Obama Resigns Senate Seat, Leaving Pick to Democratic Governor

[pgogborn]

By Julianna Goldman
Nov. 13 (Bloomberg)

President-elect Barack Obama is relinquishing his seat as the junior senator from Illinois, leaving it up to Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich to name a replacement. His resignation is effective Nov. 16.
...
U.S. Representative Jesse Jackson Jr., a 7-term Congressman, the son of the Reverend Jesse Jackson and a close ally of Obama's, has been lobbying to take Obama's spot. Others mentioned as possible replacements include Tammy Duckworth, an Iraq War Veteran who lost a 2006 bid for Congress and currently serves as the director of the Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs, and Jan Schakowsky, who represents part of Chicago's North Side and near-north suburbs in the U.S. House.

Obama confidante Valerie Jarrett, a Chicago businesswoman who is leading Obama's transition team, said Nov. 12 on PBS's ``NewsHour'' program that she's ``not interested in the Senate position.''
...
The choice could have an impact on the political futures of both Blagojevich and the appointee. Blagojevich is in his second term and has been buffeted by scandals in the state government and budget shortfalls.

A Chicago Tribune poll in October put Blagojevich's approval rating at 13 percent, the lowest ever recorded by the newspaper's surveys, and three-quarters of those polled said he shouldn't run for a third term >
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a7mbSZPYGEYc&refer=home

[aindik]

For everybody's information, the term expires in 2010. I looked in vain for that in the article, but the closest thing I found was the reminder that he was elected in 2004 and a little doing the math.

Leave it to Bloomberg to leave the length of a term in office out of an article. :)

Interesting that Biden won't resign yet. If he did, the Senate would be 47-49-2 (effectively 49-49) until replacements are selected, with Dick Cheney breaking ties. He probably won't resign until Obama's replacement takes the oath of office.

[5thcrewman]

I always wondered- can the Governor name themselves as the replacement Senator?

[JP]

I always wondered- can the Governor name themselves as the replacement Senator?Varies by state. Alaska passed a law against it, which is why Palin would need Stevens to win reelection, get kicked out, and then she'd need to win a special election to get in.

[smak]

I think I read yesterday that 47 states allow the governor to appoint somebody.

But in some of those, there still will be a special election somewhere down the line. Either within a time period, or on the next statewide election.

I believe Alaska is one of only 3 states where you there are no appointments, even for a short time.

-smak-

[SullyND]

I always wondered- can the Governor name themselves as the replacement Senator?

Yes (in Illinois). Rod is as crooked as they come, and their was speculation that he would appoint himself before he gets indicted. But he has said since Obama won that he will not appoint himself.

[timesamillion]

I think it's a Good Thing that states like Arizona, Hawaii, Wyoming, and Utah require the appointment to be from the same party as the outgoing Senator. It assures that if a Senator has health problems and has to possibly resign like Tim Johnson, a Governor of the opposing party can't play politics and appoint someone that might shift the balance in the Senate.

[retrodog]

Didn't Clinton abandon his commitment to Arkansas when he took the job as president? Or did they just make that up?

[JP]

Didn't Clinton abandon his commitment to Arkansas when he took the job as president? Or did they just make that up?The Lieutenant Governor just takes over for the remainder of the term if something like that happens.

[retrodog]

Didn't Clinton abandon his commitment to Arkansas when he took the job as president? Or did they just make that up?The Lieutenant Governor just takes over for the remainder of the term if something like that happens.
You quoted me but didn't even remotely answer the question, nor did you respond to the allegation. The question wasn't about who took his place, but more to the point of that he made a promise to the people of Arkansas that he'd stay there if elected governor and do the job through the end of his term.

I don't really know if he made such a promise or not, and I don't really know what he actually said. That's why I asked the question.

[JP]

You quoted me but didn't even remotely answer the question, nor did you respond to the allegation. Sorry, I hadn't realized there was an allegation in there.

The question wasn't about who took his place, but more to the point of that he made a promise to the people of Arkansas that he'd stay there if elected governor and do the job through the end of his term.

I don't really know if he made such a promise or not, and I don't really know what he actually said. That's why I asked the question.So you're wondering about Clinton keeping a promise you don't even know if he ever made?

