Fill In The Thought Balloon: Disgraced Governor Blagojevich Edition

Sydney with Blagojevich (before the arrest).

Sydney with Blagojevich (before the arrest).

Hey, remember when Sydney met Governor Blagojevich? At the time, Sydney’s Aunt Chris said “he’s pretty much a crook like most of the Chicago/Illinois politicians, but he does take a nice picture.”

Anyhow, in light of Governor Blagojevich’s arrest this morning, I thought I’d recycle the photo into a contest. What’s the funniest thought balloon for Sydney in this picture? Or a thought/speech balloon for Blagojevich — either way.

This entry posted in Baby & kid blogging, In the news. Bookmark the permalink. 

31 Responses to Fill In The Thought Balloon: Disgraced Governor Blagojevich Edition

  1. 1
    Elizabeth Anne says:

    Hee! I logged in this morning thinking “I wonder if Amp will repost that pic of Sydney with the gov…”

  2. 2
    RonF says:

    This probably breaks a rule, but I’m going to ask for your indulgence and re-post what I put in the previous thread;

    Yesterday, Governor Blagoyevich was all over the news posing with a crowd of sign-waving workers in front of that factory pledging solidarity with those workers and letting everyone know what a great official he was for doing it. Today HIS ASS WAS HAULED OFF BY THE FBI TO JAIL FOR ATTEMPTING TO SELL OBAMA’S SENATE SEAT TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER! YEEEEEEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

    Please forgive the caps.

    I’ve been waiting for this for a while. I wasn’t exaggerating when I talked about the kind of political environment that Mr. Obama comes from. This will be the second consecutive governor of Illinois (and the 4th since I’ve come to live here, I think) to be indicted for official corruption. The other 3 were convicted and served time. Given that 15 other people in the investigation of the Governor’s office and associates have been indicted (and every trial that’s ended so far has ended in a conviction) Blago’s a good bet to make it 4 for 4. And for the record, I’m just as glad to see Democrat Blago get hauled off as I was to see his Republican predecessor Ryan hauled off before him.

    So now what gets interesting is – who’d he make the offer to? Is it on tape? And what was their answer ….?

    Since I wrote that I got to listen to Patrick Fitzgerald’s press conference. Robert D. Grant, the FBI special agent in charge of the agency’s Chicago office was asked if Illinois was the most corrupt state in the Union. He said that he didn’t know enough about the other 49 states to say, but that “if it isn’t the most corrupt state in the United States, it’s certainly one hell of a competitor.” He also said that FBI agents “were thoroughly disgusted and revolted by what they heard, and I think even the most cynical agents in our office were shocked,” Grant said.

    They state that Blago was recorded as saying:

    1) That the appointment to replace Obama was a “goldmine” and that people would have to be crazy to think he’d give it away for free.
    2) That he would not approve the Chicago Tribune’s sale of Wrigley Field until they fired the editorial writer who has been most critical of him, and when the Tribuneannounced layoffs he inquired if that writer had been fired. Upon being told no, he then hoped that they’d announce more layoffs and include him.
    3) That he was holding up signing a bill giving the Chicago Children’s Hospital $8 million in state aid until one of the hospital executives gave him a $50,000 campaign contribution, and after signing it and finding out the money was not forthcoming he asked about cancelling the bill
    4) That if no one paid him to become Senator he’s appoint himself, as it would help him raise more money and give him opportunites to make money giving speeches and to help his wife earn more money as a lobbyist.
    5) That he complained that the Obama people weren’t willing to make a deal with him to have him appoint someone that the Obama people would like to see in in the Senate. Just to make it clear, it’s not alleged that Blago actually openly proposed such an illegal act to anyone on Obama’s staff (which, if he had, they’d have been obliged to report).

    The entire complaint is here. If you think that I’ve been exaggerating just how corrupt Illinois politics are, give it a read.

  3. 3
    Matt Bors says:

    Sydney should distance herself from the Governor.

  4. 4
    Myca says:

    I understand that Illinois politics is corrupt, but since Governor Blagojevich spends 99% of the recordings throwing a hissy fit about how Obama refuses to bribe him, I find efforts to use this arrest to paint Obama as corrupt somehow to be pretty pathetic.

