The following is an excerpt from OpinionJournal.com’s “Best of the Web” written by the editor, James Taranto.
Blago-What? Never Heard of Him
When the 111th Congress convenes next month, the Democrats may have only 57 senators. It now appears that as a result of Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s efforts to sell President-elect Obama’s erstwhile seat, Blagojevich may not be able to give it away. As the Chicago Tribune reports from the state capital:
Legislative leaders already launched plans to strip Blagojevich, a Democrat, of his power to fill President-elect Barack Obama’s vacant U.S. Senate seat that the governor allegedly put up for sale.
Senate President Emil Jones (D-Chicago) and House Speaker Michael Madigan (D-Chicago) called for lawmakers to pass legislation early next week to allow for a special election to choose Obama’s successor. But there’s some question as to whether such a move would pass legal muster. . . .
Ironically, any legislation passed to take away Blagojevich’s appointment power would have another hurdle: the governor himself. Blagojevich could sign a bill, veto it or sit on it for a couple of months, a move that would leave Illinoisans with only one U.S. senator.
Until such legislation is enacted, Blagojevich retains the power to fill the seat. But he may find he has difficulty exercising that authority–for who in his right mind would accept such a tainted appointment? He could appoint himself–as he allegedly suggested in conversations wiretapped by the FBI–but that may not look so good before a jury.
Thus it seems the only way the seat can be filled by Jan. 3 is if Blagojevich steps aside, clearing the way for Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn to become governor and appoint Obama’s successor. That, however, would require Blagojevich to heed the calls of everyone in the world to resign. Could they sweeten the pot with a nice severance package?
Meanwhile, what effect will this home-state scandal have on the new president? The wire services offer drastically different opinions. “Obama Seen Untouched by Illinois Governor Charges,” says a Reuters headline:
President-elect Barack Obama’s decision to keep a distance from his state’s governor, who was arrested on corruption charges on Tuesday, should enable him to escape becoming tainted by the scandal, analysts said. . . .
Obama is not related to the corruption pattern in Chicago,” said political scientist Dick Simpson of the University of Illinois in Chicago. “He has not been pressing for any person to replace him in his Senate seat.”
U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, announcing the charges, also said Obama was in no way implicated.
But the Associated Press headline disagrees: “Analysis: Ill. Governor Scandal Could Dog Obama.” Our first thought: Malia and Sasha will be awfully disappointed if this turns out to be their puppy. But seriously:
Obama isn’t accused of anything. But the fact that Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, a fellow Democrat, has been charged with trying to sell Obama’s now-vacant Senate post gives political opponents an opening to try to link him to the scandal. A slew of questions remain. The investigation is still under way. And the ultimate impact on Obama is far from certain.
Come to think of it, that AP “analysis” is just empty verbiage. It might as well have been headlined “Anything Can Happen, and It Probably Will,” even though that would have deprived us of a canine gag.
Still, there was an intriguing bit of backpedaling by an Obama aide. On Nov. 23, ABC’s Jake Tapper reports, senior adviser David Axelrod, in an interview on Chicago’s WFLD-TV, said of the president-elect:
I know he’s talked to the governor and there are a whole range of names many of which have surfaced, and I think he has a fondness for a lot of them.
Last night Alexrod released the following statement:
I was mistaken when I told an interviewer last month that the President-elect has spoken directly to Governor Blagojevich about the Senate vacancy. They did not then or at any time discuss the subject.
One of these statements is false, but which one? The intuitive, if cynical, answer is yesterday’s. It is imperative now for Obama to remain unsullied by the scandal, whereas 2½ weeks ago there was no reason for Axelrod not to tell the truth.
Postelection news reports are contradictory as well. On Nov. 5 KHQA-TV in Quincy, Ill., reported Obama and Blagojevich were about to meet:
Now that Barack Obama will be moving to the White House, his seat in the U.S. Senate representing Illinois will have to be filled.
That’s one of Obama’s first priorities today.
He’s meeting with Governor Rod Blagojevich this afternoon in Chicago to discuss it.
But the next day, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that “Blagojevich said he has not spoken to Obama about the matter.” On Nov. 8, however, KHQA reported that the meeting had taken place.
Even if Obama did talk to Blagojevich about the Senate appointment, there is no reason to think this would incriminate the president-elect. In fact, statements attributed to the governor in the criminal complaint make clear, in rather vivid language, that he was frustrated by Obama’s refusal to play ball and reward Blagojevich for appointing “Senate Candidate 1”:
ROD BLAGOJEVICH said that the consultants (Advisor B and another consultant are believed to be on the call at that time) are telling him that he has to “suck it up” for two years and do nothing and give this “m—–f—er [the President-elect] his senator. F— him. For nothing? F— him.” ROD BLAGOJEVICH states that he will put “[Senate Candidate 4]” in the Senate “before I just give f—ing [Senate Candidate 1] a f—ing Senate seat and I don’t get anything.” (Senate Candidate 4 is a Deputy Governor of the State of Illinois). . . .
ROD BLAGOJEVICH states that he will appoint “[Senate Candidate 1] . . . but if they feel like they can do this and not f—ing give me anything . . . then I’ll f—ing go [Senate Candidate 5].”
This conversation is alleged to have taken place on Nov. 10. Unless Blagojevich subsequently charmed Obama and his representatives into cooperating, Jim Lindgren would seem to have it right: “If true, these allegations hint that Obama or his transition team were victims of an extortion/bribery attempt” (our emphasis).
Does that rule out the possibility that Axelrod is now lying in order to cover up communications between Obama and Blagojevich? Not necessarily. Being a victim of a crime or other offense can, after all, be embarrassing. Wouldn’t it be ironic if Obama got caught up in scandal by trying to conceal facts that were not the least bit incriminating, merely for the sake of pride?
For more “Best of the Web” click here and look for the “Best of the Web Today” link in the middle column below “Today’s Columnists.”
