pageok
pageok
pageok
Sources Tell ABC that Senate Candidate 5 is Jesse Jackson, Jr.

ABC is reporting that its sources say that Senate Candidate 5 is Jesse Jackson, Jr., not Emil Jones (tip to Powerline).

Senate Candidate 5 is the only one whose supporters come off badly in the government's complaint, though of course the complaint reflects things from Blagojevich's point of view.

anon345 (mail):
You SO wanted it to be Emil Jones, didn't you? Thought that would help you tie it to Obama even if only via guilt by association. Sorry, worse luck next time.
12.10.2008 1:24pm
Sarcastro (www):
[Oy. Apples, trees, etc.]
12.10.2008 1:26pm
Chris Simon:
BTW, does anyone have any information as to the source of the 7-8 figure sum that Yusef, yet another Jackson son, recently invested and lost in the now thrice-failed gossip magazine Radar?

What an amazing family!
12.10.2008 1:35pm
Awesome-O:
Jesse Jackson trying to shake someone down? Why, I am the picture of surprise.
12.10.2008 1:38pm
Oren:
When I initially read the speculation about Blago's choices, the only thing I could think was "Please not JJ".

I think he can save this by appointing some senior politician who has no desire to run in '10 (i.e. a seatwarmer).
12.10.2008 1:44pm
J. Aldridge:
Will this be the end to Jr.'s senate aspirations?
12.10.2008 1:44pm
hawkins:

Jesse Jackson trying to shake someone down? Why, I am the picture of surprise.


From what I have heard of Jackson, Jr, this would indeed be quite surprising. I believe he's very well respected, much more so than his father.
12.10.2008 1:44pm
A.W. (mail):
instapundit is posting a link to a connecticut story saying on november 5, that obama was meeting with the gov. to meet him. you can see it for all the hits, but my url is to a googlecache of it. doesn't say much, but it is clear that he is meeting with him.

And let's be honest here, folks. wouldn't you be surprised if he WASN'T meeting with the guy to discuss this very thing? That's not the same to say he was asked to bribe or offered one, but to say he never even talked about it? give me a break.

just today Obama said "I did not have bribery relations with that governor."

Ah, sorry, i can't post it, but here is what you do. copy the shortcut, paste it into google's search and you should get the cache right away.
12.10.2008 1:46pm
ForWhatItsWorth:
Does anyone remember what the founders intended a senator to be and why? I am really confused by the number of senators who have had zero prior experience in any real political office before being tagged as the "senior" statesman(woman).

Weird......

But Jesse Jackson of all people? oye!
12.10.2008 1:47pm
Oren:
FWIW, the 17A revises what we intend Senators to do.
12.10.2008 1:49pm
ForWhatItsWorth:
As a side note, is it just me or does it seem like Obama has had to "distance himself" from many more people than normal? That is about all I heard during the campaign and now after..... he constantly having to distance himself from associate or other.

No, I never did like Obama, but this really should be of some concern. Not so much that I would think him a terrorist, a this or a that..... I am just questioning his general judgment abilities. People usually learn after they run into one or two folks who are scam artists or bad folks in general. He seem to have bumped into it time and again with no apparent lessons learned, time after time.

In all my life, there would be darned few people from which I would have to distance myself if *I* were in his place. This really is disconcerting.
12.10.2008 1:53pm
Culbert423:
Is Blago related at all to Boots Del Biaggio?

I'm just asking.
12.10.2008 1:55pm
ForWhatItsWorth:
Oren, true enough. But the amendment doesn't seem to alter the perception that senators are "expected" to be elder statespersons.

I've always expected the Congress to be the "young hotheads," if you will. The senate being a balancing force within the legislature that would take the "log view" based upon their experience. Thus their "advise and consent" duties and other duties that seem to indicate they are supposed to be "seasoned" people, not some hothead off the street, as it were.

