Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim S who wrote (69713)	2/21/2009 1:15:48 PM
From: Glenn Petersen	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

It is all about political expediency. Blagojevich was never particularly popular with his fellow Democrats, and after Fitzgerald filed charges against him he became an enormous liability to the party. By the time Fitzgerald gets around to actually indicting Blagojevich (probably in April), you are going to find out that the Blagojevich’s crimes extend far beyond the attempted sale of Obama’s former Senate seat. The Democrats needed him off of the stage before the indictment. Hence, the rush to judgment. As for Burris, the Democrats were willing to accept him as an interim replacement until it became apparent that he lied (if not perjured himself) about his pre-appointment contact with Blagojevich and his staff. If a wounded Burris stays in office and runs for reelection next year, the Republicans might have good shot at picking up the seat. If the Democrats can remove Burris from office, the new governor will appoint an interim Senator and schedule a special election (this assumes that the law is changed), giving them a better chance to retain the seat. The most likely Democratic candidate is Alexi Giannoulis, the 32-year old state Treasurer and a basketball buddy of Obama. en.wikipedia.org Blagojevich appointed Burris; the Illinois Senate had no say in the matter.

To: Jim S who wrote (69713)	2/21/2009 1:59:08 PM
From: Joe Btfsplk	2 Recommendations Respond to of 90947

Blago was deposed from office by his fellow Dems, without any real evidence of bad acts, just unproved allegations, and even without the ability to defend himself Sacrifice a lamb with enough blood, guts, and publicity, distract the nimcompoopulace?

To: Jim S who wrote (69713)	2/21/2009 4:02:38 PM
From: mph	5 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

My guess is that too much Blago could rub off on Obama.

To: Jim S who wrote (69713)	2/22/2009 2:23:32 PM
From: Sully-	1 Recommendation Respond to of 90947

Hi Jim, Actually that's not a dumb question. Your observation about Dem's sweeping bad acts by other Dem's under the rug is supported by numerous examples of such behavior. So the ferociously that they have shown in going after Blago [and also at Burris] sticks out like a sore thumb. I've been wondering about that myself for the same reasons. Given the Dem's long track record when one of their own is shown to be a bad actor, I find it quite hard to believe that the Blago/Burris reaction is a sudden reversal in the morals & ethics on the part of Dem's. So there must be another reason they went after Blago [then Burris] so hard. The only thing that makes sense is the fact that the Blago corruption is known to have a boat load of wiretap tapes of the dirty politics he engaged in. That means that not just Blago was involved in illegal & unethical acts. Those tapes show other Dem politicians directly involved in the bad acts too. Now we see that Burris is a lying sack of chit who appears to have been involved in "Pay to Play". No doubt the fear is that Burris too is on some tapes. Those tapes are going to be a serious problem for more than just Blago. And given Blago's rise to power in the Chicago/IL machine, there is a lot of dirt about other Dem politicians Blago knows of first hand about. Sooooo, what is the Dem's best play here? They finally have control of Congress & the White House. They have a huge socialist agenda they want to ram down our throats. But now they fear the Blago corruption scandal could taint Obama. After all, look at the pathetic & conflicting responses they gave when asked if Obama or his surrogates had contacts with Blago about Obama's vacated Senate seat. They know they will have more problems with their agenda if the Blago scandal stays in the public consciousness with Dem's putting up a strong wall of support around him. And they also know that Blago is as dirty as any in the Chicago/IL machine, so Fitzgerald most likely has Blago dead to rights on multiple issues. IMO, they decide to throw Blago under the bus. They want to be seen as taking action to remove one of their own bad actors, thus creating the perception they are above the fray. That gets Blago out of the "newz" cycle & they move fast to push their agenda. When any tapes come out showing any of them getting in bed with Blago they can claim that Blago was a lone corrupt power broker & the only way to get things done was to go along with his demands. And if Blago tries to save his skin [IE reduce the charges against him] by informing on other Dem's, they will continue to discredit Blago & point to their swift actions to renounce him & help remove him from power. JMHO