...some vetters will get a stern talking to...

Whatever happened to having the integrity to vett yourself. Sarah Palin had to know she was not qualified to be president (on second thought with Boy George as a model maybe she didn't know oh well, I retract that argument).

Richardson OTOH can't use stupidity as an excuse. He ran in the Democratic primary and was close to the Clinton's during their challenges. Is this investigation a recent thing?

I wonder if Richardson was not so excited about the appointment to begin with, since he was gunning for secretary of state slate.

I also wonder if maybe there is some evidence that could be damning for him.

Or maybe he truly was just doing the "right" thing
and had only the country's interest at heart.

Hard to know. It will be interesting to see who the replacement is, although as you state--it's not that huge of a position in terms of shaping/advancing policy.

Heh, RNC and Faux might make a fuss, yeah - when just about every single person the Bushies picked was unworthy of the job for one reason or another, and often many. Furthermore, they behaved scandalously while in office and still haven't paid for it.

hmm, my only completely hearsay-based opinion on richardson was from a classmate at ksg/hks who took a class he taught. His take on Richardson: "Waste of a human being".

Ok, said classmate spoke openly of buying a political seat when he returned to his home country, so take my anecdote with the proverbial block of salt.

Frankly, the Commerce slot is always a lot more about rewarding political supporters than about substance; how long has it been since there was a Secretary who was actually a significant player? And Richardson certainly wasn't going to be anything of the kind. So who cares, really.

I am totally convinced all this stuff is on their way out politics, George Bush is shooting with both guns while backing out.

Even looking back to Tom Ten martini Delay, he stayed in congress and participated. Did anyone see if Delay was rebuked by his ethic committee to prevent him from voting on issues or being seated? I have not had the chance to see. Can we say all those bills passed during Delay term under indictment ethically he should have been de-seated, Delay certainly made deals while under indictment and now those Legislation should be considered tainted and void.

Now, Bill Richardson is already being considered guilty, and this guy wanted to be president. Or perhaps that is were all this is going. Finally something on Obama so he will resign.

Some simple Joe six pack questions to ask of all of them;

Where there any Illinois House of Representative Ethics rebukes officially documented and presented for public view before Fitzgerald’s cable news grandstanding? For me it is hard to do research like this part time. Maybe Kilzoy or Steve knows something?

Who was in the initialization process that required beginning of the Fitzgerald investigation…? Was it the Illinois State legislature? Or how does a federal investigation like this start. Is this kind of investigation recorded for the public? If not why? If so why is this stuff not included in public Journalist reporting?

Will the people of Illinois be able to see an authentic allegation of transfer of funds to Blagojevich personal accounts. For Blagojevich to be guilty Fitzgerald must prove to be guilty, he, Blagojevich, would have had to have both been informed of the transaction and approved the transaction. Here the Public needs to know the who what where and when.

Sorry but any reporter from the sun times or the tribune does not totally speak for the citizens of Illinois.

For Blagojevich to be guilty Fitzgerald must prove to be guilty, he, Blagojevich, would have had to have both been informed of the transaction and approved the transaction.

No, Fitzgerald would have to prove that Blagojevich was involved in the planning of an illegal action, that action was taken to accomplish that deed, and that the person taking the action reported back to Blagojevich. Prove that, and you have conspiracy and attempted bribery. The telephone conversations are pretty close to an open and shut case.

lol, hilarious posting.

Let's play the "what would Steve say if it was a Republican" game?

Like crazed chimps, Republicans will fling whatever poo comes to hand. It's not much of a story, but it does make me wonder who is the US Attorney involved in the investigation, and under what circumstances was he appointed (although I suppose TPM would be right on top of it if it was one of the tainted ones).

Commerce is a bullshit post anyway, equivalent to an embassy in some picturesque but strategically marginal country. I never understood why Richardson accepted it.

He wanted to spend more time with his beard (wherever it went to).

Since this inquiry was well underway prior to Richardson's selection and it was well known, he was not given a high profile position and once it is cleared up he will be appointed to another. I assume he was given an amount of time to resolve the problem with the understanding that if he didn't he would withdraw. Diane Denish is the only one to lose anything.

OT (sheesh, but I miss the free thread on weekends!)

Big news from VA:
1) Tim Kaine will be replacing Howard Dean as the head of DNC
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/05/us/politics/05dnc.html?_r=1&hp
and, 2) Terry (Carpetbagger) McAuliffe has formally announced that he's running for Governor. I hope VA will show him (in the primaries) what he can do with himself and his luggage.

i don't think this is any kind of problem for obama. richardson was a gift to the hispanic community and the chamber of commerce
so now obama can say, well, i tried, and he is freed up to appoint a fair trader. ( dream on )

Meh, no loss. Richardson is pretty widely known here in NM as an obtuse, narcissistic climber. I've gleaned from available info that his successes in state politics had a lot to do with the people he surrounded himself with, and that grandstanding (often effectively) was less a perk than the utmost function of his administration and its actions. Just got lucky when this meshed with good policy.

As to whether the RNC and their propaganda arm (Fox, et al.) will inflate this to 'taint' proportions (sorry for the inadvertent image...), well of course they will. It's all they know, and let's face it, it's still lucrative for them. Waning, maybe, but far from dead and buried.

Every time I see a photo of slack-jawed, unfocused-eyes McAuliffe, I think, man, that guy looks dumb. And then he opens his mouth and...shudder. I wonder if his success in fundraising is mostly due to many people being unable to resist hapless but earnest types.

Has Gov. Bill Richardson just been "Siegelman'ed"?

The Bush administration didn't appoint former U.S. Attorney David Iglesias' replacement as U.S. Attorney for New Mexico, a Bush-packed U.S. Circuit Court did, early last year.

Probably these conservative federal judges did it on advice of the Bush administration, because the Bush administration probably figured they'd have a tough time getting a nomination through the Democratic-controlled Senate.

Mr. Fouratt, the new (essentially Bush-appointed) U.S. Attorney for New Mexico, took this "case" against Gov. Bill Richardson before a federal grand jury in Albuquerque NM during the summer, right in the middle of primary season. Coincidence? I doubt it.

And now there are reports out of Alaska about Republicans in Gov. Sarah Palin's administration "slow-walking" a drug investigation into one of her future in-laws...until after the November election.

Typical corrupt Republicans: "slow-walking" investigations and prosecutions of Republicans while "fast-walking" investigations and prosecutions of Democrats, often politically timed. Or in the case of Republican investigations and prosecutions, corrupt Republicans often block attempts to bring their fellow criminal Republicans to justice...just look at the Bush administration.

So my question stands? Did Gov. Bill Richardson get "Siegelman'ed" once a more partisan U.S. Attorney early last year replaced David Iglesias, who was fired after refusing to bring politically motivated investigations and prosecutions against Democrats?