    —Myca

  5. 5
    Jake Squid says:

    I understand that Illinois politics is corrupt, but since Governor Blagojevich spends 99% of the recordings throwing a hissy fit about how Obama refuses to bribe him, I find efforts to use this arrest to paint Obama as corrupt somehow to be pretty pathetic.

    Oh, please. We know Obama comes out of the Chicago political machine. We know that the Chicago political machine, being part of Illinois politics, is outrageously corrupt. Therefore, Obama was involved in Blagojevich’s scheme to sell the senate seat. He was just trying to get a bigger cut than Blagojevich. How do you not see the connection? A + B(R) = 97(C)/428Q. It’s obvious.

  6. 6
    Sailorman says:

    I just read the whole complaint. holy shit!

  7. 7
    mery9419 says:

    I want current pix of the girls!

  8. 8
    Sailorman says:

    Random question that came up at dinner tonight:

    Is Chicago past the point of no return? Has it become so corrupt that even those who are charged with fixing the corruption, or monitoring the corruption, are themselves corrupt?

    As we were discussing this question, it really hit me how crazy it felt to seriously have this discussion. I am used to hearing it about Cameroon, not a U.S. city. And it felt even crazier as I began to think the answer was “yes.”

  9. I’m stunned that his bail wasn’t set equal to at least his opening bid on the Senate seat.

  10. 10
    Helen says:

    “I drawed his chin on in black Texta!”

  11. 11
    nobody.really says:

    Ok, everybody, settle down. It’s just an accusation. Innocent until proven guilty, and all that.

    And according to today’s news, the case is already falling apart. Apparently the prosecution’s lead witness refuses to testify. The witness claims that participating in the trial would conflict with his new duties as a US Senator….

  12. 12
    RonF says:

    The great thing about this was that after now ex-Gov. Ryan was hauled off to jail, Gov. Blagojevich won office by presenting himself as the reform candidate. And then apparently as soon as he got in he started slapping “For Sale” stickers on everything and everyone in sight.

    Is Chicago past the point of no return? Has it become so corrupt that even those who are charged with fixing the corruption, or monitoring the corruption, are themselves corrupt?

    Good question. The answer to the second question has mostly been “Yes, they have been.” The way the game has been played has been for U.S. Attorney Generals (and anybody else in a prosecutorial or inspector position) to be appointed from the group of insiders; from some lawyer who was part of the Springfield-Cook County-LaSalle St. Combine and was thus friendly and understanding (or in bed with, figuratively at least and possibly literally) of their needs and wants. When corruption was discovered, the lowest-level people were arrested, prosecuted and sent off to jail, and their heads were waved around on pikes and acclaimed as evidence that corruption was being rooted out. But those who gave them their marching orders were left undisturbed, and once they got out they ended up right back up in a low-level job somewhere.

    That’s why when then-Sen. Peter Fitzgerald recommended the appointment of Patrick Fitzgerald (no relation) to his present post it was tremendously controversial from the start. He was from New York, where he had been a Mafia prosecutor. He didn’t know anybody in town, and nobody knew him. The cry went up “Why are you showing such disrespect to the fine lawyers in Chicago? This is an insult!” Or as it was put more colorfully in a similar context, “We don’t want nobody that nobody sent.”

    U.S. Attorney for the District of Northern Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald started out the same way they all did; picking up small fry in headline-grabbing cases, trying them and finding them guilty. But at that point things changed. Fitzgerald then did something none of his predecessors did. He asked questions. Specifically, he asked “Where did you get the money for this? Where did you send the money you got? Who gave you the orders or the O.K. to do what you did?”, offering lighter sentences for the answers. Then he listened to the answers and went up the food chain/peeled the onion. That’s how he got from a Polish truck driver who couldn’t speak English all the way to Governor Ryan. Nobody had done that before. It was exactly what the Combine was afraid of and exactly what the system had been designed to prevent. And up to that point all of Sen. Fitzgerald’s predecessors had cooperated.

    So – to answer your first question, no – Chicago is not beyond reform. But it’s going to take more Patrick Fitzgeralds. It’s going to take more Peter Fitzgeralds (and I have little hope for Sen. Durbin in this regard – after all, he had his chance when Clinton was President). And, more importantly than that, it’s going to take an electorate that comes to understand that the benefits of corruption (e.g., I get a job with the City because I worked Alderman Joe Blow’s campaign) are outweighed by the costs (e.g., we got $100 million dollars worth of trash pickup services for $150 million because the guy in charge gave $100,000 to the Mayor’s campaign), and stops voting for whoever the Combine nominates in the primaries. Chicago voters have to stop automatically voting Democratic no matter who the candidate is. Downstate voters have to stop automatically voting Republican no matter who the candidate is.

