"It's easy to quit smoking. I've done it hundreds of times." - Mark Twain
Today's Fun Facts:
A bit of alternate universe movie history for you. Tom Selleck was originally cast as Indiana Jones but had to turn it down when the producers of Magnum P.I. wouldn’t let him out of his contract. Eric Stoltz was cast as Marty McFly for 6 weeks before being dubbed “too intense” by producers. The role of Sigourney Weaver’s neighbor in Ghostbusters (Louis Tully) was specifically written for John Candy; when he couldn’t commit it was given to Rick Moranis instead. Both Will Smith and Ewan McGregor turned down the role of Neo in The Matrix. Cary Grant turned down the role of 007 in Dr. No and it went to Sean Connery instead. Connery paid it forward years later by turning down the role of Gandalf, as he reportedly had never read the Tolkien books and didn’t understand the plot.
So Donald Trump's Trump Entertainment filed for bankruptcy today. I really don't care too much about that, but I did find it amusing that the Yahoo! news article about it used this picture of him:
So our dearly departed governor is back in the news in a roundabout way via the new controversey over Roland Burris. Mr. Burris recently decided to enlighten us that former Gov. Blagojevich did in fact hit him up for cash to get the inside track on the Senate seat. Mr. Burris doesn't see it as a big deal that he failed to inform us of this earlier. In fact, apparently it's the impeachment committee's fault for not asking him the correct question: "There were several facts that I was not given the opportunity to make during my testimony." Nevermind the fact that this new statement contradicts an earlier sworn statement and the testimony he made about his contact with the governor's office. I just have to ask the question: has it finally gotten ridiculous enough that we can agree to have a special election rather than let governors appoint replacements? If not, I'd like to know what else needs to happen. One thing's for sure. Even if Burris does survive this, he can kiss his re-election chances goodbye. In fact, I doubt he even makes it out of the Democratic primary.
And once again on the stimulus (set to be signed by Obama today) I have a new rule. Democrats, stop quoting the Moody's Economy study like it's the Bible and Republicans stop quoting noted economist Marty Feldstein's opposition to the stimulus. They both were legitimate points but you have made them and made them again. And then kept making them for another 2 weeks. Now let it go. Find some other sources.
10 comments:
we can have a special election when you offer to pay for it.
$10 million.
Nationwide maybe 10 special elections (due to deaths, appointments, scandal, etc...) every 4 years? Guesstimating here, but that is $25 million per year.
Pass.
That is why this stuff is built into State and National constitutions. I just think we need to set a limit on hearings.
No more taking 3 weeks just to decide if you even should bring charges. Haul his ass in, take a day, find out if he's full of shit, bring his removal up for a vote, and be done with it either way.
I swear, if elected officials spent half as much time governing as they did questioning each other the country would be twice as well off.
So does that mean that you are advocating that we get rid of the special elections which are routinely called for US House seats (like Rahm Emmanuel's)?
Personally, I think cost concerns are a poor reason to not have democracy. Sure, $10 million is a lot of money but there are ~9.5 million adults in IL. Even taking into account unemployment, that's at least 8 million working adults. Do you really think a one time $2-$3 special election tax every 4-5 years is prohibitive? Or if you do it on the national level, there are ~200 million working adults in the country, so that's an extra $.13 tax per year (using your $25 million number). Again, prohibitive?
If cost is really a concern (and I know that $25 million is not cheap but it kind of loses its significance 2 days after we pass a $787 billion stimulus bill) then I am fine with an order of succesion too, like with the presidency and the governor. Anything to get it away from being left up to the whim and manipulations of one person.
As much as the Burris nomination got press, I also thought it was total crap that when Sen Gregg initially accepted the Commerce Secretary position it was with the understanding that the Gov. would appoint Gregg's former chief of staff to the position. Um, shouldn't the people of New Hampshire get some kind of choice in this?
So do you think they should have held a special election after Kennedy was killed?
I don't understand your position here. For some things you are about following the law (you mentioned line of succession,) but for other things you want to circumvent the rules. These seats are appointed by ELECTED officials.
And on the fiscal front, just because we passed $2 trillion in stimulus in the last 2 years doesn't mean we don't have to remain fiscally responsible. It is certainly possible to manage both micro and macro at the same time. During the election Obama kept talking about cutting the budget with a scalpel. Just because those cuts would come in $1, $5, or $10 million doesn't mean that in the face of massive stimulus that those cuts are obsolete or unnecessary. In fact, these micro cutbacks are all the more important.
It is like taking out a $400k loan for a house, and then spending $2k on a TV you don't need because $2k is such a small amount.
Hell, I don't know. It is a give and take I guess. Appointing people leads to cronyism and possible corruption, and special elections are expensive and faster than usual which limits vetting.
Like most things we argue about here, I'm arguing both sides in my head and spewing stream of consciousness into posts.
Well regardless of what ideological side of economic matters you are on, I think one that can be agreed upon is that elections are one thing that should be paid for by the government and thus tax dollars.
Not trying to circumvent the law; I'm saying that we should change the law to that. I'm not at all saying we need a special election for the Obama seat; we need to change the law so that next time this happens we avoid this mess.
