Hopefully not Sebelius (0.00 / 0)

She'd be much more useful as a Kansas Senate candidate in 2010. As far as Richardson being forced out, this is actually the right thing to do if he is currently under investigation.

For the replacement, I think Obama needs to find an openly gay progressive Latina or Asian female to fill this post, preferably with a Southern accent. That way he can check off a few more boxes in the "diversity" category.

Anyone know of any far left Asian lesbians from Georgia with major leadership experience?

---

by: existenz @ Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 22:58:44 PM CST

Also fat (0.00 / 0)

they should be fat. As far as I'm aware, Richardson would have been the only Fat-American in the cabinet.  

---

by: Jason C. @ Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 23:59:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If this is true, good for Obama (0.00 / 0)

No being sentimental about things.

But, I'm kinda doubtful. CNN's source is "two Democratic strategists outside the transition," which, you have to wonder how the hell they would know. "Democratic strategists" could be practically anybody.

But, I'm sure Obama wasn't sad to get his resignation (or preemptive resignation, whatever).  

---

by: Jason C. @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 00:04:01 AM CST

ABSOLUTELY (0.00 / 0)

Give me a break. This has been going on for some time now.  Why would he turn around and say "oh, I should not have taken the job after all"?

He was forced out because Democrats foolishly took a hard line against Blagojevich AND Burris -- even though neither has been indicted/convicted of a crime.  Democrats -- trying to show that they know how to deny due process as well -- discarded the presumption of innocence and the Seventeenth Amendment, which authorizes governors to fill Senate vacancies.  And once Obama projected himself into the situaiton, they realized that they could not defend Richardson in the confirmation proceedings because he is in a Blagojevich "pay to play" situation the currently sits before a grand jury.  Richardson, like Blagojevich, has not resigned his position.

Wake up Democrats. Stop taking conservative positions because "our" president takes them. Use your own mind -or you will be just like the people who now regret failing to question Bush.

http://dissentingjustice.blogs...

---

by: damitajo1 @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 01:26:56 AM CST

"Due Process"? (0.00 / 0)

First of all, Richardson withdrew, even if it was at the request of the Obama team. Plus, Richardson doesn't have a due process right to a position in Obama's cabinet. Obama could have decided to give him the boot because he shaved his beard, if he felt like it.

Likewise, Blago has a presumption of innocence only with respect to the criminal charges. This has nothing to do with his political situation and impending impeachment.

And nobody is trying to thwart the Seventeenth Amendment. In fact, the Democrats clearly do want the Senator to be appointed; you don't hear Harry Reid agitating for a special election. They just don't him appointed by a governor under a cloud of corruption charges.  

---

by: Jason C. @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 02:07:43 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes - Due Process (0.00 / 0)

I never mentioned anything about Richardson's due process rights. I was referring to the Illinois issues. And the presumption of innocence dictates criminal proceedings, but the only basis for trying to impeach Blagojevich or to demand his resignation rests on the criminal proceeding, which has not even advanced towards an indictment. Ultimately, impeachment is a political process, so they can do what they want. But politics can dictate the boundaries of due process as well.  Most people want to find some facts before condemning someone.

Also, you conveniently ignored the main point: Obama put himself in a quandry by saying that a mere allegation of criminal activity disqualifies someone from office.  To say that Richardson "withdrew" even if Obama asked him, elevates form over substance.  Richardson had no intention of pulling out until the Obama team told him he had to.

And the Democrats are absolutely thwarting the 17th Amendment.  It delegates the appointment of replacement Senators to governors - not the Senate. "Cloud" sounds like something omninous, but it is just meant as a conversation stopper.  No one has ever alleged that Burris has engaged in wrongdoing, and absolutely no one suspects that blagojevich offered him a deal.  If so, the prosecutor could whip out his wiretap.  Notably, now that Obama has lost a big member of his administration because of this, Democrats are softening their tone on this issue -- as they should. Otherwise, a lot of people will be implicated. It will begin to look like "NannyGate" during the 90s.

http://dissentingjustice.blogs...

