Another Blago thread. Nobody cares.

give him the shoe

I think it was also Madigan who said she thought one reason Blagojevich was concerned about resigning was he needed the salary. If he told her (or anyone) that, he's certainly more politically tone deaf than most people in office. I'll bet his lawyers cringed, too. But then, I'm guessing JJJ's lawyers also cringed when Jackson said that he, too, thinks Blago is mentally ill. After all, he was raising money for the Gov.

Steve,
You want to do some real homework? Check out the ties between Exelon, Obama, Axelrod, and Emanuel. You want to unravel the full story on how public policy is really made? The systemic nature of corruption in American politics runs very deep. Blagojevich is just one small example, an eruption in one small artery.

And how about that story of Chuck Shummer's relations with Wall Street?

Focus on the big shit and follow the money.

lou - Your analysis is as shallow as a mud puddle. If you have a case to make, make it. If you have a link to someone who does it well, do that. But please don't just throw out vague inuendos and cliches from "All the President's Men".

Blago is sick: Wikipedia's Narcissitic Personality Disorder discussion: "Though individuals with NPD are often ambitious and capable, the inability to tolerate setbacks, disagreements or criticism, along with lack of empathy, make it difficult for such individuals to work cooperatively with others or to maintain long-term professional achievements. With narcissistic personality disorder, the person's perceived fantastic grandiosity, often coupled with a hypomanic mood, is typically not commensurate with his or her real accomplishments."

Blago has some real issues, NPD seems the least of a sociopathic cocktail. . .

And he was thinking about running for president - what if he mistook his hairbrush for the nuclear codes?

Lou,

I am familiar with the Exelon story which puts a minor chink in Obama's armor so I don't think it as serious as Chuck Schumer. Obama didn't show a backbone in dealing with the nuclear energy company but it is small potatoes compare to Schumer's relationship with Wall Street. The best way to hold Mr. Obama's feet to the fire is to get active instead writing posts full of innuendo.

Blago may very well be mental, for all I know, although politicians who are sweet in public but assholes behind doors are not, as far as I know, exactly a rare commodity. What gripes me about the "football" story is that once again, when a reporter wants to really get a dig in at a male politician, he/she reports about some (impliedly) unseemly obsession with personal appearance. A la John Edwards and his haircut. I mean, that bit was placed very high in the Times' story, far higher than it warrants. The implication being that he is somehow less than a man or, god forbid, shall we say, a little light in the loafers?

Danp and Micheline:
Thank you for your comments. I did attempt to post a group of links but my comments vanished.
All are easily found on the web by googling: Exelon, Obama, Axelrod, and Emanuel.

My main argument is that large campaign donations by large corporate interests are having very large impacts in shaping public policy. In this sense, I judge this problem to be part of the systemic corruption of the political process. The article featuring Chuck Schumer's ties with Wall Street in the Sunday New York Times was a prime example. We can castigate idiots like Blagojevich all we want, but big problems remain with our "acceptable" public servants who somehow manage to slip by without serious and sustained scrutiny by the MSM.

The ties between Exelon and Obama did receive much attention in the environmental and liberal blogs earlier this year. Obama's past relationships as measured by the huge campaign donations he received from Exelon will continue to raise valid concerns about any future policy making he does involving nuclear energy.

lou - I have now read several articles on Obama/Exelon. Let's assume this is fairly representative of this type of argument. Exelon is an Illinois company with 17,000 employees. Obama received donations of about 275K (all from employees). I tried, unsuccessfully to find where nuclear energy donations from other companies were going, though one article did say they were trending from Reps to Dems. That would be expected, assuming they look at polls. I did find an article that said the industry paid over 10M in political donations in 2008 through PACs, though, again, much of that was to congressmen, and Obama doesn't accept these donations.

So where does that leave us? Obama gets an average donation from employees of a local company of about $160. That's a high number, but the nuclear industry doesn't strike me as an industry with a lot of low paid blue collar workers, so I don't know how outrageous that is. He made some moves that anti-nuclear people don't like, but he certainly hasn't been voting in lockstep with the industry. I didn't find any claims of favoritism specific to Exelon (meaning actions that don't help other nuclear companies).

I would conclude that anyone receiving a lot of political donations will be susceptible to this type of argument. But without knowing how other like companies donate, or how many of the donations came from top management, or to what degree the politician's actions helped the company, you need to take it with a grain of salt. I would also argue that 275K is an awful lot to pay to get a politician to weaken reporting requirements. How exactly does that even help Exelon?

Danp: How exactly did Obama's NOT moving that original bill strengthening reporting requirements help the public that was potentially endangered by the lax reporting requirements? How do you connect campaign donations with letting bills in the public interest get weakened or killed by industry lobbyists or the opposing party? These type of connections are difficult to prove one way or the other but they do demonstrate that the system is seriously muddled by those whose interests conflict with what most of us identify with the common good. I tend to link the muddling with chronic, systemic corruption.

lou - How exactly did Obama's NOT moving that original bill...help the public...?

I don't claim it does. I simply don't know why he did it, though I also don't buy the argument that there is no other explanation. It may have been a compromise to get something more important in the bill passed. He may have been convinced the clause was merely dupicating some other law.

I tend to link the muddling with chronic, systemic corruption.

To some degree that is very healthy skepticism. But it also makes you vulnerable to this type of argument. With enough information, you can take any vote you don't like, examine campaign donations by company, by industry, by PAC or by lobbyist group (even though it represents many industries). Then you make the argument that Politician A got X amount of money from Special Interest B, and that must be the reason he voted the way he did. With 700M in donations, 275K would represent less than 5 hundredths of a percent. How much compromising do you think he would do for that? But if you're anti-nuclear, and that's the best argument you can make, 275K does sound like a lot of money.

...on Saturday, he met with a high-profile criminal defense attorney in Chicago.
If he has a good Chicago attorney, he should be able to get off on a payoff.

I can't begin to imagine why people think this guy is going to resign when he's already demonstrated he's dumb as a bag of hammers.

He ain't going anywhere until someone throws him out.

I see a Palin/Blagojevich cross-party ticket in 2012: the psycho party. Seriously, these are the kind of people America produces now, I see versions of them everywhere.

Put him in the same cell with the Governor he just replaced (Goerge Ryan)...Since he is already in prison have them share the same cell to save our tax money........