of reason. You too, D1B.