I know that isn't ironclad idea or anything, but I don't consider my expectation to be that unusual. Is it?
12.10.2008 1:59pm
AntonK (mail):
From what we're reading so far, and particularly because of what is becoming increasingly clear from reading between the lines, I believe that Obama will be impeached before he completes the 2nd year of his term.
12.10.2008 2:13pm
KeithK (mail):

No, I never did like Obama, but this really should be of some concern. Not so much that I would think him a terrorist, a this or a that..... I am just questioning his general judgment abilities. People usually learn after they run into one or two folks who are scam artists or bad folks in general. He seem to have bumped into it time and again with no apparent lessons learned, time after time.


The pattern teels me that president-elect is willing to associate with folks who might be useful for him politically. As far as we know he's kept his hands clean meaning that he can reap the benefits of certain associations and then plausibly distance himself when it becomes useful to do so.

I don't know if this means he's a product of the corrupt Chicago political system or just a good politican. My judgement on this matter (based on limited evidence) is clearly clouded by policy disagreements.
12.10.2008 2:14pm
PLR:
I take it now that Powerline has tipped it, the suspicion becomes reliable information and not just liberal MSM spin.
12.10.2008 2:18pm
PersonFromPorlock:
ForWhatItsWorth: you're right.

"Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?" asked Washington. "To cool it," said Jefferson. "Even so," responded Washington, "we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it."
12.10.2008 2:20pm
ginsocal (mail):
Come on, people! O! is NOT from Chicago-he chose that city to launch his career. I'm thinking that there had to be a reason for that...
12.10.2008 2:24pm
Oren:
FWIW, I suppose you can see it that way if you like. I see Senators as embodiment of the desires of the people in that state. When they want elder states(wo)men, they can elect them. If they think times call for decisive action, they can elect hotheads.

IOW, the Senate is entirely a product of the popular sentiment.
12.10.2008 2:40pm
PLR:
O! is NOT from Chicago-he chose that city to launch his career. I'm thinking that there had to be a reason for that...

Abso-frickin'-lutely. Why not Tulsa? Or Boston or Mobile?
12.10.2008 2:41pm
DG:
One of the hard realities here is that an honest Chicago politician is one who ignores corruption and does not personally take part. The culture of graft is so bad that expectations that Obama would report this or that, or that he would avoid corrupt individuals - I don't think its possible.

The best endorsement for Obama here is that his people refused to discuss a quid pro quo for the Senate seat. "Appreciation" is all the would give and so it should be.
12.10.2008 2:41pm
Nunzio:
Obama's only bad association was Rezko. Rezko was Obama's big fundraiser from the beginning of his career through his election to the U.S. Senate. Then he got Rezko's help to buy his new house.

Rezko was a dirt bag, and it's impossible to believe that Obama didn't know this early on. I don't think Obama did anything wrong with Rezko, but it was very bad judgment not to distance himself from him sooner.
12.10.2008 3:40pm
fortyninerdweet (mail):
AntonK, I'm not one of his supporters but for our country's sake, and for millions of black's, I pray you are mistaken. But I would not bet against you.

FWIW, I agree with your take on "senators". Alas, our expectations are all too often unfulfilled.

I'm thinking the Feds timing of all this is quite simple. What would be the quagmire if they had waited till after an appointment were announced. How then to unring that bell?
12.10.2008 3:51pm
JoshL (mail):

FWIW, I suppose you can see it that way if you like. I see Senators as embodiment of the desires of the people in that state. When they want elder states(wo)men, they can elect them. If they think times call for decisive action, they can elect hotheads.

IOW, the Senate is entirely a product of the popular sentiment.


Keep in mind, of course, that this was not the original intention, and as recently as a hundred years ago, this was not the case. Only with the 17th amendment did that become the MO of choosing senators.
12.10.2008 3:51pm
loki13 (mail):

As a side note, is it just me or does it seem like Obama has had to "distance himself" from many more people than normal? That is about all I heard during the campaign and now after..... he constantly having to distance himself from associate or other.

No, I never did like Obama, but this really should be of some concern. Not so much that I would think him a terrorist, a this or a that..... I am just questioning his general judgment abilities. People usually learn after they run into one or two folks who are scam artists or bad folks in general. He seem to have bumped into it time and again with no apparent lessons learned, time after time.

