Talk:Rod Blagojevich/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Other criticism

I'm biased, so I'm not sure I could carefully report this without going over the top on NPOV. There've been other issues since Rod took office in '03: Changes that were forced in the Illinois' Teacher Retirement System, for one. Attempts at forcing the State Board of Education to report directly to the Governor, including the ouster of one State Superintendent of Schools. Attempts at reforming or eliminating the present Regional Offices of Education system. The anti-violent video game law that got pushed through the General Assembly despite warnings that such laws aren't held up by the courts - this one too, was defeated in court. Rod's threatened to pursue an appeal, at great cost to Illinois taxpayers. There's also been hints of scandals about hiring in state jobs that should not have been political appointments, which is in contrast to the 'house cleaning' promised during the 2002 campaign. Any of these things could be found in any online newspaper archive for the State of Illinois (Bloomington Pentagraph, Springfield Journal-Register, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun-Times, etc etc). --JohnDBuell 02:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of the anti-violent video game law that got struck down, apparently the video game industry wants its legal fees refunded, and is going to court to do it. Thanks for blowing taxpayers' money on what was advised to be a struck down law, Rod! Now the state will have to foot the bill for MORE unnecessary court costs! [1] --JohnDBuell 05:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

A typical nanny-state control freak, Blago will not rest until he turns Illinois into 'California with snow'. A Libertarian's worst nightmare. John, Any effort to show people what this man is doing to our state ( while obiding by NPOV) would be a great service to all of us. Rearden Metal 07:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Well if you turn most of what I said into a bullet point list, and edit to make sure it's NPOV, I think it's a fairly good summary of the other issues that he's been criticised over since 2003. The IEA is really mad at him over the TRS thing, as well as the other education 'reforms' he's suggested, and a lot of anti-tollway people felt betrayed after he started the heavy push for "open road tolling." Not to mention all the truckers that got pissed off with the 1/1/05 toll hike that tripled tolls during daytime peak driving hours for them. I'll grant you that none of his competition is perfect, and you could argue they may not be much better, but I'm willing to take the chance. And for the record, I did NOT vote for Rod in 2002 (oh crap, here comes the State Police ;). --JohnDBuell 07:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh and I forgot the now infamous pharmacy law (which I personally am in favor of, you can have it out with me on my talk page :) - There's a law on the books in Illinois, for those who don't know, requiring pharmacists to fill ALL prescriptions, including ones they might have a problem with on moral or religious grounds (like birth control). A couple of pharmacists (with Walgreen's I think) have already resigned rather than be prosecuted over this law. --JohnDBuell 07:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

His other new pharmacy law is even worse: Bureaucratic hurdles for the purchase of any pseudo-ephedrine containing allergy medication. ...but it's For The Children. Rearden Metal 07:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Didn't that get overridden by a similar federal statute though? --JohnDBuell 11:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. There is a federal law about removing pseudoephedrine from being over the counter. In fact, I was only aware of the federal statute, not the state one. Shsilver 15:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Just wondering: Has there ever been a case, where Blago fought to reduce governmental interference & regulation, in any field whatsoever? Keeping state prisoners under his direct control for life, instead of executing them doesn't count. I'm wondering if he even deserves the label 'progressive'. Pure authoritarian seems more fitting. Rearden Metal 23:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

None I can think of. The failures I outlined above and the ongoing investigations by federal prosecutors speak for themselves. "Chief Hypocrite" has a certain ring to it. --JohnDBuell 00:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

You know what, I'm sitting here reading the state laws that go into effect today/this month, and I found the one about pseudoephedrine. "...[B]uying decongestants...will require a photo ID and you'll have to sign a log book. ... Beginning Jan. 15, cold medicines that use ephedrine or psuedoephedrine – key meth components – can only be sold behind the counter and only after buyers verify they are 18 or older and sign a register...." Source: Daily Herald, 1 January 2006. --JohnDBuell 18:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Full name

An anon user (from the University of Chicago) started to get nasty about NOT having the Governor's full name listed, so I just wanted to state here what's in the edit history: You can find "Milorad 'Rod' Blagojevich" as his full name by entering "Milorad Blagojevich" (with quotation marks) into Google, A9, or another search engine. --JohnDBuell 18:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That is not his real name. His Father wanted to name him milorod but his mom Millie was against it from the start. They called him Milorod from time to time but his Birth name the one on his birth cert. is Rod Blagojevich. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.132.210 (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Daily show screw up

Should His appearance on the daily show where he didn't realize that it was fake news be included?--4.131.128.57 00:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Why not? especially if you have access to the video, and even better if you can provide a screenshot! --JohnDBuell 02:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I think you'll like this!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFdAcZeaAIE&search=blagojevich ;) Rearden Metal 04:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

