The GOP wants a special senate election in Illinois

[Lemon law]

Before the Blogojevich scandal, it was a near certainty that the Illinois governor would simply appoint an Obama replacement to the US Senate, leaving the GOP out of the running, unless by some crazy mischance of Blogojevich appointing a GOP replacement. Simply the process described in the Illinois state constitution to replace
a Senator.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...us33biEKxSFYc_.J6s0NUE

But as we well know, Blogovevich is in deep doo doo, not only for past misdeeds, but he seems to be nailed for trying to auction off the Obama seat to the highest bidder.

And now the choice facing Illinois democrats is forcing a quick Blogojevich resignation in favor of the non corrupt LT democratic Governor, or fending off a heavily GOP financed ad campaign advocating a special election between a democratic and GOP nominee. Or to get a quick impeachment of Blagojevich thereby getting a democratic non corrupt governor named Quinn.

What makes it especially hard for the GOP against corruption is the fact that their previous GOP Illinois governor has already landed in jail for corruption. To further complicate the matter, a judge has now delayed the Rezco sentencing likely meaning he will get another chance to cut a deal implicating Blagojevich.

My parting comment is to ask, given a special election for the Obama seat will be likely dead if Blogojevich is quickly impeached, will the GOP in the Illinois House and Senate then vote against the impeachment and conviction of Blagojevich to keep their special election hopes alive?

 

[schdaddy]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
My parting comment is to ask, given a special election for the Obama seat will be likely dead if Blogojevich is quickly impeached, will the GOP in the Illinois House and Senate then vote against the impeachment and conviction of Blagojevich to keep their special election hopes alive?

I seriously don't think the GOP would go that far. Especially since public opinion regarding the party is extremely low.

The GOP has too much to smooth over from the last 8 years to even consider such a move.
They are better off setting back & letting the public watch the mess in Obama's state.

I certainly hope this isn't a glimpse into the future of this coming administration. Not that I particularly have much hope.


edit:grammar

 

[winnar111]

Where's the unconstitutional part? A lot of Democrats talked about a special election too.

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Where's the unconstitutional part? A lot of Democrats talked about a special election too.

I am assuming that there is already a Illinois constitutional process for replacing an open US Senate or House seat which makes the decision solely that of the Illinois governor. I just don't believe there is any constitutional provision in the Illinois constitution for a special election making that suggestion unusual if nothing else.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: winnar111
Where's the unconstitutional part? A lot of Democrats talked about a special election too.

I am assuming that there is already a Illinois constitutional process for replacing an open US Senate or House seat which makes the decision solely that of the Illinois governor. I just don't believe there is any constitutional provision in the Illinois constitution for a special election making that suggestion unusual if nothing else.

17th amendment:

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.


Key word: may.

The Illinois state legislature can alter the process to not include the governor.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: winnar111
Where's the unconstitutional part? A lot of Democrats talked about a special election too.

I am assuming that there is already a Illinois constitutional process for replacing an open US Senate or House seat which makes the decision solely that of the Illinois governor. I just don't believe there is any constitutional provision in the Illinois constitution for a special election making that suggestion unusual if nothing else.

Uh yeah, hence the special session... Of course the republicans are going to push for it, because if there is no election, then they have 0% of getting the seat. It'd be exactly the same if parties were reversed.

 

[umbrella39]

33 other states have a nearly identical process that give the governor absolute power in the replacement. These are state laws and aren't likely to change to make the GOP happy. The replacement senator(s) serve(s) until the next November election in an even numbered year. It's just how it is.

There are 11 states that call for some form of a special election but most of them vary by time and calendar dates.

2 states allow their governors to call for a special election if they so choose, California and New Jersey.

Shame Obama was the senator from one of the 33 states that allows the governor, no matter how much or an asshole or crook, to name his replacement (or the Lt. Governor). As for, it'd be exactly the same if parties were reversed...

mmmm, not so much. No one was clamoring for Palin not to be allowed to name a temporary replacement for Stevens before winner was finally known. Hell, I was hoping she would name herself.

 

[Billb2]

Daley will decide if it's an appointment or a special election.
He'll' decide (hell, he probably already Blego'd the job!) who'll be appointed or win the election.
This is Illinois. Don't kid yourself.
The only wrench (and it MAY be a big one) in the Dailey machinery is the feds.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: winnar111
Where's the unconstitutional part? A lot of Democrats talked about a special election too.

