Posted on 12/30/2008 6:03:55 PM PST by Shellybenoit
“Reid is an idiot.”
This is clear from many pieces of evidence - both currently and in the past!
“Dingy Harry might not get it yet, but somebody’s going to explain it to him nice and slow in the next 48 hours.”
Do you ever get the feeling when you see Pelosi and Reid appear (and speak - argh!) on some issue or another (like the bailouts for instance) - that they could never hold down any other job in the world - than what they’re currently doing?
“Last thought about Blago. Maybe he knows something ~ like maybe he dropped a dime on enough people for Fitz that he’s not going to be under indictment.
Maybe Blago tagged Obama out!”
(Cue the music) To dream the impossible dream....!
Hello Mr.Raccoon. Does not the state attorney general have to certify Blagos appointee? I think she does.
Yawn. So what pearls of wisdom or grasp of the obvious did Rove have to offer?
You're right. I didn't exactly break any new ground with that observation, did I. { 8^)
Some more information from this web site:
According to a Senate staffer familiar with the process, it’s likely that the Secretary of the Senate will receive Burris’ credentials from Governor Blagojevich prior to the start of the new Congress (and the objection of the Illinois Secretary of State is reportedly irrelevant to the issuance of those credentials). On that first day, the roll call of Senators to be sworn in will then include Burris’ name. Senator Reid — or someone else — will object to Burris taking the seat, and the Democratic majority will vote to refer the matter to the Senate Rules Committee for review. It is a foregone conclusion that the Rules Committee will recommend against seating Burris, and that recommendation will be affirmed by a Senate vote.
Assuming that nothing happens to resolve this dispute, Burris and the State of Illinois will presumably take Reid and the Senate to court — since the Supreme Court made clear in Powell v. McCormack that the Senate cannot reject a Senator on other than the straightforward question of eligibility for the office. And it is entirely conceivable that this fight could end with the court mandating that the Senate seat Burris.
And what would Harry Reid do then?
This could come to resemble Florida, 2000 — particularly if the Democrats lack votes to pass some elements of Obama’s agenda. And it seems that the only person in position to prevent such a crisis — the only person blessed with ties to all the major players — is Barack Obama. When will he step in to forge a solution that treats all sides fairly?
The world of today is NOT the same world of the 1880's. If the 17th amendment was supposed to eliminate the potential corruption of an entire statehouse by a candidate, why would replacing that with a system that only needs the corruption of one person be better, especially with today's instantaneous communication?
The problem with popular election of Senators is many:
The original Constitutional scheme attempted to create a balance of power between big states and small, and also between the states and the federal government.
The balance of power, and checks on federal power, that this approach created is now all but non-existent.
Which brings us to the question of "qualifications to be a Senator" that has recently been in the news with Caroline Kennedy.
-PJ
Among the several important arguments for repealing the 17th Amendment, the above is perhaps the most brilliant. The reason is because it speaks to an early 21st Century audience better than the other points which, while important, are obscure to most modern voters.
Repealing the 17th Amendment is the best means of obtaining real substantive campaign finance reform that doesn't curtail anyone's liberty.
-PJ
So if the people of California elected, say, Charles manson, the Congress would be required to seat him?
No, that’s not the way it works.
The crooked, gerrymandered, Chicago-controlled Illinois State Legislature (with its body of criminals that have contempt for the rule of law and for any Illinoisan outside Chicago) is a case study of why we should KEEP the 17th amendment.
The FIRST thing those dopes PROMISED to do after Blago got arrested was strip the Governor of his power to appoint a replacement, but of course the RATs decided not to a few weeks later because they were worried they might lose a special election to those nasty Republicans. Now it blew up in their face when Blago called their bluff, and they're stuck with Burris.
It will be a cold day in hell before I let Mike Madigan and Emil Jones pick my Senators for me.
The crooked, gerrymandered, Chicago-controlled Illinois State Legislature (with its body of criminals that have contempt for the rule of law and for any Illinoisan outside Chicago) is a case study of why we should KEEP the 17th amendment.
The FIRST thing those dopes PROMISED to do after Blago got arrested was strip the Governor of his power to appoint a replacement, but of course the RATs decided not to a few weeks later because they were worried they might lose a special election to those nasty Republicans. Now it blew up in their face when Blago called their bluff, and they're stuck with Burris.