[retrodog]

You quoted me but didn't even remotely answer the question, nor did you respond to the allegation. Sorry, I hadn't realized there was an allegation in there.

The question wasn't about who took his place, but more to the point of that he made a promise to the people of Arkansas that he'd stay there if elected governor and do the job through the end of his term.

I don't really know if he made such a promise or not, and I don't really know what he actually said. That's why I asked the question.So you're wondering about Clinton keeping a promise you don't even know if he ever made?
Oh, even more importantly, he didn't make it to me, as I'm not from Arkansas.

But it seemed similar and they talked about it a lot way-back-when so I just thought I'd ask. I used a question mark.

[JP]

Oh, even more importantly, he didn't make it to me, as I'm not from Arkansas.

But it seemed similar and they talked about it a lot way-back-when so I just thought I'd ask. I used a question mark.I don't know what Clinton did or didn't promise either. But I do know his Lt. Gov. wanted on the ticket the last time Clinton ran because he (and probably other people down there) knew ol' Bill had his eye on the White House, he was known to be thinking of a run in 1988.

[retrodog]

Oh, even more importantly, he didn't make it to me, as I'm not from Arkansas.

But it seemed similar and they talked about it a lot way-back-when so I just thought I'd ask. I used a question mark.I don't know what Clinton did or didn't promise either. But I do know his Lt. Gov. wanted on the ticket the last time Clinton ran because he (and probably other people down there) knew ol' Bill had his eye on the White House, he was known to be thinking of a run in 1988.
Oh, I did not know that. Maybe that's why he felt compelled to make that promise... that he supposedly didn't keep.

And yes, I realize that pointing it out was merely rhetoric by the right because I'm pretty sure that everyone who voted for him actually wanted him to quit the job early to go become president.

[aindik]

Anything new on when we should expect a replacement?

If this goes on too much longer, it's going to get ironic if Joe Biden is acting as a Senator and as Vice-President-elect after everything he said about Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin and about how the Vice President has no role in the Senate and should stay the hell out of the Senate except when he needs to cast a tie-breaking vote.

[busyba]

Anything new on when we should expect a replacement?

If this goes on too much longer, it's going to get ironic if Joe Biden is acting as a Senator and as Vice-President-elect after everything he said about Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin and about how the Vice President has no role in the Senate and should stay the hell out of the Senate except when he needs to cast a tie-breaking vote.

Did he also say that a Vice President-elect should stay the hell out of the Senate?

Anything that he would do in the Senate between now and 1/20/09 would be in his role as a Senator and thus not inconsistent with any of the statements you mention.

[smak]

Anything new on when we should expect a replacement?

If this goes on too much longer, it's going to get ironic if Joe Biden is acting as a Senator and as Vice-President-elect after everything he said about Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin and about how the Vice President has no role in the Senate and should stay the hell out of the Senate except when he needs to cast a tie-breaking vote.

The VP Elect has no role in the executive branch, or in anything for that matter.

There's nothing ironic about it at all.

-smak-

[JP]

Anything new on when we should expect a replacement?I'd heard Illinois Governor Rod B<could't spell it if I tried> was going to have someone announced before the end of the year. I'm betting on Jesse Jackson Jr.

If this goes on too much longer, it's going to get ironic if Joe Biden is acting as a Senator and as Vice-President-elect after everything he said about Dick Cheney and Sarah Palin and about how the Vice President has no role in the Senate and should stay the hell out of the Senate except when he needs to cast a tie-breaking vote.Why? Joe's not VP until January 20th 2009.

Practically, btw, Biden needs to stay until there's a Dem replacement for Barack so the Dems maintain a working majority. With Barack and Biden both gone it'd be 49/49 with Dick "4th branch" Cheney as tie-breaker.

[aindik]

Yes, I know he's not actually the VP yet. That's why I used the word "ironic" rather than something stronger like "unconstitutional." Just thought it was interesting.

Although, he has precisely as much executive power now as he will on 1/20/09 at noon. Which is to say, none unless Obama becomes unable to be President.

Practically, btw, Biden needs to stay until there's a Dem replacement for Barack so the Dems maintain a working majority. With Barack and Biden both gone it'd be 49/49 with Dick "4th branch" Cheney as tie-breaker.

I'm quite certain I've seen that in this thread somewhere.