---

by: damitajo1 @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 08:03:47 AM CST

[ Parent ]

When did Obama say that? (0.00 / 0)

"Obama put himself in a quandry by saying that a mere allegation of criminal activity disqualifies someone from office."

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you referring to Blago, or Burris, or Richardson? Either way I don't think he's said that about any of them. No one is arguing that Burris should be disqualified from office; they're arguing that Blago should be disqualified from appointing him. If Blago's successor wants to appoint Burris, I assume no one would have a problem with it. And as for Blago himself, it's not the mere allegations that disqualify him; it's the clear evidence of wrongdoing.

Keep in mind that Blago could end up being innocent of the criminal charges yet still warranting impeachment. The tapes in my opinion are more than enough to justify throwing him out of office.

As for Richardson, I'm sure Obama doesn't see him as "disqualified." He's just a distraction waiting to happen, and frankly having Bill Richardson in the cabinet just isn't important enough to be worth it.

---

by: Jason C. @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 15:03:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Conservative position? (0.00 / 0)

Blagojevich and Richardson are worlds apart.

Blagojevich wasn't accused of just any act of corruption - he allegedly was selling Obama's Senate seat.  This creates an appearance of impropriety if Blagojevich makes the appointment.  It doesn't necessarily taint anything else he does.  This isn't a question of convicting Blagojevich without due process, but of insuring that there is a reason for the public to believe that the appointment was made legitimately.  You can argue that Blagojevich can appoint a bullfrog to the Senate legally, of course - but that argument emphasizes, rather than rebuts, the strong and damaging appearance of impropriety of allowing this particular governor unbridled discretion.

Richardson's alleged crimes had nothing to do with his potential role in the Obama administration.  No one is claiming that the cabinet position was sold.

Accordingly, there are much stronger reasons to take a hard line against Blagojevich than Richardson.

But, leaving that aside, what harm do you see in taking a hard line against both of them, if doing so increases public confidence in an Obama administration by avoiding the appearance of impropriety?  

If you are concerned about the party undermining its credibility by adopting conservative talking points, then I would suggest that the constant carping from the left against the Clintons, the DLC, Reid, et al is damaging to the Democratic brand, much more than the Richardson withdrawal.  The Republicans never trash the reputation of their former presidents or fan the flames of internal controversy - that's one reason they win.  

In the situation of any potential cabinet appointee who is under grand jury investigation, the President has to choose between the bad option of weathering the storm and the bad option of cutting his losses.  It's a hard call to second-guess.

---

by: kanzeon @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 03:43:06 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Richardson and Blago are closer than you admit (0.00 / 0)

Richardson and Blagojevich are united in that they are under scrutiny for profiting from their office.  Richardson is implicated in a grand jury investigation, but is not under indictment. Blagojevich has been accused of commiting a crime, but has not been indicted, and despite reporting that suggests he's already been convicted, the prosecutor needs three more months to get ready just to indict.

I do not oppose that Obama let Richardson go. But no one has called for him to resign from being governor, despite the potential criminality.  And no one has said he is corrput and that a cloud rests over him -- although legally, he's in the same boat as Blagojevich.  Repeating the line that he tried to "sell" the seat does not advance your argument, because that remains simply an unsubstantiated allegation AND there is absolutely nothing connecting Burris to the situation.

So basically, the Reid supporters' logic says that: someone is accused of trying to sell a seat; that makes that persons corrupt; that makes ANY appointment suspicious as well.  That is the most overinclusive argument you could make in this situation. Ann Althouse has a great analogy  from the pre-17 Amendment days. If the Senate suspected that an election of a Senator by the state legislature was riddled with fraud and self-dealing, if the Senate blocked the chosen candidate, it would not then say that NO candidate from the state legislature is acceptable. Instead, they would force the legislature to hold a new election.  

This precedent applies to the current situation.  No one suspects that Burris paid for anything -- which would be rather peculiar for someone 71 years old.  Instead of trying to come up with something concrete, Democrats simply use scarecrow language like "taint" and "clouds."  It's really a bad situation when Patrick Buchanan respects legal values more than Democrats -- but I never had much "hope" for "change" anyway. http://dissentingjustice.blogs...