They should have come here first and asked him on camera about "the football" :) --JohnDBuell 04:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Best part: "I sat down with Governor Blagoj... Blago... Governor Smith." —chair lunch dinner™ (talk) 04:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The governor didn't say "are you teasing me" in reference to his name being mispronounced like the article says. He said that when the host says "I'll be in charge of what my listeners get to hear." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.183.105 (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Rods gun control

I have put in under ADMINISTRATION a short succinct paragraph on his gun control efforts.Oh,and for the record,I don't like Blagojevich.It sounds like an East European laxative company to me.Saltforkgunman 06:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Racial Controversy

Why is there no mention of the current controversy Rod Blagojevich is in? He appointed a Nation of Islam woman to a Hate Crime panel and all the Jewish members of the panel resigned because of it. Rod Blagojevich also said he supported a black militant group which believes in the separation of whites and blacks.

Nobody had got to that yet, and it's still ongoing. But feel free to make an addition, provided it's verifiable. --JohnDBuell 03:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Now done, with a link to a recent (as of this writing) Chicago Tribune article. --JohnDBuell 04:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Jimmy Neutron

I noticed somebody deleted my little tidbit about Blago saying that the Jimmy Neutron character was a mockery of him. I'm sure someone thought that was a joke or vandalism, but that really did happen. I swear. I'd like it to be back in there. Maybe I'll rewrite it to make it sound more serious... or maybe it is just unimportant. I'm sure that if I went to the Lovie Smith page and wrote that he sued the Walter E. Smithe furniture company for using his name (but then dropped the lawsuit realising it was stupid), that would be deleted too. But it happened. You should research an article before saying that something written is vandalism. Just 'cause you don't believe a fact, that doesn't make it not true. Is there no love for the quirky facts? -Rebelkass

The burden of providing verifiable proof of any statement or claim is up to the person who includes the information in the article. --JohnDBuell 02:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Lease proposals

Could someone find a couple of articles about the proposed leases of the Illinois Toll Highways and the Illinois Lottery, and the chorus of voices for and against such moves? --JohnDBuell 03:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This biography states that Mr. Blagojevich is a "moderate" Democrat. This term has not been defined so that it can be used as an enlightening adjective, so it should be removed. There are many of his policies which cannot be considered moderate, so this term should not be used in his biography.

Category oddity

Someone added Category:Same-sex marriage opposition to the article, and I cannot find anything *in* the article that states that Mr. Blagojevich is opposed to same-sex marriage. Considering the category says that it is for people who are strong opponents of same-sex marriage, I reverted it. On the contrary, the article seems to state a tolerant stance for gays. If sourced statements can be added to the article to support the opposition claim, I wouldn't be adverse to it being re-added. Syrthiss 23:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Blagojevich has stated during 2006 campaign interviews that he's opposed to same-sex marriage, though I don't think he's opposed to civil unions. It's a fine line, I know, but.... --JohnDBuell 02:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Poorly sourced material that doesnt meet the standard of WP:BLP

The governor also has his staff carry the "football," which is a large hairbrush, to every event that he attends so that his hair is always perfect (Chicago Magazine, 2003).

This could be readded with more neutral language if a complete citation is provided (assuming its true). savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Or proof that it's a complete, original quotation, from that issue of Chicago Magazine. I will note, however, that WBBM-AM's political editor teased the Governor about his hair being "perfect, as usual" during the first radio debate between him and Judy Baar Topinka in October 2006. --JohnDBuell 04:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Blago?

Has anyone noticed that Blago is a redirect to this page? Is this appropriate? Is this term commonly used to refer to this person? --Dual Freq 01:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's been used as derogatory slang, but I'd be hard pressed to find a printed source (except maybe an editorial cartoon or nasty email from the Illinois Republican party). I'd break it. --JohnDBuell 12:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's not uncommonly found in headlines since it makes an easily recongizable shortening for the full name. Whether that's done simply as a matter of convenience or implies some sort of derogatory intent is probably something the readers have to decide for themselves. Some will probable get themselves worked up and indignant over it, others will think nothing of it.--209.7.195.158 20:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are some news articles using 'Blago' http://cbs2chicago.com/local/local_story_285190803.html Feds Believe Blago Fundraiser Out Of Country http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/local_story_129192305.html Blago To Sign Nursing Home Background Checks Bill Kkemper 20:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see why it should redirect here, although I guess it could be helpful for those who can't spell the name. Abbreviations are commonly used for politicians when they have long names, such as "Sarko" for Nicolas Sarkozy or "Sego" for Segolene Royal. I don't think any of these cases (including Blago) are used in a derogatory fashion.--Gloriamarie 19:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Daily flights

