Hardly a surprise, but this still needs further approval by the state senate, I presume.  Maybe that's a foregone conclusion - I have no idea what goes on in MA state politics, but my default assumption is that politics is the same everywhere from the standpoint of political expediency and career protection are the prime objective of those in office.  Rules are for little people - so if they get in the way of the prime objective, the rules have to be changed.  It shall ever be so.

However, the really important point on this issue is the following:  BLAGO is still available!!  Don't pass up this opportunity, Massachusetts!!

I sometimes enjoy listening to Michael Smerconish on Philly morning drive radio.  His show in the afternoons was more enjoyable as it tended to be more focused on Philly issues and community - it was a "community" type of conversation that was always interesting and educational for someone new to the region.

The current version of his show is more "national" in scope, and while still civil and interesting, it can sometimes become just another version of all the other nationally syndicated political talk shows.

Still, yesterday morning Michael was discussing a column he wrote on how the current climate of political "hate" has him concerned for President Obama's safety.  I called in to point out one problem I had with the analogy he was making, but unfortunately did not make it on the air due to time constraints and the end of the segment.

But I didn't want to lose the thought, so I sent Michael the email below, and post it for whatever entertainment value it may have:

Michael,

Enjoyed your discussion yesterday of your column on the current / ongoing political climate.  I agree that much of the wild political rhetoric that has been thrown about in the past 20 or so years, through the Clinton, G.W. Bush and now Obama administrations, is not very productive or informative.

With regard to your column and analogy on the current political climate and concern that it is like Dallas in 1963, however, I had one problem.  Unfortunately, I did not make it on the air yesterday, but did want to pass along this thought:  for all the apparent right-wing "hate" that may have existed in the U.S. and Dallas in particular for President Kennedy in 1963 (and I'll have to take your word for it as it was before I was born and it's not a subject I have done any reading on), Kennedy was not killed by a John Bircher or nut from the 'right.'  He was killed by a communist man of the left in the climate of all that "hate."

So in keeping with the theme of fringe political whackiness, let's throw out this soundbite:  Maybe President Obama has more reason to be worried about a possible attack by a radical communist like Van Jones a la Trotsky in Mexico in 1940 than by right-wingers who object to his political agenda. ; )

Have a great morning.

A friend emailed me to ask my thoughts on the idea of requiring congresscritters to read the bills on which they vote.  My early morning musings on same:

The boston.com link didn't work for some reason, but I take it you're referring to Jeff Jacoby's editorial, which I found and skimmed through.

First, it's sad that we're at the point where it has to be proposed to make a law to require elected officials to do their job.  On that basis alone, I have a bit of a problem - if a rep is not doing his or her job, the voters should kick them out next chance they get.  A pledge shouldn't be needed.

Second, if I were serious about efforts like the one Jacoby is writing about, I wouldn't make it a pledge because those are worthless.  These are politicians we're talking about - to paraphrase one of them and apply her words more appropriately, they lie to us all the time.  How many of the clowns who signed "pledges" to term limit themselves are still in DC?

So rather than a pledge, I'd try to do something like get a member of congress to add an amendment to every single bill that comes up for a vote that says that by voting for the bill, a member of congress affirms under penalty of perjury that he or she has read it and understands it.  Ideally, I'd also like to put something in there that says they can point to the specific text of the Constitution that supports the power / authority that is the subject of the legislation and make them do it, and provide that if they are subject to immediate removal from Congress and a lifetime ban on holding public office, voting for public office, and being involved in any way with the fundraising for or election of any public officeholder if they are found to have violated the "read, understand, Constitutional authority" provisions.

Of course, that's completely unworkable in the real world, but if something can be done that would completely tie Congress and the legislative branch in knots so that they can't do further damage to the country, I'm more than happy to see that happen.  As I've commented in many online discussions I've had with people over the past couple of years, I'm at the point of wanting to see every single federally elected official voted out of office every election cycle, forever, and having every single one of them be subject to IRS audits, forever.  But that's just me.