    Of course, the Combine has had its revenge. Their Republican faction stabbed Sen. Fitzgerald in the back repeatedly and finally drove him to leave the Senate. Then they put up a party loyalist (Jim Ryan, no relation) who had to leave the campaign late in the game due to scandal. Which left the field wide open for State Senator Barak Obama, who was most noted for giving a fine speech at a Democratic convention and not much otherwise but who ended up winning easily after his new opponent was exposed as a right-wing wingnut.

    Mr. Obama has apparently been asked by representatives of the Combine to replace Patrick Fitzgerald. He better not, even if he masks it by promoting him to some position in D.C. So far I don’t think or expect that Obama is personally involved in any corruption. But if Patrick Fitzgerald’s work in Illinois is interrputed by Obama’s action my opinion will be open to change.

  13. 13
    Myca says:

    Apparently Obama’s already said that he’d like to see Fitzgerald continue as a U.S. Attorney.

    —Myca

  14. 14
    RonF says:

    Oh, yes. That’s what he’s said. But that was Candidate Obama. After January 20th he’ll be President Obama, and that’s a different ball game. He better keep his word on this. I hope and expect he will, but experience tells me not to rule out the possibility that he won’t.

  15. 15
    Sailorman says:

    Well, Obama’s calling for him to step down. Which didn’t take long. i don’t see how (or, really, WHY) Obama would flip on that issue.

  16. 16
    RonF says:

    Understand that Blagojevich was elected as a reform candidate. Just like Obama, he told everyone that he was going to go to Springfield and make changes, that it would no longer be business as usual. He made all kinds of promises that he has almost abusively betrayed. So my faith in Illinois politicians’ promises isn’t too strong right now. Hasn’t been for some time, actually, but now everyone can see why.

  17. 17
    RonF says:

    Is Chicago past the point of no return?

    Sailorman, your focus is too narrow. We’re not talking Chicago here. We’re talking Illinois. It’s not just one city – it’s the entire STATE.

  18. 18
    RonF says:

    So – word is that if at this point the Gov. makes a Senate appointment, Sen. Reid will lead the charge to have the Senate vote to deny the appointee a seat. If the Gov. either resigns or otherwise defers his choice to the Lt. Gov. (Pat Quinn, a long-time consumer advocate who is generally considered relatively clean for an Illinois politician), any appointee who doesn’t set off alarm bells down at the FBI offices will likely be seated.

    What Sen. Reed and Mr. Obama do not want is for the current drive in the Illinois General Assembly to do a hurry-up special election to fill the seat (which is still an option even if an acceptable appointee is made and seated) to succeed. That’s because the Gov. and the Lt. Gov. are both Democrats and will appoint a Democrat – whereas if an election is held, a Republican might win. They’re all for the voice of the people to be heard – except when they’re not.

    Obama’s Senate seat was held by a Republican prior to his election, and the incumbent resigned due to pressure from the Illinois GOP, not because he was afraid of losing the election (he was the guy who got the prosecutor appointed who just nailed Blagojevich – and about 75 or 80 other people in the Illinois political establishment). In the last 40 years Illinois has had at least one Republican Senator for 25 of them; Peter Fitzgerald (R-Ill) won his seat during Clinton’s 2nd term. Given that history and the fact that Blagojevich is quite prominently a Democrat, the Illinois Reflublicans just might not screw it up badly enough to lose.

  19. 19
    nobody.really says:

    What Sen. Reed and Mr. Obama do not want is for the current drive in the Illinois General Assembly to do a hurry-up special election to fill the seat (which is still an option even if an acceptable appointee is made and seated) to succeed. That’s because the Gov. and the Lt. Gov. are both Democrats and will appoint a Democrat – whereas if an election is held, a Republican might win. They’re all for the voice of the people to be heard – except when they’re not.

    ???

    So every time an elected official exercises his legally-prescribed power to fill a governmental post by appointment, this demonstrates contempt for “the voice of the people”?