The state has at least 4 King Air's N991LL, N981LL, N971LL and N961LL. Some of them are used for "Air Illinois" (2003 article abstract) and daily Midway to Springfield flights. My question is: does the governor ride these planes alone or does he just fly on the regularly scheduled Springfield to Midway run? At least one of the aircraft makes 3 or 4 trips between Chicago and Springfield each day ferrying legislators, even flying empty sometimes. This was a big scandal a couple years back, but I think the flights were scaled back though the flights still occur. I'm not sure of the notability here since Chicago legislators are no doubt guilty of incurring similar expenses, and the aircraft would still fly even if empty. Additionally, they are all charged a nominal fee <$100 to fly on these aircraft. These used to be viewable via http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N991LL but they must be blocking the flights now for security reasons. --Dual Freq 03:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It's gotten a lot of press attention, to the extent that an out-of-state relative had even heard about it from the AP. From the impression I get, Blagojevich takes his own flights, and since his get there at 12pm and leave about 5, they wouldn't really be conducive to bringing lawmakers who (presumably) may have to work longer hours. According to the news reports, these flights would not be taken if Blagojevich stayed in Springfield, so I think it's safe to say he takes separate flights until news outlets report differently. --Gloriamarie 16:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Not using money for what legislature authorized it for

In the Greenville Advocate from September 4, State Senator (and Minority Leader) Frank Watson says that the legislature has "trust" issues with the governor, saying that money allocated through the George Ryan-era Illinois First program was not spent on what the legislature allocated it for: "The problem is since the governor took office, the authorization we created when Ryan was in has all been used. The bonds have been sold. The governor froze all (legislative) member initiatives, but spent the authorization we permitted, for other uses." This is an interesting aspect of Blagojevich's governorship and perhaps should be added.--Gloriamarie 14:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hannah Montana

The information about Hannah Montana seems rather trivial and probably shouldn't be included. Rather than revert, I'm open to a reason to leave it in. Shsilver (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

George Voinovich

On George Voinovich's page it states he is of croatian origin rather than serbian, please clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.94.44.153 (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It now says his father was a Serb from Croatia.--Gloriamarie (talk) 06:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Controversies - State park closings

http://www.clintondailyjournal.com/V2_news_articles.php?heading=0&page=72&story_id=2183

Not sure if this is worth adding in, yet. But it is new news and most of the town is already extremely upset 12.201.52.216 (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

The "Legislator" and "Gubernatorial administration" sections of this article are loaded with weasel words and advertisements. It sounds like it came out of a campaign brochoure.

To wit;

• In Congress, Blagojevich continued to champion what he called anti-crime measures, especially gun control legislation.
• Throughout his administration, Governor Blagojevich has taken the initiative on:
• When he signed it into law one-month later, it made Illinois the first state in the nation to provide access to affordable, comprehensive health insurance for every child in the state. 3
• The Governor has consistently made women’s health a priority.

I could go on and on. I'm placing an advertisment box on the top until this is fixed. Thanks.--thequackdaddy (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I did some snooping around and a significant portion of the "Legislator" and "Gubernatorial administrations" are directory copied off of press releases and other political fact sheets. I am removing the offending material because it is clearly not NPOV and possibly a case of plagiarism.

See the following press releases which appear to be copied almost verbatim in to Wikipedia. [2] [3][4]

--thequackdaddy (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

According to Wikipedia:IPA, the fourth symbol in the IPA pronunciation is the German short ü. Is this the right sound? Shouldn't it be a regular g? —JerryFriedman (Talk) 23:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Serbian

Rod Blagojevich is the first Serbian Governor elected. George Voinovich of Ohio is Slovenian. Serbians are mainly Orthodox Christian and Slovenians are mostly Roman Catholic. It would be correct to say Rod Blagojevich is the second govenor elected from the former Republic known as Yugoslavia, both Serbia and Slovenia wer part of the the former country of Yugoslavia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.78.97.109 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC).

