When he's been convicted.
I've seen some people implicitly or explicitly condemning those Alaskans who voted for Sen. Stevens, and apparently gave him a narrow victory. How could they vote for someone who was pretty obviously a crook? (Set aside those who might think the conviction was unfounded; presumably many voted for him even though they had little reason to doubt the accuracy of the jury's finding.)
Seems to me that it's pretty easy: It seems nearly certain that Stevens will be expelled, which means he will be replaced, likely -- in heavily Republican Alaska -- by a Republican in the next special election. (The question whether there'll be a temporary appointed replacement, also a Republican, is irrelevant here.) And this prospect was clear at the time of the election as well.
So the choice isn't between getting a Republican crook and getting a Democratic noncrook. It's between getting a Republican crook for a very short time followed by a Republican noncrook and getting a Democratic noncrook. Anyone who generally thinks the Republican Party is better than the Democratic Party (e.g., who wanted Republican control in the Senate, or a Republican minority capable of mounting filibusters, or just as many Republican votes as possible) could thus quite reasonably vote for Sen. Stevens, even if he thought Stevens was a crook who doesn't deserve to be in the Senate. The same is true of anyone who supports government that's as split as possible, given his anticipation of a Democratic victory in many places.
This is not exactly the point I made in my "vote the party, not the candidate" post; recall that there was a "truly awful candidate" exception to that rule, which might well apply to Sen. Stevens if Sen. Stevens was likely to retain the office. Rather, my point is that voting for a crook who'll likely be thrown out right away, and replaced by a noncrook of your own party, is much better than voting for a noncrook of the opposite party (or not voting at all, which may also help the opposite party get elected).
Voting for dead people...GREAT!
Will reelecting Stevens hurt the image of Alaska in the eyes of Congress/public opinion? and if so, will it have any adverse effect on the quantum of federal funds going to Alaska? Or has the high profile occasioned by Palin's candidacy already highlighted this issue and will cause such an effect?
Did Obama lose any votes because of Tony Rezko? Yes, I know Obama was not convicted of anything. But it is possible that Obama got a crooked benefit from Rezko, and nobody cared.
"Republican crook" vs "Democrat non-crook" is probably a bit simplistic.
I'm crooking serious, man. This is so crooked up.
From Wikipedia entry on scandals in Warren Harding administration:
"The most infamous scandal of the time was the Teapot Dome affair, which shook the nation for years after Harding's death. The scandal involved Secretary of the Interior Albert B. Fall, who was convicted of accepting bribes and illegal no-interest personal loans in exchange for the leasing of public oil fields to business associates. (Absent the bribes and personal loans, the leases themselves were quite legal.) In 1931, Fall became the first member of a Presidential Cabinet to be sent to prison."
EV is making a good point. I doubt this is why most Alaskans who voted for Stevens did so, but it is a perfectly defensible rationale.
Assuming that Stevens sentence includes jail time and he is unsuccessful with appeals, how long before he'd be sent to prison?
I couldn't bring myself to vote for Stevens. He was literally the Alaskan of the Century, but is now a walking advertisement for term limits. When anyone is in power that long, they can't help it -- they just start to believe that the position is theirs, they're entitled to it, and hey, after all the good they've done for Alaska, it's only natural that some Alaskans would want to reward them for decades of hard work and a job well done. It's human nature.
On the other hand, I couldn't vote for Begich either. He's a fairly good guy and has been a decent mayor. But to me the worst possible outcome would have been to have a progressive president with a filibuster proof congress, and I just couldn't in good conscience contribute to another New Deal. Shades of Wickard v. Filburn kept dancing in my head.
- Alaska Jack
* Actually that's not exactly true. I wrote in a friend of mine, a local actor who once accepted a role as a "do nothing" Lieutenant Governor in a political add. He portrayed the kind of Lt Gov the candidate (who sponsored the ad) would NOT be -- sleeping on the job, watching those little balls clack back and forth, etc. In other words, exactly the kind of Lt Gov I WANTED.
Berkowitz is the race I'm kind of sad about. He had some solid ideas about Alaska branching out into other types of energy supply, and the importance of bringing us towards sustainable, local food. As opposed to Don Young, who has no ideas.
I'm not sure we've managed to find any Republican non-crooks yet. Not even Bruce Weyrauch! That guy was like Ward Cleaver but somehow more wholesome. Alaska does cruel things to a politician, I guess.
driverprogramsohbetcinsel sohbet
cetçetsohbet odalarisohbet
cet odasiçetsohbetsohbet
sohbetchatkelebekfmkelebek fmkelebek radyocetcinsel cet
cet kanallaricet odasimuhabbetizmir sohbet
scriptcetçetmirc
chatcetchatsohbetsohbet odalarikelebek
However, I am sure there were some, maybe many Alaskans that voted for Stevens because they still like him and/or thought he has been treated unfairly and will win his appeals. I don't believe this, but some might.