[JP]

Yes, I know he's not actually the VP yet. That's why I used the word "ironic" rather than something stronger like "unconstitutional." Just thought it was interesting. I don't get the irony, sorry. Biden's a VP-in-waiting. Until he abdicates his former position either formally as Barack has, or by default by getting sworn in as VP, he's a Senator in the 110th Congress and entitled to all the rights and privileges thereof. The only VP thing he's got going on is checking out the rugs at Cheney's house.

I'm quite certain I've seen that in this thread somewhere.I *KNEW* I'd read it somewhere. :)

[pgogborn]

..Biden's a VP-in-waiting. Until he abdicates his former position either formally as Barack has, or by default by getting sworn in as VP, he's a Senator in the 110th Congress and entitled to all the rights and privileges thereof. The only VP thing he's got going on is checking out the rugs at Cheney's house Although I have seen it alleged/suggested that Obama thinks that as Biden is VP-elect it would be inappropriate for him to use all the rights and privileges he is entitled to as a Senator.

It will be interesting to see if Biden takes part in any votes and if so which ones.

[aindik]

During the debates, Biden was against the VP using all the rights and privileges of that office, namely presiding over the Senate. His position was, out of respect for separation of powers, the VP should stay away from the day to day operation of the legislative branch, even though he has every right to be there every day and chair the thing.

Obama, too, refused to take a position on whether Lieberman should chair committees, leaving that to the legislative branch despite his still officially having been a Senator at the time he made the comments. That seemed also to be out of respect for separation of powers.

Only now, Biden doesn't adhere to the overarching principle of the executive (or executive-to-be) not interfering in the legislative branch. Instead, he toes up to the line and says he's going to stay because he's allowed to stay.

More tangentially related is Obama and Biden running against expansionist executive power and the diminishing respect by the executive for the role of Congress.

[eddyj]

I don't get it. He is not anything until he gets inagurated. All this "elect" stuff is just to make the transfer of power easier, right? With no legal responsibilities?

[smak]

I don't get it. He is not anything until he gets inagurated. All this "elect" stuff is just to make the transfer of power easier, right? With no legal responsibilities?

There's nothing to get, it's just nonsensical ramblings.

-smak-

[grondramb]

I don't get it. He is not anything until he gets inagurated. All this "elect" stuff is just to make the transfer of power easier, right? With no legal responsibilities?

Well the President Elect, over time has been given more responsibilities and budget. But the VP Elect just has whatever the PE gives him.

So.. on the surface, Obama resigning and Biden not resigning seems reasonable.

And politically it would be silly to yield control of the senate for two months - not that I would complain.

[JP]

Only now, Biden doesn't adhere to the overarching principle of the executive (or executive-to-be) not interfering in the legislative branch. Instead, he toes up to the line and says he's going to stay because he's allowed to stay. You DO realize that until Biden's the VP he's not the VP? And that his remarks about VP's using powers in the Senate were directed at VP's using VP powers in the Senate, and NOT at Senators who are still Senators until January 20th still acting as Senators?

Dude, all you got here is a whole lot of nothing.

[smak]

Only now, Biden doesn't adhere to the overarching principle of the executive (or executive-to-be) not interfering in the legislative branch. Instead, he toes up to the line and says he's going to stay because he's allowed to stay. You DO realize that until Biden's the VP he's not the VP? And that his remarks about VP's using powers in the Senate were directed at VP's using VP powers in the Senate, and NOT at Senators who are still Senators until January 20th still acting as Senators?

Dude, all you got for the last 10 days is a whole lot of nothing.

FYP

-smak-

[aindik]

I'm not making a major deal out of it. It's not a constitutional crisis. It just struck me as weird that he takes a principled stand on even the appearance of violating separation of powers, beyond that required by the Constitution, but that doesn't really matter during his transition to executive power (to the extent the VP has any, though during the campaign he was emphasizing how much).

Again, the VP-elect has the same amount of executive power as the VP - none. He has whatever influnence the number one guy will give him.

[JP]

I'm not making a major deal out of it. It's not a constitutional crisis. It just struck me as weird that he takes a principled stand on even the appearance of violating separation of powers, beyond that required by the Constitution, but that doesn't really matter during his transition to executive power (to the extent the VP has any, though during the campaign he was emphasizing how much).I don't even see any "weird" here. Biden's not using any VP-like powers. Congress isn't even into the lame-duck session yet, we don't know what Senatorial powers he'll use.

