As of this writing, according to the deputy historian of the U.S. House of Representatives, Dr. Fred Beuttler, a total of 11,991 individuals over the past 219 years have served as U.S. House members. Every one of them has been elected to the House.
Winning a popular election is the only way anyone can get to be a House member. Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution requires that all House vacancies be filled by special election. House members take some justifiable pride in the fact that while U.S. senators (some 177 of them since senators were first popularly elected in 1913), vice presidents and even presidents can be appointed, no House member has ever been appointed to her or his office.
One House alum who obviously never grasped that basic truth about the institution in which he had served was the former three-term U.S. representative from the Fifth District of Illinois between 1996 and 2002, Democrat Rod R. Blagojevich. In wiretaps obtained by the FBI, now-Illinois Gov. Blagojevich can be heard, when not plotting how to allegedly "sell" the U.S. Senate seat recently vacated by President-elect Barack Obama, discussing with his admirable staff members whether and how they might profit from appointing a successor to U.S. Representative Rahm Emanuel of the same Fifth District of Illinois, because Emanuel has agreed to be Obama's White House chief of staff.
We have learned from the tapes how venal, craven and avaricious Blagojevich is, but here we see just how ignorant he is. This is a man who served as Cook County assistant prosecutor (under then state's attorney, now Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley) and who is widely regarded as one of the most prominent graduates of California's Pepperdine University School of Law. And he thought he could shake down some deep-pocketed airhead for a couple of grand for an appointment to the vacant House seat.
This guy Blagojevich is as deep as a birdbath. He must be able to clean out both his ears with one long Q-tip.
On tape, he is heard stating that if the Senate appointment do not bring him the vast riches he so relentlessly covets, he could always appoint himself to the U.S. Senate: "And I can always use it. I can parachute me there."
In addition to being no constitutional scholar, Gov. Rod shows he is no threat to historians Doris Kearns Goodwin, Henry Steele Commager or Arthur Schlesinger Jr. The track record of governors who have gone through the charade of resigning their governorships in order for the lieutenant governor to take the oath and then appoint the resigned governor to the U.S. Senate is less than dismal. Voters don't like their elected state officials playing too-cute musical chairs with phony resignations followed by Senate appointments.
How much do voters object? A whole bunch of precedent is a good guide. Donald A. Ritchie, the assistant Senate historian, lists the last nine governors who have resigned their office to then be immediately appointed by their successors to a vacant U.S. Senate seat: Wendell Anderson of Minnesota, Donald Russell of South Carolina, J. Howard Edmondson of Oklahoma, Edwin Mecham of New Mexico, John J. Hickey of Wyoming, Edward Carville of Nevada, Charles Gossett of Idaho, A.B. "Happy" Chandler of Kentucky and John E. Erickson of Montana. All nine — except Happy Chandler (who later became the commissioner of baseball who integrated that sport with the Dodgers' Jackie Robinson) — lost their Senate re-election races. Voters don't like cute.
Rod Blagojevich is demonstrably dumb, and by "planning" as he does on the tapes — with a current job-rating somewhere in the margin of error between 4 percent favorable and 12 percent favorable — to make a run for U.S. president in 2016, he proves himself totally delusional. This may be the basis for an insanity defense plea.
For President-Elect Obama and his staff, which have been forced by this scandal to divert precious time, energy and attention away from the transition tasks, fellow Democrat Rod Blagojevich is a living reminder of the Second Rule of American politics: There will always and inevitably be somebody on your side you wish devoutly was on the other side.
To find out more about Mark Shields and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
COPYRIGHT 2008 MARK SHIELDS
|
 |
Comments
|
3 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Sir;...I have to offer my thanks once more for a well written article, and another great News Hour appearance. It is good to have you back... And I must ask a question whose answer I think is obvious: Who elected that bum??? We the people elected him; but what does that say about us and the process??? Because, when it is possible, I try to meet people running for office and give them a chance to ask for my vote and my support, and If I feel they are standing up for me, I like to show my respect and thank them... But so often we vote for a cut out picture of a guy or gal that most of us will never ever know, or even meet.. . I will bet that now when he has made fools of them that many people in Illinois are asking who was that guy... I have to ask why states have executives...Are they going to war??? Our national executives are a cross between a Roman Emperor and an Indian War Chief... In either even, it is a by pass to the normal process of politics, and so, is undemocratic... But what is the point, if the executive has mainly war powers, -for him to conduct his office in such a fashion that we are always at war??? And yet, there is no war in Illinois, and no reason for an executive with the sort of power shown by the dishonored governor... If the guy is a figure head holding an honorary position then he ought to do so with honor... For our part we should not allow such offices, or allow to such offices the sort of power they now enjoy. The way Mr. Bush took us to war was wrong... That is not a power given to him, or even justly taken under the circumstances, but he could manipulate the congress into giving him excessive power, which was really all the authority he needed to negotiate, and he took us to war with it, thinking he could beat the Arabs; and knowing he could beat our dead democracy. ...But who knew??? We did not know that man... We do not know Mr. Obama, and we did not know Governor Bagman in Illinois... WE have too few representing too many, and as a result, our representatives are subject to great moral challenges that few can resist... The only way we can limit the moral threat to them, and have protection from them is to elect many more of them, so they follow the will of the people, and find their wages equal to their needs... We need government to work... It does not work... It is because they have power that we are denied... They can more easily make us do their will than we can make them do ours, and whether it is the tyranny of chance we suffer, or the tyranny of will is immaterial, because we must suffer it the same... One of the Official Rules is that organizations are rotten from the top down... I am not so sure that is true... If the people were not in some sense corrupt, they would not bear to have this corruption, and this corrupting system to remain, making more people rotten... They should understand what is going on and fix it....If they choose to blame the sinner instead of the temptation, which is a constant with power; then it is because they envy the sinner his ability to sin... And that too is corrupt... We should make crime difficult for people to do rather than punishing it when discovered, and to not do this makes us culpable....Thanks...Sweeney
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Sat Dec 13, 2008 5:04 AM
|
|
|
|
Dear Mr. Shields -
For years I have enjoyed your observations, comments and analysis of events from your work on Public Television. Thank you the honest representation you give to values for Americans who frequently do not have a person speaking for them in a national forum. I wish the most recent discussion with David Brooks regarding the financial rescue for Wall Street and the failed financial rescue for auto makers could have gone on...and on...and on!!! Thank you for bringing up the disparity of financial rewards gleaned by presidents, CEO's and other officers of these failed, mismanaged financial institutions and the comparison to ordinary workers seeking to work at a company for a working man's wage. There is an impropriety of such financial gain on the part of these executives in the face of the financial crisis upon which we are entering. The immoral argument of taking such rewards is one to be examined as time goes on. I trust there will be such examinations in the months and years to come regarding deceit on the part of these financial leaders with Federal investigations.
I understanding the need to keep the flow of credit and finance in the financial portion of the economy. There is aid being extended to these institutions to set their financial houses in order. The failure of understanding the need of working people and the companies for which they work, such as auto makers, is so difficult for me to understand. We help them and the working people, not only at these companies, but at so many related businesses in the nation and around the world while they get their industrial, production homes in order.
Thank you, again, for speaking up with clarity for working people in this nation in these weekly discussions with David Brooks.
- Phil Miekley
Comment: #2
Posted by: Phil Miekley
Sat Dec 13, 2008 8:36 AM
|
|
|
|
Dear Mr. Shields,
While I enjoy much of what you have to say on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer, I have to take issue with your recent comments of holding President elect Obama to account for the corruption charges against Governor Blago. President elect Obama is not responsible for the behavior of any other man in his party, or his state, or in the city of Chicago. Gov. Blago is responsible for his own misdeeds and needs to be the only person held to account for them. At this time, and according to U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, Obama and as far as we know, no member of his team is a target of any probe, then there is no further cause for discussion or for that matter, there should be no demand for Obama to be "transparent" over a matter that does not personally involve him. Indeed, Gov. Blago has the authority on whom he appoints to fill that vacant Senate seat. It is how he chose to TREAT that appointment that has since led to yet another corruption charge against him. Gov. Blago is at the center of these criminal complaints, the U.S. Attorney and the FBI must continue to investigate to find out exactly what Blago did and whom he was prepared to involve in his pay to play schemes. The matter is entirely out of Obama's hands at this moment. Should the probe ultimately target Obama and his team, then yes, it is time for Obama to account. If the probe never does target Obama or any of his administrative staff, then he has nothing further to DISCUSS!
Suggest you consider what Fitzpatrick said as a matter of public record and leave it at that. Or shall we say that because the news media that wouldn't challenge McCain on a number of faults in and about his campaign and proposed policies; he lost regardless of the news media's refusal to cover them adequately, the news media's failure to be a king maker this time around has led to the news media to treat Obama like another Clinton. On the thinnest of evidence or even on no evidence. Where was that challenge on the heaviest of evidence when corruption and worse was going on in the Bush administration? Think about it.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Joan E. Harman
Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:18 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
