News Blitz
So, I have been on the road for a couple of days and just got the news of Blago's impeachment, apparently without a dissenting vote. Although I do agree with the impeachment, there are a few facts that I would like to know.
First, why were his subpoena's not heeded? All I had heard was that they were denied, and that the trial was essentially four days of senator after senator coming to the podium and insulting him, with minimal actual evidence brought forward. As I said, I agree that he should have been impeached, however, I also believe that he should be given a fair trial.
Now, I am aware that a political impeachment is not really a trial by jury, however, if the man is bringing forward evidence that there are other corrupt politicians and officials out there, why are they not listening to him? It would be like getting a drug dealer and not hearing him out when he tells you who his suppliers are. It just doesn't make sense to me, but, hey, that's Chicago.
It seems to me that this became a witch hunt, and that the Illinois senate was eager to remove this blemish to their state without heed to A) what would come next, and B) if he could, by conviction, bring to light any of the other muck in their political system. If we can round up as many of these jackasses as possible, especially those who knew that they were bribing him, then we can clean up a large portion of the political system.
The problem is this: most of the people involved hold elected office, or are friends to those who were on the list, so there is no way that they would ever be brought to trial or even to speak on the floor of the state senate.
Anyway, to end this, call me old fashioned, but I believe no matter the crime, everyone is entitled to as fair a trial as possible. What do I mean by that? Well, sort of like finding an unbiased news source, no judge or jury is going to be truly unbiased. They will always have some leaning in the case if it is high profile enough. After all, we are all still human. I don't think that ignoring the evidence to rush to the conviction of a man is the right way to go on this. We know he is guilty, but he still has the right to face his accusers and present his side of the case.
Next, on the GOP's election of Michael Steele to their chairman. Finally, they don't have a RINO in charge. For those of you who couldn't figure it out from me or reading my journals over the last while, I am neither Republican or Democrat. The reason being, I am a fiscally conservative, socially apathetic person, so having watched Bush spend like the world will end tomorrow for the last eight years, and Obama now spending like the world is ending in the next hour, seeing someone like this come to power in a party makes me happy. I might have to consider rejoining the Republican party after this one, if he turns out to be as decent as his biography and voting record show him to be.
But, the winning news story to me came on Thursday, when Nancy pelosi tried to convince the public that she was non-partisan. yes, after erasing the Fairness Rules, rules that allow the minority party to alter legislation, or call for debate, you know, the things that the Republicans always let the Democrats do, trying to force through a controversial contraceptive and STD education earmark on the already bloated stimulus package, which if you can find a copy, I suggest you read to discover how much of the $819,000,000,000 is stimulus versus pork, she turned around and tried to say that she wasn't partisan.
For those of you who didn't see the vote on the stimulus package, let me fill you in on a few details. First and foremost, not a single Republican voted in favor of it (another reason I am thinking of rejoining their ranks), and 12 Democrats actually voted against it. However, it still passed 244-188 (three didn't vote on it at all), and when she announced it in the chambers, Pelosi was smiling like a great white shark (incidentally, she has the single most frightening smile of any person I have ever met).
Later, at the news brief, she abandoned talking about how bipartisan the bill was and started to criticize the Republicans, because they had put some of the tax breaks that they wanted in the bill (Neglecting to mention that they had refused to trim the pork or remove the unnecessary spending which was their primary objection to the bill), but they still refused to vote for it. This is what happened when she was asked whether or not she felt that she was upholding Obama's bipartisan spirit.
Oddly, the best quote from this is to paraphrase Rush Limbaugh (I am at my parent's house and my mother listens to it incessantly), when he pointed out that the true bipartisan spirit that was promised happened when people from both sides of the aisle voted against it.
Well, that pretty much sums up the news that I have heard since the ban was lifted, and as usual, if you disagree with me, and you can put forward a logical argument as to why I am wrong, I will listen to you. Remember, I may not agree with people all the time, but I am always up for a good fight on the subject.