Again, the VP-elect has the same amount of executive power as the VP - none. He has whatever influnence the number one guy will give him.So until George (number-one guy until January) gives Biden some power there's no issue here, right?

[pgogborn]

I don't get it. He is not anything until he gets inagurated. Although in at least one way he is now being treated in the way that an inaugurated VP is - U.S. intelligence agencies are now giving him (and Obama) the top level 'executive' briefings.

[JP]

I don't get it. He is not anything until he gets inagurated. Although in at least one way he is now being treated in the way that an inaugurated VP is - U.S. intelligence agencies are now giving him (and Obama) the top level 'executive' briefings.Those weren't VP things Biden was complaining about with Cheney, though.

If Biden buys himself a man-size safe, though, that'd be different. :)

[eddyj]

I don't get it. He is not anything until he gets inagurated. Although in at least one way he is now being treated in the way that an inaugurated VP is - U.S. intelligence agencies are now giving him (and Obama) the top level 'executive' briefings.

So he's well informed. Still, he is not the VP yet. I see no conflict with him staying on as senator for a bit.

[aindik]

I don't get it. He is not anything until he gets inagurated. Although in at least one way he is now being treated in the way that an inaugurated VP is - U.S. intelligence agencies are now giving him (and Obama) the top level 'executive' briefings.

So he's well informed. Still, he is not the VP yet. I see no conflict with him staying on as senator for a bit.

I don't see a conflict either. I also don't see a conflict with the actual VP exercising his constitutional role as President of the Senate (i.e., presiding over it). But Biden did.

[eddyj]

Although in at least one way he is now being treated in the way that an inaugurated VP is - U.S. intelligence agencies are now giving him (and Obama) the top level 'executive' briefings.

So he's well informed. Still, he is not the VP yet. I see no conflict with him staying on as senator for a bit.

I don't see a conflict either. I also don't see a conflict with the actual VP exercising his constitutional role as President of the Senate (i.e., presiding over it). But Biden did.

And hopefully he will carry through and not exercise that role, when he is the VP. But until then, he is a Senator doing his duty. And in fact, I claim he would be derelict in his duty to his constituents and his party, and irresponsible, to quit before Obama's replacement is chosen.

[smak]

Although in at least one way he is now being treated in the way that an inaugurated VP is - U.S. intelligence agencies are now giving him (and Obama) the top level 'executive' briefings.

So he's well informed. Still, he is not the VP yet. I see no conflict with him staying on as senator for a bit.

I don't see a conflict either. I also don't see a conflict with the actual VP exercising his constitutional role as President of the Senate (i.e., presiding over it). But Biden did.

You think "The Vice President is a unique office, which is not in the executive or legislative branches" is Cheney exercising his constitutional role?

-smak-

[grondramb]

You think "The Vice President is a unique office, which is not in the executive or legislative branches" is Cheney exercising his constitutional role?

-smak-

To the extent that the VP has duties in two branches of government it still wouldn't mean he is immune to the responsibilities of either.

[smak]

So he's well informed. Still, he is not the VP yet. I see no conflict with him staying on as senator for a bit.

I don't see a conflict either. I also don't see a conflict with the actual VP exercising his constitutional role as President of the Senate (i.e., presiding over it). But Biden did.

And hopefully he will carry through and not exercise that role, when he is the VP. But until then, he is a Senator doing his duty. And in fact, I claim he would be derelict in his duty to his constituents and his party, and irresponsible, to quit before Obama's replacement is chosen.

There was a list of senator's who became VP or President, and most of them resigned their senate office in December or January, mostly January.

So of course there's no conflict.

-smak-

[pseudonym]

You think "The Vice President is a unique office, which is not in the executive or legislative branches" is Cheney exercising his constitutional role?

-smak-

To the extent that the VP has duties in two branches of government it still wouldn't mean he is immune to the responsibilities of either.
Tell that to Cheney. His position is precisely that he is immune to the responsibilities of the executive branch, when they aren't convenient.

[grondramb]

Tell that to Cheney. His position is precisely that he is immune to the responsibilities of the executive branch, when they aren't convenient.