PS: Now that there is a mere allegation or suspicion or potential that Richardson likes to do pay to play, should we extrapolate from this fact and portray him as engulfed in a cloud that taints him? I would like to apply that to his endorsement of Obama - which generated the Cabinet position in the first place.  

---

by: damitajo1 @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 08:16:53 AM CST

[ Parent ]

"Profiting from their office" (0.00 / 0)

is a little broad.

Richardson is accused of specific wrongdoing with respect to one company.  In my opinion it would be inappropriate for him to sign a contract on behalf of the state with that company tomorrow.  That doesn't mean that Richardson can't sign other contracts, or perform the other functions of governor.  The investigation has made it difficult for him to deal with that company and maintain public confidence that the transaction is above board.  

I realize you can extend this to the far reaches of logic, and claim that, simply because an allegation has been made, Richardson is effectively tainted in all respects and can't perform any functions of governor.  That position encourages baseless allegations.  But to deny that actions taken during the investigation to benefit the very company under investigation create a specific harm to the perception of the integrity and legitimacy of those actions is to deny that Richardson owes a duty to the public and the system to maintain an appearance of propriety.  Public officials sell stock, or put holdings in blocked accounts and recuse themselves from decisions where there is a conflict of interest - deferring acting in the specific area of investigation is a similar gesture to the integrity of government.  

As to Burris, my suspicion is that Blagojevich made a clean appointment, regardless of whether he had intentions to do otherwise, simply because it will help him in court - it will be easier to argue against any inference of ill intent if he in fact made a right choice in the end.

But, I don't know that.  I don't know if he intended to sell the seat - he could be complete innocent.  But it seems he has presented the Senate with a real problem.  What if, for example, the person selected by Blagojevich was known to be one who was specifically suspected in wrongdoing?  What if, for example, that person was likely to be a summoned before a grand jury, or known to be likely to be indicted himself?  Whether the appointee was appointed by illegal activity IS an important question for the integrity of the institution, and could effect the ability of the Senate to function.  Blagojevich has placed the Senate in a position in which they,as a practical matter, have to evaluate the appointment independently, and pronounce him "clean" or face a crisis in confidence.

The question of whether they can block Burris is a legal one, but the question of maintaining public confidence in the process is not - that doesn't make it unimportant.

As to Richardson's withdrawal, we don't know whether he was pushed.  Although the matter has been ongoing, perhaps Richardson had an impression as to the length or scope of the investigation that has turned out not to be true.  Or maybe Obama purged him in an exercise of excessive zeal for purity.  Either way I don't see a due process problem.  Compare, for example Hillary Clinton's situation.  Bill disclosed his financial dealings with his foundation, which he wasn't legally obligated to do at this point.  But, what if, for example, new revelations came to light today regarding some of these connections?  I would think that it would be entirely appropriate for Obama to withdraw his offer to Clinton. I fail to see the due process problem.

---

by: kanzeon @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 10:29:59 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Who are realistic choices that progressives might like? (0.00 / 0)

I see Obama's criteria as probably including the following:

1. Endorsed Obama during the primaries, or at least remained neutral, but preferably the former
2. Administrative experience, whether in government or private industry

Who do progressives like who would fit that description.

By the way, I took Google out for a drive and found that a couple of names not mentioned in the Reuters article who were discussed were Jason Furman (who could give David Sirota a heart attack if he gets shifted over from economic policy director) and Laura Tyson.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

---

by: Anthony de Jesus @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 01:46:16 AM CST

fbi hop (0.00 / 0)

Once more the local blog had the inside story hours before the mainstream press.  In this case, several sources said Obama pushed Richardson out.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 06:09:54 AM CST

How about this... (4.00 / 1)

Promise to Blago if he resigns immediately... Then screw him over and rescind the promise.   Two wins!

---

by: yitbos96bb @ Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 08:10:49 AM CST