    Sure, Democrats have partisan interests, and advance those partisan interests through the appointment power. As do Republicans. I don’t doubt that many people would prefer to vote on this appointment. And I would have preferred to vote on the choice of Gonzalez as US Attorney General; so what? “The people” choose the rules embedded in the state and federal constitutions, and “the people” choose the officials who implement those rules and exercise those powers.

    Evidence suggests Blagojevich is corrupt, not the appointment power itself. If the governor resigns or recuses himself, I have no reason to conclude that Quinn can’t honor “the voice of the people” through the exercise of the appointment power.

  20. 20
    Myca says:

    Seriously, Ron. The Democrats aren’t pulling shenanigans to do this, they’re following the established rules and procedures.

    Now, I understand that the established rules and procedures are unlikely to lead to your preferred outcome, but that, in itself, does not make them illegitimate or corrupt somehow.

    In fact, I’d point out that the attitude that it’s reasonable to ignore or change the rules when they don’t say what you’d like them to say is part of why Illinois politics is as corrupt as it is . . . so really, you ought to be applauding.

    Plus, I just love that the Dems say in no uncertain terms, “screw you, Blagojevich. You need to resign, you need to not pick someone for the senate, and if you do, we won’t seat him or her,” and your response is, “Feh, those corrupt jerks!” It’s like the platonic ideal RonF comment.

    —Myca

  21. 21
    Sailorman says:

    If there’s a way to get the special election, I prefer a special election. It is more democratic than the alternative.

    Yes, the party in power will use that power to get ahead, and to try to keep power whenever possible. Republicans and Democrats both do it. That such a thing happens doesn’t make it ideal.

  22. 22
    Ampersand says:

    There’s an interesting post by Nate Silver about appointed Senators. In a nutshell, appointed Senators rarely win reelection; the usual incumbent advantage doesn’t seem to apply to appointed Senators. The ones who do win re-election tend to be the ones who were already successful legislators (in the House of Reps or in the state congress) before they were appointed to the Senate.

    I’d prefer a special election, as well. It’s not breaking the rules, or corrupt, to go with an appointment; but it’s more democratic to do a special election.

    One thing to consider, however, is that elections are expensive. I don’t know how broke Illinois is right now, but most state governments are looking at huge budget shortfalls. That might be a reason to just have an appointment now and let the voters speak once it’s time for a regularly scheduled election.

  23. 23
    Myca says:

    Yes, the party in power will use that power to get ahead, and to try to keep power whenever possible.

    I believe that there is a difference between the party in power deliberately changing the established rules in order to gain power and the party in power following the established rules in order to gain power.

    Do you agree?

    I see this as the reason there was no outcry for a special election for Supreme Court Justices, rather than have them appointed by Bush. Of course the Republicans would rather have Bush appoint them, but that doesn’t seem to me to be grounds for outcry, because all they’re doing is following the established rules.

    —Myca

  24. 24
    Elusis says:

    Amp – the figure I heard quoted on NPR yesterday was that a special election would cost Illinois 50 Million dollars.

    In this economy, I think I’d hesitate to encourage spending that money even if the gubernatorial offices were held by Republicans and I thought a popular election would swing Democrat.

  25. 25
    Jake Squid says:

    It’s like the platonic ideal RonF comment.

    Heh. I never would have thought to put it that way, but you’re correct. And hilarious.

  26. 26
    Sailorman says:

    Myca Writes:
    December 12th, 2008 at 10:35 am
    I believe that there is a difference between the party in power deliberately changing the established rules in order to gain power and the party in power following the established rules in order to gain power.

    Do you agree?

    No. If the rule change is made according to the rules, then I don’t think there is a difference. IMO, concluding otherwise gives too much weight to what is or is not viewed as “established.”

    I see this as the reason there was no outcry for a special election for Supreme Court Justices, rather than have them appointed by Bush. Of course the Republicans would rather have Bush appoint them, but that doesn’t seem to me to be grounds for outcry, because all they’re doing is following the established rules.

    If Congress was directed by the citizens to amend the Constitution so that the Supremes would be seated by general election, and if the President–knowing this–rushed to seat as many as she could before the law could be signed, then there would be an equivalent outcry.

    That said, I hadn’t considered the cost issue. $50,000,000 is a lot of money for not so much democratic gain. You’d buy a lot of voting booths in underserved districts for fifty million and you’d get more out of it I think; Amp is right about that.

  27. 27
    RonF says:

    So every time an elected official exercises his legally-prescribed power to fill a governmental post by appointment, this demonstrates contempt for “the voice of the people”?