Well next time something terrible happens to the nation lets try to remember why it was bad idea to greatly increase the power of the government while decreasing the scrutiny.

Actually there is something really bad happening and there is a move to increase the power of the government - on both sides of the aisle we should do better this time.

[JP]

Well next time something terrible happens to the nation lets try to remember why it was bad idea to greatly increase the power of the government while decreasing the scrutiny.I know. Man, if only somebody had warned you.

Oh wait... they did. Repeatedly. And the response from the Right was "you don't have any civil liberties if you're dead", and calling everyone who disagreed "soft on terrorism" if not "in league with the terrorists".

This was pretty much how the torture "debate" went also.

But NOW it's a bad idea?

Actually there is something really bad happening and there is a move to increase the power of the government - on both sides of the aisle we should do better this time.Okay, I guess next time we'll warn you even harder. For your side of the aisle, are you folks next time NOT going to think trashing the Constitution is a good idea?

[grondramb]

You know, its starting to look like this hostility from a few members of the debate club has not ended with the election. That's too bad, I had been hopeful.

This Jpriller post is typical. I have from day one opposed every violation of individual rights and opposed the expansion of government but here he attacks as if that were not true. I also opposed the invasion of Iraq under those circumstances at that time.

It is really starting to suggest a fundamental disconnect with reality if not an ethical gap on the part of a few liberals who are preventing dialog.

Edit: I think instead of worrying about the behavior of a few here, I'll just take a break from the debate club and see how I feel in a bit.

[pseudonym]

You know, its starting to look like this hostility from a few members of the debate club has not ended with the election. That's too bad, I had been hopeful.

This Jpriller post is typical. I have from day one opposed every violation of individual rights and opposed the expansion of government but here he attacks as if that were not true. I also opposed the invasion of Iraq under those circumstances at that time.

It is really starting to suggest a fundamental disconnect with reality if not an ethical gap on the part of a few liberals who are preventing dialog.

Edit: I think instead of worrying about the behavior of a few here, I'll just take a break from the debate club and see how I feel in a bit.

If you really want to edit a post, there's a button called a delete key. All "crossing out" a post does is to allow you to passive aggressively take shots at people while pretending to disavow doing so.

Either stand behind your words or take them down. Of course, since you're on a break, you'll never see this, right?

[JP]

You know, its starting to look like this hostility from a few members of the debate club has not ended with the election. The idiots who got us into this mess remain convinced of their righteousness. Has anybody who was pro-torture disavowed that yet? Come on, tell me who has. Has anyone who sneered at standing up for civil liberties as being "soft on terrorism" come to their senses? Tell me who has. Has anybody who said being against the war in Iraq was "hating America and wanting it to lose" said they were wrong and are sorry now? Point these people out to me.

Because I sure haven't seen it. They're all still out there, on their radio shows and on their FOX News programs and a lot that were in office are still in office.

They massively fucked up our country, if not directly in office than enabled it and defended it to the public. Those in office would still be doing so if they hadn't been kicked out of power, and those who enabled and defended it are still doing so. But we're supposed to pretend they've turned over a new leaf? And what's more, we're supposed to pretend that their fucking up is somehow a bipartisan problem when the Dems have been warning people about the ongoing fucking-up for years, only to have their concerns dismissed as "soft on terrorism" or hating America or wanting to surrender?

That's too bad, I had been hopeful. Hopeful people would forget what party gave us these chuckleheads, you mean, and what side's blowhards emitted and continue to emit all that poisonous crap?

I'm willing to move forward, but only with people who're willing to look reality in the face. They aren't. Are you? This post sure doesn't give me any hope.

It is really starting to suggest a fundamental disconnect with reality if not an ethical gap on the part of a few liberals who are preventing dialog.This is exactly what I mean about refusing to acknowledge reality. "Preventing dialogue"? What kind of dialogue is possible with people who think standing up for civil liberties, the Constitution or the rule of law is being "soft on terrorism"?

But if anyone who was thinking that has stopped thinking that, show me where they've done it and I'll cut them some slack. Got anyone like that to show me?

Edit: I think instead of worrying about the behavior of a few here, I'll just take a break from the debate club and see how I feel in a bit.Have a happy one. I'll be here when you get back. And so will reality. That's the stuff that doesn't go away, you might remember, no matter how much you want it to.