Jonah Goldberg at NRO posted a link to a Detroit Free Press story that apparently ran the day after the inauguration.  The premise of the piece is this - take a photo of yourself, and create a split-image by matching half of your face with half of President Obama's face.  Goldberg notes that the piece is "borderline grotesque," and that Democrats would most likely agree if the subject were a Republican.

But then it hit me.  The most likely scenario for a conservative or Republican politician is that an "artist" would get a grant from the federal government to create a work of art that incorporates split-images like the ones shown in the Detroit Free Press story, with the politician's face paired with the likes of Hitler, Stalin, a chimpanzee (in the case of George W. Bush), and a host of things that are best left to the imagination.  And it would be hailed by liberals as daring, subversive and cutting edge.

Now, imagine if an artist, probably without a grant from the federal government, were to create such a display using President Obama's image.

Heck, it would have been interesting of some political cartoonist had done something like this as a counter to the pictures from the Detroit Free Press.  It would take a lot of guts, and carefully crafted images, to not go too far toward poor taste so that one's commercial career would not be ruined.

Byron York has a post over at The Corner at NRO on Timothy Geithner's nomination for Treasury Secretary.  York commented on Sen. Orrin Hatch's support for Geithner, explaining in relevant part as follows:

Hatch is repeating an argument he has used in the Senate Finance Committee — that a president ought to be able to get the appointees he wants, providing they are not incompetent or corrupt.

I can understand that a lot of conservatives might be unhappy with Geithner's confirmation.  And those who still labor under the misconception that Sen. Hatch is some kind of conservative might be flummoxed by his defense of Geithner's nomination.

But this is one of those days when the lessons of the Clinton years come in handy.  During Clinton's presidency, we learned how very, very carefully a politician's language must be parsed in order to truly understand what people are saying, or not saying.

So in Hatch's case, if you read the explanation carefully enough, you reach the revealing truth that poor old Sen. Hatch couldn't refuse to vote for Geithner on grounds that Geithner is incompetent OR corrupt, because Geithner is both incompetent AND corrupt.

It's that darn conjunction that causes all the apparent confusion for Sen. Hatch.  He couldn't wrap his head around what to do with a nominee who failed both tests.

While I am disappointed that the Empire State has not rallied around the best and most obvious choice to fill it's vacant Senate seat (which of course would be my law school classmate and native New Yorker, Chuck), I think the emergence of Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg into the discussion merits consideration of another potential candidate.

I'm thinking there's another New Yorker whose move from NYC to Washington would fill the residents of the five burroughs with more joy than even last year's Giants' Super Bowl win, and has all of Kennedy Schlossberg's qualifications beat, hands down.

Minority - check
Youngish for the Senate - check
Years of experience blowing through other people's money - check
Domineering, disfunctional, though widely revered by many father-type figure - check
No discernible ability to earn a living on his/her own - check

Come on now, say it with me:

ISIAH THOMAS FOR SENATE!!!!!

At least Zeke brings NCAA and NBA titles to the mix, which is a lot more than that skinny chick can say.  Plus he'd be a natural for the incoming president's pick-up hoops get-togethers, which would give Thomas the kind of access to the White House that surely would benefit his constituents.

If it can't be Chuck, it must be Zeke.  T-shirts coming soon....

News out of the Windy City on problems that have arisen with the site chosen for the proposed Olympic Village that is a critical component of Chicago's efforts to land the 2016 Summer Games:

Faced with soaring demolition and environmental cleanup costs and a recalcitrant property owner, the Daley administration has broken off talks aimed at moving the $1.1 billion Olympic Village to the campus of Michael Reese Hospital.

Hmmm.  Seems to me that if the Chicago political machine of the corruptocrat Daley family wants something done, it will find a way to get it done.  And isn't there somebody with Chicago political machine connections who's in the news about now?  And didn't he have an observation about the recent Olympic Games held in Peiping?  Why, yes there is, and yes he did:

Obama, yesterday [8/21/08]: "Everybody's watching what's going on in Beijing right now with the Olympics, Think about the amount of money that China has spent on infrastructure. Their ports, their train systems, their airports are vastly the superior to us now, which means if you are a corporation deciding where to do business, you're starting to think, 'Beijing looks like a pretty good option.'"