I am assuming that there is already a Illinois constitutional process for replacing an open US Senate or House seat which makes the decision solely that of the Illinois governor. I just don't believe there is any constitutional provision in the Illinois constitution for a special election making that suggestion unusual if nothing else.

Uh yeah, hence the special session... Of course the republicans are going to push for it, because if there is no election, then they have 0% of getting the seat. It'd be exactly the same if parties were reversed.

Realistically, even with a special election, they still have a near 0% chance of getting the seat. Unless they just happen to "forget" to include the City of Chicago in the special election.

 

[PokerGuy]

The GOP has no chance to get that seat, no matter what method is used to determine who gets it. That seat is reserved for a liberal democrat, that's what the electorate wants (based on their previous votes). It's a moot point.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
The GOP has no chance to get that seat, no matter what method is used to determine who gets it. That seat is reserved for a liberal democrat, that's what the electorate wants (based on their previous votes). It's a moot point.

/thread

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
The GOP has no chance to get that seat, no matter what method is used to determine who gets it. That seat is reserved for a liberal democrat, that's what the electorate wants (based on their previous votes). It's a moot point.

Bringing down the I.Q. of P&N another notch. :thumbsup:

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
The GOP has no chance to get that seat, no matter what method is used to determine who gets it. That seat is reserved for a liberal democrat, that's what the electorate wants (based on their previous votes). It's a moot point.

Bringing down the I.Q. of P&N another notch. :thumbsup:

Huh? How so?

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
The GOP has no chance to get that seat, no matter what method is used to determine who gets it. That seat is reserved for a liberal democrat, that's what the electorate wants (based on their previous votes). It's a moot point.

Bringing down the I.Q. of P&N another notch. :thumbsup:

Huh? How so?

It's obvious and proves cubby's point.

 

[cubby1223]

A Republican held that U.S. Senate seat from IL before Obama, Peter Fitzgerald (not to be confused with Patrick Fitzgerald). When Obama ran in 2004, the GOP in IL was devastated from the George Ryan scandal that they did not put anyone up to oppose Obama. He ran virtually unopposed. The GOP did throw Alan Keyes in as their candidate like a month or something before the election.

To say because Obama won election in 2004 (of which he was virtually unopposed), the GOP would have no chance in a special election now, is just not true.

Plus this time it is a Democrat governor getting the boot this time around.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
A Republican held that U.S. Senate seat from IL before Obama, Peter Fitzgerald (not to be confused with Patrick Fitzgerald). When Obama ran in 2004, the GOP in IL was devastated from the George Ryan scandal that they did not put anyone up to oppose Obama. He ran virtually unopposed. The GOP did throw Alan Keyes in as their candidate like a month or something before the election.

To say because Obama won election in 2004 (of which he was virtually unopposed), the GOP would have no chance in a special election now, is just not true.

Fitzgerald only won (by a fairly narrow margin) because the Democratic incumbent had signifigant PR issues and ongoing corruption scandals. The seat had been held consistantly by the D's since 1970.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: cubby1223
A Republican held that U.S. Senate seat from IL before Obama, Peter Fitzgerald (not to be confused with Patrick Fitzgerald). When Obama ran in 2004, the GOP in IL was devastated from the George Ryan scandal that they did not put anyone up to oppose Obama. He ran virtually unopposed. The GOP did throw Alan Keyes in as their candidate like a month or something before the election.

To say because Obama won election in 2004 (of which he was virtually unopposed), the GOP would have no chance in a special election now, is just not true.

Fitzgerald only won (by a fairly narrow margin) because the Democratic incumbent had signifigant PR issues and ongoing corruption scandals. The seat had been held consistantly by the D's since 1970.

Correct, my point still stands -- no matter what method is used, that seat will be a democratic one, because that's what the electorate wants.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
The GOP has no chance to get that seat, no matter what method is used to determine who gets it. That seat is reserved for a liberal democrat, that's what the electorate wants (based on their previous votes). It's a moot point.

It's still smart of them to bring it up, so that next election they can point and say "look Democrats are the party of corruption and cronyism they just appoint themselves to public office." They will probably lose anyway but who knows maybe it wil be a closer election.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Correct, my point still stands -- no matter what method is used, that seat will be a democratic one, because that's what the electorate wants.