Only on another planet could people believe the Illinois Legislative is competant and acts "in the best interests of Illinois" and not to enrich their buddies in the Chicago machine.
It will be a cold day in hell before I let Mike Madigan and Emil Jones pick my Senators for me.
And besides, the people chose Dick Durbin and Barack Obama. Could it get worse?
Believe me, I have Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer. I ask the same question, would Sacramento send these two back if they had the choice, or might they have sent Willie Brown, or some other politician raised in the legislature?
-PJ
Just because the system of using state legislatures worked fine for the founding fathers in 1789 (which was a TOTALLY different culture made up of farmers and laborers, many of whom didn't even vote because they were illiterate) , doesn't mean the same system would work in TODAY'S society of 2009. The founders couldn't have dreamed of gerrymandering or the growth of giant metropolitan sprawling urban centers full of crime and corruption, or the fact that "state legislatures" today are rigged to be drawn on the basis of population, so by definition we CANNOT have "equal representation" across the entire state. If the Illinois State was drawn like the U.S. Senate, with ONE senator per county at large, Republicans would hold about 75% of the seats. Instead, it is controlled by Chicago thugs, just like the Illinois house.
In my state, 3 million people in Chicago dictate the government of the other 10 million of us who don't live in Chicago. It's bad enough they're allowed to do this on the state level. You'd let them dictate our government on the federal level as well. A honest Republican reformer from suburban Illinois like Peter Fitzgerald would have NEVER been Senator, we would have been stuck with Carol Moseley Braun for life.
What's worse, the Dems took over BOTH houses in 2003 and have a veto proof majority -- NOT because that's what "the citizens of Illinois" or "the state" decided was a good idea, but because of a random drawing out of a hat gave the Dems the power to redraw the legislature, and they rigged ALL the districts so those of us in the Chicago suburbs are represented by city Democrats. My district is 30% city of Chicago and 70% suburban, but guess who represents us? A Chicago RAT (prior to 2003, my state senator was a conservative Republican). Kinda hard for the REST of us to outvote those nitwits when they put is in with a black neighborhood that votes 95% Democrat EVERY election cycle. Oh and last time, we HAD a well known Republican file to represent us in the Illinois Senate, but the Chicago machine was worried they might lose, so they threw him off the ballot on a technicality so their machine politician could be "elected" UNOPPOSED.
These are the criminals you want choosing my U.S. Senator FOR me?
I don't need you guys to lecture us anyone on how we supposedly don't understand what the constitution "originally" said and what "the founders" intended. I know perfectly what it originally said, and what they intended, and that system would not work in today's state government -- that's why the founders gave us the wisdom of amending the constitution. The founders also thought it would be a GREAT idea to have the runner-up for President become Vice President, but not one of you guys on the "abolish the 17th amendment" bandwagon is also demanding we abolish the 12th amendment so we have Vice President McCain like "the founders" intended. Having the runner up because Vice President and stick around for 4 years to learn the ropes was a fine idea in 1789, and worked well when it resulted in President Washington and Vice President Adams. After political parties developed, it was clear the system would NOT work since the Vice President would be from the "opposition party" and constantly at odds with the president, so they amended the constitution. In today's world, we don't want a "Vice President Kerry" under Bush, we don't want a "Vice President McCain" under Obama, and we sure as hell don't want the crooks in Illinois legislature or California legislature to appoint dog catcher at the federal level, let alone an important office like Senator.
The Constitution in both cases was amended for good reason.
How do we get real campaign finance reform other than by eliminating elections?
-PJ
There's really no difference between Manson and Kennedy you know ~ least not when it comes to killing.
Senators and representatives shouldn’t just represent their states and districts. All of them should try to help the whole country. That was a point of the Contract with America.
Sometimes, candidates, who spend the most money, lose. I lived in Oceanside, CA, 1996-2001. In 1998, Darrel Issa, a Vista Republican, ran for the U.S. Senate. He spent about $12 million of his personal money, on that campaign, but he lost the primary to then-California Treasurer Matt Fong.
The best campaign finance reform would be banning all maximum donation limits. Any rich American should have the freedom to donate the amount that he or she can afford, to any candidate, he or she chooses.
Would that be a ‘all in’ bet by Reid?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.