Governor Blagojevich's father, Radisav Blagojević (Радисав Благојевић), was born in Veliko Krčmare (Велико Крчмаре), which lies somewhat to the north of Kragujevac (Крагујевац). This information appears in the Serbian-language version of the Wikipedia article about the Governor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.28.161.95 (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Voinovich is half Serbian, half Slovenian

And there were more than 2 Governors from former Yugoslav republics

George Voinoivich OHIO (Serbian/Slovenian) --- Frank Lausche OHIO (Slovenian) --- Rudy Perpich MINNESOTA (Croatian) --- Rose Perica Mofford ARIZONA (Croatian) --- Michael Stepovich ALASKA (Croatian) --- Rod Blagojevich ILLINOIS (Serbian)

Since no one disputes this and I have researched this and have the citations I believe there is a consensus so I will make the changes as soon as the article is unlocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.50.64 (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} How important and appropriate is it that Blagojevich's ethnic background be stated so prominently in the first paragraph, especially given the attention he's now receiving for his arrest? It would be better to move this to the "Personal information" section. Dsndj (talk) 06:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 Not done. As I see the mention in the lead, it is only one sentence - which doesn't seem excessive, considering the current size of the lead. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 14:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

But it's prominently placed in the first paragraph, where there are just 3 sentences (of which it's the longest). And compare it to the other 7 sentences in the lead: is it really commensurate in importance with any of them? If for some reason something about his family background needs to go in the lead, is it more significant to know that he's the second Serbian-American governor or, say, that his wife is the daughter of Richard Mell, to whom he owes his political career? Note also that Blagojevich is not very involved in the social, cultural, or political life of the Serbian-American community, and that he doesn't refer much if at all to his Serbian background -- officially listing his religion, for example, as Eastern (rather than Serbian) Orthodox, as noted elsewhere on this talk page (not to mention baptising and raising his daughters in his wife's Catholic faith).

"At one point in 2007, Blagojevich filed a lawsuit against Madigan after Madigan instructed lawmakers to not attend one of Blagojevich's scheduled special sessions on the budget." from Relationships with fellow lawmakers.

Wikipedians - we are getting link happy. You could link every word to a dictionary definition. I point out the above statement and link to "lawsuit" as an example. If the link does not go to an entry referring to the immediate statement, a footnote, then stop. I am tire'g of moving the mouse over the link to see what it reveals as a jump.

and why I'm interested in this section: "He is the second Serbian American to be elected ..." links to a Chicago Tribune article (Trib is embroiled in the Govenors troubles ie purchase'g Wrigley Field)(WField has crumbling concrete bleachers). I am taking time to investigate what Wikipedia journalist (bloggers) are presenting to the world on the Govenor. There is and has been an atmosphere here in Illinois that Gov Blagojevich is not a team player. There are many teams with agendas. Report don't Purport (and that's a fine line). Imo the current wiki presentation is blending into the dump him wagon.Greg0658 (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

A good test for whether and how to refer to someone's ethnic background: How would it sound if it were another, better-known group (Irish, Jewish, Italian, etc.)? How would you react to similar suggestions or critiques from members of that community, understandably sensitive to its image and portrayal?

I'm not saying the sentence should be deleted; it's absolutely appropriate, but as part of the section on his family and personal background, rather than in the lead.

Dsndj (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sad day I must say. If he is Slovenian, then he is "Yugoslavian", not Serb. :)Mike Babic (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Very SAD. Especially since he is of serbian origin! Frankly, as an ethnik albanian originally from Kosova, I would not expect any better from a serbian politician, nor from a politician of serbian origin. One can try to be as civil as possible, but somehow in their case they never seem to be able to exceed what's expected of them: lies, lies and more lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.51.173 (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

So what part of Serbia was George Ryan from? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

There are rotten apples in every basket Baseball Bugs. The thing is, how many american politicians have been accused and tried for atrocious war crimes committed in recent history? try serbian politicians!!!

HEY BUDDY. You racists. Someone ban that prick.18:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

why do you assume that I am a guy? u sexist? Dobrica Cosic a Serbian writer and politican, wrote this in 1961 about his fellow Serbs:”We lie to deceive ourselves, to console others, we lie for mercy, we lie to fight fear, to encourage ourselves, to hide our and somebody else’s misery. We lie for love and honesty. We lie because of freedom. Lying is a trait of our patriotism and the proof of our innate intelligence. We lie creatively, imaginatively and inventively.”

What you see here is evidence of my point: Calling attention so prominently to his ethnic background only stirs up ugly, irrelevant commentary. Dsndj (talk) 08:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I do belive that in this case it is very relevant to mention Blagojevic's bacground. If someone considered to be the american "nation's father" (what Dobrica Cosic is considered to be to the serbian people) had concluded that lying and deception are a trait of "american patriotism", what kind of values would one be able to expect from americans?