Perhaps the electorate should have an opportunity to prove that assertion.

It's still smart of them to bring it up, so that next election they can point and say "look Democrats are the party of corruption and cronyism they just appoint themselves to public office." They will probably lose anyway but who knows maybe it wil be a closer election.

Exactly...how stupid are the Democrats, or rather Blogojevich, to engage in a corruption of this scandal of this magnitude to fill the Senate seat of the very candidate who ran on a platform of changing Washington politics as usual.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Correct, my point still stands -- no matter what method is used, that seat will be a democratic one, because that's what the electorate wants.

Perhaps the electorate should have an opportunity to prove that assertion.

It's still smart of them to bring it up, so that next election they can point and say "look Democrats are the party of corruption and cronyism they just appoint themselves to public office." They will probably lose anyway but who knows maybe it wil be a closer election.

Exactly...how stupid are the Democrats, or rather Blogojevich, to engage in a corruption of this scandal of this magnitude to fill the Senate seat of the very candidate who ran on a platform of changing Washington politics as usual.

Right, and if it's so certain it's going to be a D anyway, why not do it so R can't use it against them in the next election?

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
The GOP has no chance to get that seat, no matter what method is used to determine who gets it. That seat is reserved for a liberal democrat, that's what the electorate wants (based on their previous votes). It's a moot point.

It's still smart of them to bring it up, so that next election they can point and say "look Democrats are the party of corruption and cronyism they just appoint themselves to public office." They will probably lose anyway but who knows maybe it wil be a closer election.

Actually, the GOP has a better chance in an offyear election since incumbent House members can run without giving up the chance to run for their own seat.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

mmmm, not so much. No one was clamoring for Palin not to be allowed to name a temporary replacement for Stevens before winner was finally known. Hell, I was hoping she would name herself.

That's not the same situation. In that case the senator was tainted. In this case the governor, the guy whose responsibility it is to make the appointment, is tainted. The point of asking for a special election is because you can't trust the existing process (or rather, the people involved in the process).

 

[Jhhnn]

More posing in mock piety from repubs. More attention grabbing from the attention whores.

First off, anybody who thinks that the people who sent the current president elect to the senate in the first place will replace him with a republican in the present political climate is delusional. Yeh, sure, Blago is tainted, but repubs in general are reeking to high heaven. None of this whole bit about how "it could happen" even passes the sniff test.

Second, a lot of things can happen over the next month. Blago could resign or be impeached. The Illinois supreme court could toss him, or (the Horror!) he could even do the right thing, name a qualified successor to Obama's vacated seat. What a concept. What Illinois repubs think of it all is immaterial, because they're not in charge- Dems are. If the Dems' leadership and Illinois Dems in general are happy with such a choice, then it's all over except for the whining...

Trust me, we'll hear a lot of that over the next 4 years...

 

[BoomerD]

Let's see...it's a Democratic spot that's open...Illinois law permits the governor to appoint a replacement, so since the current governor is a Democrat, it can be presumed that he would opt to fill the position with a Democrat...so...if the Republicans want a special election, let the Republican party pay ALL the associated costs...then limit the candidates to Democrats...

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
More posing in mock piety from repubs. More attention grabbing from the attention whores.

First off, anybody who thinks that the people who sent the current president elect to the senate in the first place will replace him with a republican in the present political climate is delusional. Yeh, sure, Blago is tainted, but repubs in general are reeking to high heaven. None of this whole bit about how "it could happen" even passes the sniff test.

Second, a lot of things can happen over the next month. Blago could resign or be impeached. The Illinois supreme court could toss him, or (the Horror!) he could even do the right thing, name a qualified successor to Obama's vacated seat. What a concept. What Illinois repubs think of it all is immaterial, because they're not in charge- Dems are. If the Dems' leadership and Illinois Dems in general are happy with such a choice, then it's all over except for the whining...

Trust me, we'll hear a lot of that over the next 4 years...

It's that mentality that has created the polarization in politics. The attitude that "the dems are in charge so what republicans think doesn't matter" is the exact same moronic idea that Bush and his fellow right wingers showed with hubris during his presidency. They (and you) seem to forget that those elected represent all the people, not just those that voted for them.

I don't disagree with you that the seat will go to a dem, just commenting on the whole "snark snark now it's our turn to screw them" mentality on both sides.