In all my life, there would be darned few people from which I would have to distance myself if *I* were in his place. This really is disconcerting.


I'm going to break my hard-learned two rule of Volokh posting for this thread:

1. Don't ever, ever comment on a DB thread. Signal > noise, crazies > sane commenters, aggravation > satisfaction.
2. Don't ever, ever comment on a Lindgren Obama thread. See 1.

Anyway, FWIW- remember all the blather about GWB? Remember "Atta Boy" Kenny? Remember Abramoff? The Bin Laden family connections? Nominating Kerik? Heck, the funny business in Austin? I could keep going on . . . but I won't. Because while I dislike Bush's policies, these associations don't make him a bad man. They make him a politician.

All polticians have to deal with a much larger range of people than Joe Sixpack does. They have a much smaller 'Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon' than the rest of us. They have to make compromises. They have run across people (or people who know people) that have made questionable decisions in other parts of their lives.

I don't want a paragon of all that is moral and virtuous- I want a leader. Churchill might have had a few faults (one named vermouth, another gin) but he was a fine leader. I hope that we don't continue to have four-eight years of guilt by association, because, based on the information so far, the only surprising thing is how untouched Obama was by the corruption in Illinois.
12.10.2008 4:06pm
Oren:



Keep in mind, of course, that this was not the original intention, and as recently as a hundred years ago, this was not the case. Only with the 17th amendment did that become the MO of choosing senators.

Keep in mind that I wrote exactly that a few posts up.
12.10.2008 4:10pm
The Unbeliever:
FWIW, the 17A revises what we intend Senators to do.

...I see Senators as embodiment of the desires of the people in that state. When they want elder states(wo)men, they can elect them. If they think times call for decisive action, they can elect hotheads.
And that is 1/2 the reason why I am in favor of repealing the 17th, as I mentioned in a thread a month ago (after an impromptu defense of the 3rd). We even had Sarcastro expressing interest in the idea!
IOW, the Senate is entirely a product of the popular sentiment.
That is what it has become, and that is not necessarily a Good Thing. Federalism, checks and balances, and republicanism were not things the Founders threw into the Constitution just for fun and laughs.

But to be pedantic, the 17th doesn't necessarily modify what we "intend" them to do--they still have the same roles and responsibilities. Presumably we intend them to behave in the same way the Founders expected; my argument is that changing the method of doing so effectively undermines this expectation. (I believe the introduction of CSPAN had a similar detrimental transformative effect, but that's another argument for another day.)
12.10.2008 6:22pm
ForWhatItsWorth:
loki13,
Got ya! (wrt Obama posts)

Like I said, I don't like the guy, but I don't wish him ill..... to include any tainting by Illinois politics.

I am a single issue voter on several issues, the one getting my attention this time around was the 2A views of the candidates. His definitely are TERRIBLE in every possible way. Additionally, I am not very happy with his selection for Homeland Security ....... she knows nothing about that subject. Those two issues are definitely near and dear.

Maybe it is just a matter of timing, but it does seem to be alot of "distancing" lately. Even before that, his reluctance to distance himself from that thoroughly NASTY preacher that was his for nearly 20 some odd years..... man, I would have distanced myself from that disgusting piece of work the first time he said anything like what we all heard. Faulty judgment on Obama's part? I think so.

That is what I mean. It is pretty disturbing to me. Actually, of all of them, the preacher-man is the one that really sticks in my head.

But, this is drifting away from the thread topic, so I should probably stop there. :)
12.10.2008 6:28pm
loki13 (mail):
FWIW,

I cut Obama more slack on Wright. I think it was difficult, first, being the child of a mixed-race couple running in Chicago; I also think that while he is somewhat religious, he didn't attend that often and probably wasn't aware of some of the truly outrageous rhetoric; finally, he was a friend. I have had a few friends that have sharply different political beliefs (upon which we agree to disagree) that have doubtlessly said unfortunate things I wouldn't want imputed to mee. I have also attended services (long story there...) in both predominantly black and white churches where unfortunate things were said. From what little I have gathered, despite the overblown rhetoric, Wright was, in person, a good man who had served his country. That he had unfortunate beliefs I strongly disagree with (and that Obama denounced in a very moving speech) is no more dispositive that Clayton Cramer's occasionally bizarre rants against "teh gayz" preclude me from agreeing with him on other
issues.