    Hang on. I’m not talking about the concept in general. I’m fine with whoever is picked serving out Obama’s term. That’s in accordance with the Constitution and with Illinois law. It’s that in this specific case some of these particular officials have prior to this instance called for this kind of thing to be dealt with by special election. But now that it’s THEIR ox being gored ….

    Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn in particular is on record as previously having asked that the law be changed to set up special elections for this circumstance. Now that he’s the person who will actually make the appointment he playing the “Oh, but it’ll cost so much money” card. Well gee; they weren’t free a few years ago either. But, of course, back then a Republican was Governor. Hypocrite.

    Rodney Blagojevich is the 3rd Democrat to be elected Governor of Illinois in my lifetime. He’ll be the 3rd to go to jail. I’m not sure if it’s an issue of excessive corruption in the Democratic ranks or excessive incompetence.

  28. 28
    RonF says:

    Oh, it gets better.

    State Rep. Illinois’ Attorney General Lisa Madigan (D) (the daughter of House Majority leader and my representative Mike Madigan (D)) is trying to get the Illinois Supreme Court to declare that Gov. Blagojevich is unable to execute his office and thus should be removed from office not by impeachment but under a State Constitutional provision similar to the Federal Constitutional amendment that provides for transferring power over to the Vice President if the President is disabled, ill, etc. Here’s the Illinois State Constitution’s language that she’s relying on:

    If the Governor is unable to serve because of death, conviction on impeachment, failure to qualify, resignation or other disability, the office of Governor shall be filled by the officer next in line of succession for the remainder of the term or until the disability is removed.

    If they specified “conviction on impeachment”, I figure that they’d have also mentioned “Federal indictment” if that’s what they meant by “other disability”. The text of her brief is here.

    So, never mind all that nasty stuff about “impeachment” and “conviction” – they’ll just push him out of the way on a quick vote without giving him a chance to defend himself (i.e., name names). Very handy. Who knows? If he gets his day in front of the legislature during an impeachment trial he might decide to start airing dirty laundry. Hell, her dad’s name just might come up (Gov. Blago and Rep. Madigan don’t like each other at all, to put it mildly). Can’t have that. We’ll see if the Illinois Supremes give their blessing to this putsch. It has a bare Democratic majority (we elect our Supreme Court Justices).

    Madigan was also reported as having said that she supports legislation that would take away the power of governors to make appointments to fill U.S. Senate vacancies. She doesn’t even want Lt. Gov Quinn (D) to make the appointment, she wants a special election. I presume she means Illinois state legislation that would take away the power of Illinois governors to appoint Senators. That would seem to run afoul of the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But then, I’ve had an Illinois state legislator tell me to my face that she (the legislator) didn’t know anything about the U.S. Constitution, so maybe Madigan has the same attitude.

    I was reading a story on this wherein a young woman interviewed in Chicago said something along the lines of “Oh, our reputation was so good after Obama got elected and now it’s horrible. We don’t deserve this.” Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. We deserve exactly this; to be the butt of jokes and contempt nationwide and even internationally. Keep ignoring corruption and political news and primary elections and just keep pulling that lever for the candidate of a corrupt party’s choice (or stay away from the polling booth entirely) when you do go and this is precisely what you deserve.

  29. 29
    Ampersand says:

    I presume she means Illinois state legislation that would take away the power of Illinois governors to appoint Senators. That would seem to run afoul of the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

    No, that doesn’t run afoul of the 17th at all. Here’s the relevant text:

    When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

    The legislature “may” provide the governor with the power to appoint Obama’s replacement if the legislature wants too; but they’re not required to do so.

  30. 30
    RonF says:

    Hm. I had understood “writs of election” to be an appointment. So then what you figure this means (and you may well be right) is that the Governor can call a special election to fill the vacancy, and that the State legislature can empower the Governor to fill it by appointment until the election is held?

    I need to see a citation on this ….

  31. 31
    Charles S says:

    RonF,

    This is standard practice in many states. For example, Alaska passed a law to this effect in 2004 in response to when Sen. Frank Murkowski was elected Governor and appointed his daughter, Lisa Murkowski, as his replacement in the senate.

    Furthermore, what you are claiming is unconstitutional is exactly the same thing that you were calling random Democrats hypocrites for not supporting, special elections for US Senate replacements. Do you even read what you write?