No special election after Kennedy because a line of succession was already established in the constitution. And people do use it as a criteria that whoever the pres nominee picks as VP will be "one heartbeat away from the presidency". And, yes, I do know that in cases like Ford you end up in much the same situation since he was never elected, but at least that was Nixon picking him to do a different job and then he just ended up as president.
And yes I agree that you don't just throw money around 'cause it's comparatively small to what you've already spent. I was just trying to illustrate that we're really not talking about a whole lot of money here when you break it down, and the fact is that we already do have these special elections in some cases and not in others. Even though we're talking about people from individual states it's a decision that brings them federal power; hence I think it's something that should be uniform.
And if there's one thing that I think's been proven over the last year or so (and especially the last 2-3 weeks) it's that the public and press seem to vet the candidates a lot more thoroughly than the people appointing them did.
"Personally, I think cost concerns are a poor reason to not have democracy."
We don't live in a democracy. We live in a democratic republic. The problem with a democracy is it would be inefficient and cumbersome (and let us not forget, expensive) to vote on every single item that the government handles. We democratically elect representatives and entrust them to take care of these day to day minutiae that we ourselves cannot be burdened with. But the key word in that sentence is "entrust", and our elected representatives continue to violate that trust.
It's now time we hold them to the standards they voluntarily subject themselves to. I know from previous discussions on this forum that the issue of a higher standard is touchy. But can we, at the very minimum, agree that staying within the bounds of the LAW should be a minimum?
I'll assume yes, for now, and move on. That said, testifying (under oath) and being found to have been lying should then be punished as spelled out in the statute. Jail. Then the new Governor can pick a new representative as is his right and responsibility* per the state constitution.
*Actually, there is no requirement to appoint a replacement. The seat can go vacant until the next election.
If we punish enough people for breaking the law, and violating our trust, then I believe that we will have better representation. I don't believe these people get to Washington (or Springfield for that matter) as bad people. I believe that they probably have the best intentions, and then the job goes to their head, the perks start perking, and the sight of every other person in town getting away with these crimes erodes their character and in the interest of "playing along" they end up going bad. The phrase "one bad apple..." is absolutely true here. If we don't punish the bad apples, the good ones will soon go rotten as well. Our problem is we haven't been REALLY punishing any bad apples.
John,
Do you not agree with the concept of "States' Rights"?
Mike - Yes I definitely support states' rights, but as I was trying to indicate earlier I see this as a federal issue.
To me, states' rights issues are things that only directly affect residents (or visitors) of that particular state. Things such as state income tax, drinking age, speed limit, and heck I'd even throw abortion and the teaching of creationism in there too. Whatever Mississipi does with regard to those things has no effect on me in Illinois unless I choose to live in or go to Mississippi. But the Reps and Senators from Mississippi can have a direct effect on me by introducing or voting for/against national legislation, so that's why I see it as a federal issue instead and why I think the selection process should be uniform across all states.
I guess my big problem with the Gregg situation is that I don't see it as being a whole heck of a lot different than the Blagojevich one. I have always thought that the spirit of appointment was that you were charged with finding the person that you truly thought was best for the position. Using any other criteria, whether it's who can raise the most money for my campaign or who will most please the predecessor, just strikes me as cronyism.
Okay, I was curious. You're correct that the appointment of a representative affects other states, but it's currently up to each individual state how they choose their senatorial representation in the event of a vacancy. The 17th Amendment covered this topic 95 years ago, and I think it is interesting to note that corruption within the previous system is what prompted the amendment process.
Either way, though, the Senators and Representatives chosen by the electorate of a given state still have the same ability to influence other states as does one chosen by the state's "executive", to use the language in the constitution.
Thus, using the principles of "reductio ad absurdum", we will be forced to have nationwide elections of 535 members of Congress.
That's the only "fair" way of making sure the distinguished gentleman from California doesn't have unfair influence over the state of Rhode Island, regardless of whether he was elected or selected.
Fun topic John. Kudos.
Well, obviously it is impractical for every citizen to vote on all 535 members of the Congress and I don't really think it would be a good idea even if it was practical.
As part of a federation, I accept that the actions of another state may have an effect on mine and vice versa. Similarly, when shrunk down to the state level I don't think I should vote for Peoria's state rep and I don't want them voting for mine. But I also don't want it to be that I elect my state rep through an election and Peoria decides to give it to the winner of a Texas Hold 'Em tournament. Obviously I am being facetious with that example; I'm just underscoring the point that I am fine with different people choosing different officials but I want the method to be the same.
Again though, I'm fine if you want to have a line of succession instead of special elections. I just want a clear "if X then Y" for all election and replacement scenarios that is the same from state to state (for federal offices), and I would prefer that the "Y" not be that any one person gets to choose the replacement.
Lets also try to remember that we got hit with a perfect storm here.
Obama elected.
Blago indicted.
Special Election refusal.
Appointment after arrest.
Race.
Illinois.
Ooh, also that one of the charges was trying to sell the seat he was appointing. If he was arrested for, say, tax fraud, it wouldn't be as big a deal.
Did I miss anything?
Post a Comment