Anyway, the true issue isn't that Obama has more people to distance himself from; it's that our culture and the 24-hour news cycle is so obsessed with nitpicking over every candidate's life that he is forced to distance himself from associations that, not to long agom wouldn't have occupied the national radar.
12.10.2008 6:47pm
Oren:

That is what it has become, and that is not necessarily a Good Thing

I'm inclined to view the expression of the popular will as defining Good Thing, at least as far as the operation of the government goes. Doubly so when that will is unequivocally expressed by amendment to the Constitution -- the declaration of independence expressly reserves the right to replace the government with one that we judge best.
12.10.2008 7:46pm
RPT (mail):
It is absolutely incriminating that a Democratic senator from Illinois "associated" with a Democratic governor from Illinois during their respective terms in office. Even worse, the senator in question attended a number of meetings for a number of years with a convicted felon from Alaska!
12.10.2008 8:39pm
Oren:

Even worse, the senator in question attended a number of meetings for a number of years with a convicted felon from Alaska!

Not only that, the convicted felon in Alaska once flew through Chicago o'Hare enroute to one of these meetings!
12.10.2008 8:58pm
Oren:


But to be pedantic, the 17th doesn't necessarily modify what we "intend" them to do--they still have the same roles and responsibilities. Presumably we intend them to behave in the same way the Founders expected.

I'll grant that the 17A doesn't necessarily modify the intent of the Senate but I believe that it does, in fact, do so by making Senators directly accountable.

I don't see any reason to presume that we intend them to behave in the same way the Founders did, especially considering the sea-change in the role of the Congress in general.
12.10.2008 9:21pm
The Unbeliever:
I'm inclined to view the expression of the popular will as defining Good Thing, at least as far as the operation of the government goes.
A good general statement, but how was the will of the people not being expressed in their direct election of state legislatures, which (pre-17A) selected the Senators? You're expressing a preference for more pure democracy rather than republicanism, without explaining why the former is better than the latter, and ignoring the federalism angle. Cf the usual examples from the ancient Greeks, plus a spurious bit from Wikipedia just for fun:
The Founding Fathers of the United States rarely praised and often criticized democracy, which in their time tended to specifically mean direct democracy; James Madison argued, especially in The Federalist No. 10, that what distinguished a democracy from a republic was that the former became weaker as it got larger and suffered more violently from the effects of faction, whereas a republic could get stronger as it got larger and combats faction by its very structure. What was critical to American values, John Adams insisted, was that the government be "bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend." Also, as Benjamin Franklin was exiting after writing the U.S. constitution, a woman asked him "Sir, what have you given us?". He replied "A republic ma'am, if you can keep it."

I'll avoid more lazy linking to Wikipedia and make the general claim that having the constituency directly vote on more things--representatives, laws, judicial appointments--may make a system more democratic, but not necessarily stronger, better, or more expressive of their Will.
Doubly so when that will is unequivocally expressed by amendment to the Constitution -- the declaration of independence expressly reserves the right to replace the government with one that we judge best.
Which is why I want the 17A repealed with another Amendment, just like Prohibition was repealed after we judged its effects. But you slipped a minor point--the Amendment unequivocally legitimizes the change in Congressional structure as the Will of the People, but it doesn't insure said Will is better represented unless you make the assumptions about direct democracy I pointed out above.
I'll grant that the 17A doesn't necessarily modify the intent of the Senate but I believe that it does, in fact, do so by making Senators directly accountable.
Yeah, there was such a great reckoning of accountability after the Fannie/Freddie fiasco and the Senators who enabled it.
12.11.2008 10:38am

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.