Talk:Rod Blagojevich
From Conservapedia
This is an encyclopedia and our credibility is at stake. Ridiculous speculation that is contradicted by the evidence is not worth reporting here--we have taped where Blogo said that Obama refused to give him anything for the Senate seat. Conservatives have to realize that getting rid of an evil scoundrel is a great achievement. RJJensen 23:41, 29 January 2009 (EST)
- Overturning the will of the people, under pretext, without being convicted of any crime, before a court of law, is nothing conservatives celebrate, RJJensen. --₮K/Admin/Talk 23:56, 29 January 2009 (EST)
- who expresses the will of the people of Illinois in 2009? Why the legislature of course. That is a very strong American tradition since the Founding Fathers. RJJensen 01:38, 30 January 2009 (EST)
- Revisionist hooey, RJ. The Founders didn't have all that much confidence in "the people". That is why they insisted upon a strong Executive, and why the Judiciary was somewhat belatedly elevated to the august third branch it is today. Weighing each tradition, I would rather have the people vote upon removal than a bunch of self-interested, politically motivated legislators. Especially when there has been absolutely no real proof of his wrong doing. In essence this whole deal is based upon the statements of just one person; the United States Attorney. And his track record for veracity isn't all that good. --₮K/Admin/Talk 02:09, 30 January 2009 (EST)
- No, I'm giving conservative historiography. better read Gordon Wood on the founding fathers. The notion that the governor represents the will of the people better than the legislature is never found in US history, as far as I can recall. (We do have the liberal argument from Andrew Jackson and FDR that the President represents the will of the people better than Congress--a doctrine strongly rejected by the Whigs and by most 20c conservatives.) RJJensen 02:19, 30 January 2009 (EST)
- Revisionist hooey, RJ. The Founders didn't have all that much confidence in "the people". That is why they insisted upon a strong Executive, and why the Judiciary was somewhat belatedly elevated to the august third branch it is today. Weighing each tradition, I would rather have the people vote upon removal than a bunch of self-interested, politically motivated legislators. Especially when there has been absolutely no real proof of his wrong doing. In essence this whole deal is based upon the statements of just one person; the United States Attorney. And his track record for veracity isn't all that good. --₮K/Admin/Talk 02:09, 30 January 2009 (EST)
Except perhaps for Ronald Reagan, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon or George W. Bush, eh? --₮K/Admin/Talk 02:22, 30 January 2009 (EST)
- well LBJ was actually a liberal Democrat who strongly believed the president was superiotr to Congress. Nixon's agreed with LBJ on that and he was getting impeached by Congress when he resigned. Bush's defiance of Congress in the GM bailout last month really angered many conservatives. Reagan did not claim the president was superior to Congress; rather he worked very well with Blue Dog Democrats to get pass bills (the Dems controlled the House thoughout his terms). RJJensen 02:27, 30 January 2009 (EST)