Obama's comments on Chinese infrastructure drew some criticism from people who still have a grasp on reality (meaning the mainstream media arm of the Democrat Party ignored it).  Summarizing three news stories from China in 2008 prior to the Olympic Games, National Review's Jim Geraghty noted:

Yes, their power outages, crowds at train stations, and outbreaks of air rage are vastly superior to ours.

Even more appropriate in light of the environmental remediation snafu that has now cropped up in Chicago, Hugh Hewitt noted the following with respect to Obama's analysis:

Obama's praise for China's Olympics building binge ignores how those structures were assembled, the source and conditions of the labor, the lack of pollution controls in Beijing and throughout China, the many complaints that Chinese infrastructure outside the Olympics zone remains shoddy, the recent record of Chinese manufacturing scandals, including the heparin fiasco which killed many Americans, and of course the catastrophe brought about by Chinese building standards in the region rocked by the recent earthquake.

Can someone with a press pass please get an answer from Obama on why Chicago shouldn't just take the Chinese approach to getting the Olympic Village done and ignore environmental cleanup laws, labor and construction standards, and personal property rights?  If it was so wonderful when the Chinese did it, shouldn't Obama be urging the Cook County construction industry to get on board with the same approach?

...but that's immediately who I thought of when I heard a clip on the radio from the MTV music video awards show, or whatever it is called.  The host of the awards program was apparently a comedian from Great Britain, and at one point in the program he spoke up on behalf of people from outside the U.S. in begging the citizens of our country to elect Barack Obama as the next President of the United States.  Apparently Obama really has the non-U.S. citizen vote pretty much wrapped up.

Let's Make a Deal!  We'll all agree to let Obama take over as head of the United Nations on the condition that he never be allowed to hold a position in the United States government ever again.  Seems like a win-win.

Now, where's my "U.S. Out of U.N." sign....

With the nomination of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as the Republican Vice Presidential candidate, there has been a lot of discussion from the mainstream media and their friends in the Democrat party about whether she has enough experience for the job of vice president.  Mrs. Palin has apparently been a city council member, mayor, and now governor of a state with a budget of something like $11-12 billion dollars and about 15,000 employees.

Regardless how you come out on whether she is qualified to be vice president, or ultimately president should that eventuality arise, you should take any concerns voiced by the mainstream media about the importance of succession planning with a grain of salt about the size of Rhode Island.

After all, when Tim Russert died unexpectedly, NBC had a slew of well qualified people ready to step in an make sure Meet the Press and their national election coverage would be taken over by the next generation of experienced, qualified journalists, right?

Um, not so much.  They wound up behaving exactly like their buddies in the Democrat party, dragging marble-mouthed Tom Brokaw out of quasi-retirement and thrusting him back into news coverage.

If the libs can't even manage to figure out how to come up with the next person most able to read a teleprompter and draw on a whiteboard, how much credibility do they have when worrying about anyone else's ability to pick qualified successors?

I never saw the show a couple of years ago where Geena Davis played the first woman to be President of the United States.  My understanding is that the setup was that she was selected to be the running mate by a guy who hated her, but believed he needed her to win.   Good luck for him - he wins the presidency!  Bad luck for him - he dies!  So Geena moves into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

I remember reading posts and articles by commentators at the time that the show was just a Hollywood tribute to Hillary Clinton that was designed to get everyone used to the idea of a woman president for Mrs. Clinton's impending and unstoppable election.  Then the show tanked and was canceled, and Mrs. Clinton failed to make it out of her party's presidential primaries.  Life imitates art!

But I don't remember anyone, from the political right or left, getting upset with the premise of the show based on Davis's character already having responsibility for her young child, so that she should never have run for the vice presidency, much less accepted elevation to the presidency.

I guess life can only imitate art so far.