So, for now, I will be watching the senate as they talk about this bill and vote on it, and if it doesn't get passed, or if the Republicans there do what they did in the House, I am going to have a lot of considering to do over the next week.
First, why were his subpoena's not heeded? All I had heard was that they were denied, and that the trial was essentially four days of senator after senator coming to the podium and insulting him, with minimal actual evidence brought forward. As I said, I agree that he should have been impeached, however, I also believe that he should be given a fair trial.
Now, I am aware that a political impeachment is not really a trial by jury, however, if the man is bringing forward evidence that there are other corrupt politicians and officials out there, why are they not listening to him? It would be like getting a drug dealer and not hearing him out when he tells you who his suppliers are. It just doesn't make sense to me, but, hey, that's Chicago.
It seems to me that this became a witch hunt, and that the Illinois senate was eager to remove this blemish to their state without heed to A) what would come next, and B) if he could, by conviction, bring to light any of the other muck in their political system. If we can round up as many of these jackasses as possible, especially those who knew that they were bribing him, then we can clean up a large portion of the political system.
The problem is this: most of the people involved hold elected office, or are friends to those who were on the list, so there is no way that they would ever be brought to trial or even to speak on the floor of the state senate.
Anyway, to end this, call me old fashioned, but I believe no matter the crime, everyone is entitled to as fair a trial as possible. What do I mean by that? Well, sort of like finding an unbiased news source, no judge or jury is going to be truly unbiased. They will always have some leaning in the case if it is high profile enough. After all, we are all still human. I don't think that ignoring the evidence to rush to the conviction of a man is the right way to go on this. We know he is guilty, but he still has the right to face his accusers and present his side of the case.
Next, on the GOP's election of Michael Steele to their chairman. Finally, they don't have a RINO in charge. For those of you who couldn't figure it out from me or reading my journals over the last while, I am neither Republican or Democrat. The reason being, I am a fiscally conservative, socially apathetic person, so having watched Bush spend like the world will end tomorrow for the last eight years, and Obama now spending like the world is ending in the next hour, seeing someone like this come to power in a party makes me happy. I might have to consider rejoining the Republican party after this one, if he turns out to be as decent as his biography and voting record show him to be.
But, the winning news story to me came on Thursday, when Nancy pelosi tried to convince the public that she was non-partisan. yes, after erasing the Fairness Rules, rules that allow the minority party to alter legislation, or call for debate, you know, the things that the Republicans always let the Democrats do, trying to force through a controversial contraceptive and STD education earmark on the already bloated stimulus package, which if you can find a copy, I suggest you read to discover how much of the $819,000,000,000 is stimulus versus pork, she turned around and tried to say that she wasn't partisan.
For those of you who didn't see the vote on the stimulus package, let me fill you in on a few details. First and foremost, not a single Republican voted in favor of it (another reason I am thinking of rejoining their ranks), and 12 Democrats actually voted against it. However, it still passed 244-188 (three didn't vote on it at all), and when she announced it in the chambers, Pelosi was smiling like a great white shark (incidentally, she has the single most frightening smile of any person I have ever met).
Later, at the news brief, she abandoned talking about how bipartisan the bill was and started to criticize the Republicans, because they had put some of the tax breaks that they wanted in the bill (Neglecting to mention that they had refused to trim the pork or remove the unnecessary spending which was their primary objection to the bill), but they still refused to vote for it. This is what happened when she was asked whether or not she felt that she was upholding Obama's bipartisan spirit.
Oddly, the best quote from this is to paraphrase Rush Limbaugh (I am at my parent's house and my mother listens to it incessantly), when he pointed out that the true bipartisan spirit that was promised happened when people from both sides of the aisle voted against it.
Well, that pretty much sums up the news that I have heard since the ban was lifted, and as usual, if you disagree with me, and you can put forward a logical argument as to why I am wrong, I will listen to you. Remember, I may not agree with people all the time, but I am always up for a good fight on the subject.
So, for now, I will be watching the senate as they talk about this bill and vote on it, and if it doesn't get passed, or if the Republicans there do what they did in the House, I am going to have a lot of considering to do over the next week.