Under The Carpet And Out The Door

The indictment of now former Governor Rod Blagojevich by Federal Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgeral on corruption charges, followed by his impeachment in the Illinois House, and finally the conviction in the Illinois Senate which finally removed him from office, happened so fast its breathtaking.

In a way you have to wonder why politicians can't work this fast more often. Just think how much they could get done if they but would. On the other hand, there is a reason that is not always such a good idea. A lot of time, actions taken in haste do not always result in the best outcome. The more serious is the matter, the more appropriate the scrutiny. In this case, do we really know all there is to know?

As I've said before, I know this guy is probably corrupt and doubtless did at least a great deal of what he was accused of doing. Still, would this have gotten that far under ordinary circumstances, with a Governor whose state controlled not only both houses of the legislature, but all but one state-wide office? It would seem unlikely. So, what's the story here? Why did Patrick Fitzgerald pounce on this so quickly? No one seems to know or to even care as to what his original impetus was to conduct an investigation of the governor to begin with.

I think the following paragraph from the Wikipedia entry on Blagojevich might just tell you all you need to know-

As of October 13, 2008 (well before Blagojevich's arrest), an unprecedented 0% of Illinois voters rated him excellent in a Rasmussen poll, with 4% rating him good, 29% fair, and 64% poor.[62] Blagojevich ranked as "Least Popular Governor" in the nation according to Rasmussen Reports By the Numbers.[12]
On October 23, 2008, the Chicago Tribune reported that Blagojevich suffered the lowest ratings ever recorded for an elected politician in nearly three decades of Chicago Tribune polls. The survey of 500 registered likely voters conducted showed that 10% wanted Blagojevich re-elected in 2010, while three-fourths said they didn't want him back for a third term. The survey also showed only 13% approved of Blagojevich's performance, while 71% disapproved. Only eight percent of the state's voters believe Blagojevich has lived up to his promise to end corruption in government. 60% of Democrats did not want him to serve another term in office, and 54% disapproved of the job he had done. Among independent voters, 83% disapproved of his performance and 85% of them rejected a Blagojevich third term.[63] Blagojevich said in October 2008 that if he were running for re-election this year, he would win, and the economy, not his federal investigations, had caused his unpopularity.[11]
In February 2008, Blagojevich's approval ratings had been, by various accounts, 16% to the low 20s, which was lower than those of then-President George W. Bush in Illinois.[18]

So there you have it. Assuming Blagojevich had no intention of stepping aside at the end of his term and fully intended to fight for re-election, the Illinois Democrats, state office-holders as well as the Illinois Congressional delegation, had every reason in the world to get rid of him by any means possible. Unfortunately for Blagojevich, he made it far too easy for them to do so.

This man had no friends in Illinois. He was successful in acquiring office through the influence of his father, first to the state legislature and then to the US House of Representatives, until he finally won election, and then re-election, as Governor. But somewhere in between the beginning and the end, he seems to have alienated every potential ally he ever had, including those within his own party. He was in fact a pariah well before this scandal became public knowledge. He has even long been considered mentally unhinged well before it became popular to give such assessments public utterance. He almost came to blows with a member of the Illinois legislature, and has had more than his share of problems with Mayor Dailey of Chicago, at one point pressing him to fund the Chricago Transit Authority with the proceeds of the sale of city property as related in this article from 2007.

He has constantly been at odds with the Illinois legislature over such things as the legalization of Keno. He has also engaged in other kinds of funding schemes, for example by pressing for education funding, but in such a way as to potentially endanger state pension funds, according to his critics, who are legion. He has constantly harangued the legislature to remain in session until such budget matters are satisfactorily resolved. This by the way could be the source of his charge that they want to get rid of him in order to pave the way to raise taxes on Illinois citizens.

A look at his record, however-a statewide smoking ban, gun control legislation, comprehensive education initiatives, etc.-would seem to tag him not so much as a tax and spend liberal but as a spend and borrow populist. In all honesty, the state is probably better off without him.

Nevertheless, more should be troubled at the implication that the office of Federal Prosecutor in the person of Patrick Fitzgerald should be co-opted for the purpose of an inner-party housecleaning. Not that I find that to be all that surprising-just disturbing.