Aside from being really stupid, I'm not sure how Blagojevich's explicit (blatant) demands for a quid pro quo is different from an unarticulated "understanding" between a governor and anyone he or she appoints to a senate seat. I'd be shocked if anyone got an appointment to a senate seat without promising (at least implicitly) some benefit to the appointing governor.
Am I too cynical?
Joe H.
Posts
The Years Of Writing Dangerously
9 years ago
1 comment:
There is nothing new under the sun. I'm sure there is some sense of idealism in many appointing authorities (even Blago!)in finding the right people for particular jobs. But I don't think you're cynical since your instincts likely mirror what most people think and expect about such selections -- whether it's to the U.S. Senate, or to a judicial post, or a simple board or commission or task force. At least the person should be competent ("helluvajob Brownie!") The appointing authority may be given some criteria but there's still considering latitude in sifting through the various applicants (i.e., John Roberts and Sam Alito have fine Ivy League pedigrees). A U.S. Senator, depending on the State, simply has to be a state "resident" of a certain age (remember that the founding fathers did not originally entrust election of U.S. Senators to the people but instead had the legislatures or State governors, I believe, make the appointments.
Hawaii now says the person must be from the same political party as the person vacating the seat but others leaves the sitting Governor great latitude in filling an open seat until a special election.
What discerning people have to look at is whether the criteria used by the appointing authority is so-ooo blatantly out of bounds or self-serving (i.e. straight out pay for play) that, in are more than that feigned incredulity in the immortal lines from Casablanca, "gambling in Casablanca? I'm shocked. Shocked."
Post a Comment