I hope that Stevens will do the right thing and just resign his seat, but I suspect Stevens won't be that helpful.
President-Elect Obama called for us to work together as Americans to try and solve this country's problems but you seem more focused on insulting Republicans. You are much worse than the people who booed when McCain mentioned Obama's name during his concession speech.
Why don't you try to act like an adult and find a way to work with Republicans.
Oh.
Never mind.
Edwin Edwards vs. David Duke --- you decide.
In that setting, it might be rational to try to keep a guy with a ton of federal seniority and power in office, and figure the fact that he's a crook is just a cost of doing federal business. As I recall, more than one legislative district in the east has made that choice. Alcee Hastings sits in the House despite having been impeached as a judge for bribery. (Once appeared before him, BTW, and he seemed like a nice and fair fellow on the bench.)
Here in Chicago (where we have a lot of experience on this issue) we usually feel that anytime following the indictment but at least a week prior to sentencing is a reasonable period.
For the folks that vote the Holy Sepulchre and Chapel Hill precints, slightly different rules apply.
Alaska should look on the bright side. Once Blagojevich is out of office, he's likely to be the second straight Illinois governor sent to federal prison (hell, the DNCC was throwing him under the bus in ads against Republicans). One felonious Senator is an abberation; two staight governors who become convicted criminals starts to look like a trend.
In labeling a politician a crook, the public really doesn't care what the courts say or don't say.
Young defeating Berkowitz is only a mild surprise. Young is at this point a half-batty crackpot, but he is a conservative with some accomplishment to his record. The flabbergasting thing was Young defeating Lt Gov Sean Parnell in the primary. That makes no sense whatsoever, and yet obviously tens of thousands of people did.
- Alaska Jack
Stevens isn't scheduled to be sentenced until February, so the timing works. And once he's been pardoned, I don't think he'll be punished.
Remember that Larry Craig is still in office.
Maybe if everyone voted against crooks, the ideals of loyalty to one's party would help prevent some of the crookedness....
I'm guessing that the issue won't come before the senate before his appeals are exhausted, and considering he's 80+ I'm guessing his appeals will outlive him.
The problem is the Democrats don't have a reason to expell him. In Stevens you have a guy that's injured politically, not physically strong, and a great reminder of Republican sleeze. They don't want a new guy to be appointed and solidify his hold on that seat.
So my money's on the issue never being brought before the Senate before his casket rolls down the steps of the building.
Haven't read the comments yet so someone may have made this point already. You want to "set aside those who might think the conviction is unfounded." I live in Alaska and though I'm a liberal I talk to a lot of people, and they've been interviewing random people after the verdict. I would bet that a majority of those who voted for Stevens believe the conviction was unfounded. Most of the rest believe that everyone does it and they're just picking on him. I'd be willing to bet that a VAST majority of those voting for Stevens did so, not hoping he would be replaced, but hoping (and thinking), that he will be exonerated through appeals or a Bush pardon.
Alcee Hastings was impeached and removed as a federal judge even though he was acquitted of bribery and perjury charges.
Regardless of prosecutorial misconduct against Stevens, does anyone who followed the trial think Stevens' conduct meets even the admittedly-low floor of expectations of a U.S. Senator?
They should expel him immediately.
For many, a short time with a crook is better than a long time with a SC justice of an undesirable political ideology.
Try three (so far) out of the last six going to the pokey!
Otto Kerner, Dan Walker and George Ryan.
New Illinois Official Governor's motto: "The governor will rise and face the jury"
Makes me sad that others don't seem to agree with that sentiment...
As for Larry Craig, I thought there wasn't any thing wrong with that.
Bush won't pardon Stevens, first of all it would make no difference to the Senate when they consider expelling him. They can expel someone for jaywalking if they want. And second Bush hasn't given a pardon even to Scooter Libby, though that may happen. H. W. Bush threw pardons around like manhole covers too. The most controversial pardon he gave was to Cap Weinberger because he thought Larawance Walsh was unfairly hounding him for an Iran-Contra policy that Cap fought against.
If the Democrats don't move to expel him from the Senate, and the low-down SOB doesn't resign, could Alaska go ahead with a by-election and/or gubernatorial appointment anyway, forcing the Senate leadership to choose between two "Senators"?
Of course, that's assuming that Stevens can even come to DC. Would it be legitimate for the judge to consider his failure to resign as a sentence-enhancing lack of repentance? Does the constitutional clause protecting members of Congress from offical interference with their travel to Congress apply even to prison officials after the member has been convicted and duly sentenced to prison? And if it takes years to argue that out in court, would the courts issue a temporary injunction to allow him to travel, or leave him in prison while the issue worked it's way up to the Supreme Court?