The Two Lame Ducks Who Didn't Vote To Impeach
Meet Illinois state Reps. Milton Patterson and Elga Jefferies -- the only members of the state House to vote against impeaching Rod Blagojevich.
As it turns out, both of them are lame ducks. Patterson didn't seek re-election last year, and Jefferies was defeated in her Democratic primary.
Why did they do it? Patterson, who voted No, told the CBS affiliate for southern Illinois that he had "no first-hand knowledge of any of the evidence," and that he had to go with his "gut feeling" and leave it up to prosecutors, not legislators, to charge the governor.
I had the chance to speak briefly on the phone with Jefferies, who voted Present -- which is essentially the same as a No vote, because it counts towards defeating a motion.
"I voted Present because I did not completely agree on a Yes vote, and I didn't agree on a No vote," Jefferies said. "I felt that the reason all this had come about has been blown out of context."
Jefferies said that she felt that the investigation against Blagojevich had become personal, with the legislators digging in on hirings that went back years. "I think there's a lot of things that he could have done differently," said Jefferies. "I'm not saying he's been 100% right. And he'll have his day in court."
Jefferies concluded: "I voted my conscience."
Now we know why she was defeated in the primary. "blown out of context"??? What a nitwit.
January 9, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
As the lads over at Guinness would say, "Brilliant!"
January 9, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I voted my conscience."
Isn't it nice to have such a wishy-washy conscience?
January 9, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
No first hand knowledge?
WTF?
What's that supposed to mean? If he's a member of the legislature, wouldn't he have, by definition, first hand knowledge?
January 9, 2009 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you seen the 13 articles of impeachment? A lot of it is bullshit like he issued an executive order overruling the assembly to cover all kids in Illinois with health insurance. I suggest you read it and ask yourselves if you want your governor brought up on such charges, because with the kind of political crap they used a lot of governors could be. It looks more like a vendetta than articles of impeachment. The Illinois House didn't cover themselves in glory here.
January 9, 2009 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't been able to find them. Can you provide a linK?
January 9, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ask, and ye shall receive.
For the record, I'm not quite as down on the articles as markg8 above is. The idea is to show a pattern. Not all the charges need to be top-tier; the key is that the top charge(s) must stick.
January 9, 2009 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. I found that after I asked for the link. Numbers 1 - 9 don't seem all that petty. What I couldn't find was the full report that is mentioned in the resolution.
January 9, 2009 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't find them anywhere, either. I did find this, a memo from a former adviser. It is a ridiculous list of lots of things that he doesn't like about the Governor, but nothing illegal. Much of this clearly is a political vendetta.
http://media.suntimes.com/images/cds/pdf/blagojevichmemo.pdf
January 9, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nothing BS about that at all, markg8. On healthcare Blago went ahead and spent money that hadn't been appropriated, after the legislature unanimously voted down his plan to fund healthcare reform with a gross receipts tax (i.e. tax business on total revenue regardless of whether they're profitable or not). He should have been impeached then and there on the spot. Or maybe he should have been impeached for all the illegal firings of non-political staff he engaged in upon taking office in 2003. There is so much material, and the General Assembly has been putting it off for so long.
January 9, 2009 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah a lot of this stuff is 5 or 6 years old. Maybe Mike Madigan should have thought of that before he decided to manage Blago's campaign in 2006. I guess Lisa wasn't ready to run for governor then. Go look at Blago's press conference today. He grandstanded justifying himself citing the Canadian drug buying plan, All Kids healthcare, and the flu vaccine, all worthy efforts even if they were amatuerishly done and all impeachable offenses according to the clowns in the Assembly.
Blago's committed enough impeachable offenses. They didn't have to go after his actual efforts to help people too. That was just stupid.
January 9, 2009 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess it depends on if the state law says he should have behaved differently. After Bush I have little tolerance for executives who say "Ooooh, THAT law isn't important - so I'm not following it."
If we impeached more of these aholes when they overstep their authority, we wouldn't have nearly so much corruption.
January 9, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought we all agreed 18 months ago that voting present when you are in the Illinois state Congress is different and irreducible to a No vote.
Eric: Get on message!
January 9, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
voting present on a bill that everyone knew was going to pass is not the same as voting no.
we got 3 options here, yes present and no.
yes != present and present != no
January 10, 2009 2:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I say that Reps. Patterson and Jeffries are upholding the basic traditions that one is innocent until proven guilty, and that in a democracy, dissenting opinions are not just welcomed but celebrated.
Note that Patterson suggested that prosecutors should make their case before a jury, and that Jeffries suggests neither side is 100% correct.
Being in government means that you need not always follow the other lemmings directly into the sea. I find it sad that some of you would resort to name-calling (et tu, mans_best_friend?) or other snark.
Patterson and Jeffries are entitled to their contrarians' opinions. That they chose to stand apart on this is to be commended, even if you disagree with it. That is democracy.
January 9, 2009 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find this:
followed immediately by this:
to be somewhat hypocritical. 114 of 116 Illinois House members voted to impeach. If two dissenting votes (in the face of a rather large body of evidence) shouldn't disgrace either of the dissenters, why should 114 assenting votes disgrace any of the assenters?
January 9, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. Section 14 is clear that "An impeached officer, whether convicted or acquitted, shall be liable to prosecution, trial, judgment and punishment according to law." The constitution grants SOLE power of removal from office to the legislature. In my mind this seems to indicate the framers saw two completely separate metrics - and that one did not preclude the outcome of the other.
Both of these legislators hold a constitutional responsibility to provide a check/balance of executive power. So Patterson's justification for voting no is essentially an abdication of his constitutional mandate - and an attempt to pass it to an executive authority. Unless he's willing to come out and say clearly that the articles were false(or didn't warrant impeachment), Patterson failed his duties.
Jeffries applies her own wishy-washy standard - a requirement of 100% correctness in order for her to execute her duties (with EITHER a yes OR a no vote). Either the articles rose to the level that they warranted impeachment or they didn't. I can understand why she lost her position to a challenger. She's a total wuss.
There is nothing commendable about misconstruing or refusing to carry out your constitutional duties.
January 9, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hahaha! "Conscience"! No first-hand knowledge"! These tools crack me up! As lame ducks, Patterson and Jeffries are looking for a place to land, and Blagojevich may be able to provide it for them in the form of an appointment to some agency, municipal board or the like before Blago is ejected from the governor's office. Politics as usual in good ol' Chicago . . .
January 9, 2009 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink