Comments on: Illinois House votes 114-1 to impeach Blagojevich.

By: TheWatcher

TheWatcher — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 04:54:46 +0000

More on lone impeachment dissenter Milt Patterson. He got so little support from his party (dems) at the last election he was forced to run as a write-in…. and got 37 votes.

By: Max-1

Max-1 — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 02:30:07 +0000

Well,
At least Governors aren’t above the law…

By: ElBruce

ElBruce — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 01:53:10 +0000

If they had called a special session last week or the week before, the Burris fiasco wouldn’t be happening. Don’t give ‘em too much credit.

By: Midland

Midland — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 00:25:26 +0000

Wow, the Illinois legislature does something no other legislature in the country apparently has the spine to do–they impeached a horribly corrupt public official instead of punting their moral authority off to a Federal prosecutor. Lets hope it gets taken as a good example by other legislatures, and maybe we can get a few of these corrupt congressmen out of Washington before their sentencing hearings and appeals.

By: katy

katy — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 23:22:56 +0000

see how easy – and FAST! – that was done, nancy?

i just wish it had been a REAL criminal, THE criminals, bushco…

things are gonna go downfill fast for illinois now… the past repug admins taught them nothing…

By: ElBruce

ElBruce — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 22:13:08 +0000

Skeeter1 Says:

It wasn’t “someone.”
And it wasn’t “feel free to add my name.”
Allegedly, it was Lon Monk (referenced in the charges against Blago).
On top of that, there are all sorts of shady financial dealings involving Burris.
Burris and Blago are a great team.

So putting that all together, what you’re telling us goes as follows:

Several months ago, Burris told __Lon Monk*__ that if Obama wins the election, “_________________.” Furthermore, Burris is involved in the following shady financial dealings: _______, _______, and _______. Burris and Blago are a great team.

*allegedly

Well, I’m convinced!

By: drew3rd

drew3rd — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:53:18 +0000

I like the idea of getting rid of the bad apples. The repubs have had to dump quite a bushel over the past few years. Maybe the repubs and democrats could get together and throw the rest out. I know that 25 senators and 100 congressmen would have trouble legislating but it couldn’t be any worse than what we’ve got now. They are all on the take.

By: Skeeter1

Skeeter1 — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:49:15 +0000

By: TheWatcher

TheWatcher — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:06:24 +0000

Lone dissenter Milt Patterson was characterized on local state radio as a bit too old for the job, out of touch with events, and possibly harboring a grudge against state Dem leaders. It was a poke in their ribs to show his displeasure with their lack of support for him or his issues.

By: Marie

Marie — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 19:45:30 +0000

Skeeter1,
Not exactly — several months ago, Burris told someone in the governor’s office that if Obama wins the election and Blago needs names to add to his list of appointees, feel free to add Burris’ name.
That is not the same as formally approaching the governor’s office after the election with a request that he be appointed.

By: Skeeter1

Skeeter1 — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:42:46 +0000

Marie,
Burris apparently signed an affidavit saying the had no contacts, when in fact he had.
That’s pretty bad and is part of a record of Burris doing some shady stuff.

By: boreas

boreas — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:32:50 +0000

Hoodathunk Says: And boreas, I agree but the problem with the bad apple analogy is what if there more bad ones than good? Part of the problem these past few years seems to be if you chucked all the bad apples out the barrel would have been pretty damned empty.

Well see, that’s what happens when you tolerate the bad apples: they take over as, they have in the Republican party, because it creates an atmosphere of total license where anything goes and everything is for sale.

I agree that chucking out the bad apples in the Republican barrel would result in a pretty nearly empty barrel but the Dems aren’t there yet. We’ll see shortly whether control if the executive and legislative branches will start to erode the relative high principle of the Democrats.

By: Marie

Marie — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:30:08 +0000

Annie,
You’re right — we had at least 6 years within which Bush coulda/shoulda been impeached. But the fraidy-cat Dems and the big bad repugs, each for their own reasons, would not move forward.
It was amazing to see how quickly this was accomplished in Illinois. Although it does set an example that Democrats are more willing than repugs to oust their own.
Equally amazing was watching the Illinois legislature quiz Burris about how he got the appointment to the Senate.
They even tried to accuse him of lying because a few months ago, he told someone in the governor’s office that if Blago was looking for names of potential appointees his name could be added to the list.

By: Briseadh na Faire

Briseadh na Faire — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:29:12 +0000

Rep. Milt Patterson (D) cast the sole dissenting vote, saying that he didn’t feel comfortable with impeachment because he had “no first-hand knowledge of any of the evidence.”

If that’s the case, I agree with Rep. Patterson. Without seeing the evidence, I would not vote to impeach either. Impeachment is serious, and not a step to be taken via trial by media.

That said, it is also political, as we have seen by the impeachment of Clinton and the non-impeachment of anyone in the Bush Administration.

By: Leftside Annie

Leftside Annie — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:08:53 +0000

#25, 26 – Thanks, guys – I wuz worrit that I wuz losing my edge there for a mo…

~ A

By: Uosdwis

Uosdwis — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:03:00 +0000

I wonder if the one no vote guy made a deal with Blago so that he could say “well, at least it wasn’t UNANIMOUS!” He said he didn’t feel it was his job to impeach. Buddy, you need to read your job description again. It’s exactly your job.

By: EnnuiDivine

EnnuiDivine — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:00:04 +0000

Mr. Milt Patterson is a schmuck. As a legislator and human being, he is entitled to voice his opposition. This does not change the fact that he is a schmuck.

By: ElBruce

ElBruce — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:48:21 +0000

I wonder who the one guy who voted against was? I’d be interested to see a ledger of his bank account deposits.

Leftside Annie Says:

!!!

I knew what you meant.

By: Max-1

Max-1 — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:45:31 +0000

Leftside Annie,
Oh I get it. Too bad die hard Democrappers don’t.

Enforcement of the law only counts if your a Repugnican’t charging a Democrapper.

By: Max-1

Max-1 — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 17:42:18 +0000

Dear John Conyers,
See how easy it really is?