Nice quote from the Communist era. Thanks. Like, Yugoslavia was the only Communism country that lied to its people. Thanks for promoting Serbophobia. Also, make sure you talk about "Serbs oppressing Albanians from Kosovo", and NOT "Yugoslav dictator Milosevic oppressing Albanians from Kosovo". You dont deserve my time since your a bad individual. You promote stupidity and perpetuate ignorance.Mike Babic (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Cosic is known to have defined the so called "modern serbian politics". A great supporter of Milosevic and Karadzic, a serbian ultra-nationalist he is far from being just a common "commie" from YU, though I would have wished it was as innocent as you claim. Perhaps, in order to understand Blagojevic better, one would need to read more from Cosic, the Machiavelli of the serbian politics.

His Religious Affiliation

According to his biography on the National Governors Association website, Blagojevich's religious affiliation is Eastern Orthodox, not Serbian Orthodox. I have corrected the article, citing the NGA biography as a source. --TommyBoy 07:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The submitted biography on the CBS2/Newsradio780 Voter Guide (accessed via wbbm780.com) also lists Eastern Orthodox. Should we change it back? --JohnDBuell 16:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to realise that the two aren't mututally exclusive. One is a subset of the other - all Serb Orthodox are Eastern Othodox, but not all Eastern Orthodox are Serb Orthodox (some are Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Romanian Orthodox, Bulgarian Orthodox). So I'll change it back. --estavisti 20:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to say that it was "wrong" - I realize what you've said about orthodoxy and how there are subsets - I was just trying to point out that the information provided by him/his campaign is going with Eastern Orthodox, instead of the more specific Serbian Orthodox. --JohnDBuell 21:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care either way. I guess they're spinning it that way because it's quite an obscure denomination anyway, as far as mainstream America goes, even without the ethnic marker (with significant negative baggage) attached.--estavisti 22:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

If he states Eastern Orthodox then we should write Eastern Orthodox.Mike Babic (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Feds take Gov. Blagojevich into custody

According to the Chicago Tribune, the Feds take Gov. Blagojevich into custody.

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2008/12/source-feds-take-gov-blagojevich-into-custody.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcneelymarketing (talk • contribs) 14:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's unclear yet what the outcome of this will be. I removed the indictment section because as far as I can tell, he hasn't been indicted yet. Illinois2011 (talk) 14:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is a brand new article on the subject Feds take Gov. Blagojevich into custody. Illinois2011 (talk) 14:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I added a decently detailed paragraph, referenced to an AP article on a southern Illinois television news site. Feel free to tweak as news comes in or better wording is discovered. --IvoShandor (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ivo. Illinois2011 (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. This is just astounding, the charges are unbelievable wholly believable, the Trib has the text here. Audacious. --IvoShandor (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Great paragraph so far. Considering the severity of the arrest and allegations, do you not think it would make sense to make this its own section? As of now it's somewhat buried in all the other fun stuff he's into. Joshdboz (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I already broke it into its own section, so if there is material elsewhere that has a good reference and doesn't repeat it should probably be merged into that section.--IvoShandor (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I did kind of haphazardly place the section, so if someone has a better idea where it should go, feel free to move it. I don't think it should be buried, it isn't everyday a sitting governor is arrested by federal agents at his house for trying to sell a U.S. Senate seat, so it shouldn't be buried at the article's end, I don't think anyway. --IvoShandor (talk) 15:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

We know how to pick 'em, at least we get it right when it really counts. Anyway, I suppose we should keep the chatter to a minimum. Any thoughts on the section's placement? --IvoShandor (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the only thing I could think of is to make it it's own section outside of controversies. Or just leave it where it's at. That's the only two options I think would work....Illinois2011 (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Either way is fine, it'll eventually be its own stand-alone section I suspect, and it might end up being its own article eventually, to be honest, it's going to be pretty major, I can't imagine he's going to be able to keep the governorship, speculation to be sure, but a governor on trial? He's unpopular with the public and the General Assembly, impeachment could well be an option now. Also, does John Harris have a Wikipedia article, the name links to a dab page, and he doesn't appear to be listed, I haven't investigated further. --IvoShandor (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This could easily consume the article, so a spinoff about his various corruption allegations during his time in office is probably a good idea. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Scandals of the Blagojevich administration? Too non-neutral? I fear some may see this as a POV fork. I could see a future Arrest and impeachment of Rod Blagojevich or something similar as well. Thoughts on this should be provided in ample quantity.--IvoShandor (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Not a POV fork, just isolating the information if it makes this article too big. There's no rush. A solution will emerge. Maybe wait and see what, if anything, the media start to call this situation: "Rod-gate" or whatever. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Michael Isikoff just said 4 of the last 8 IL govs (incl. Blago) have landed in jail or prison, saying we had the highest gubernatorial incarceration rate in the country. I thought it was funny, funny because its true. Sad really. Yes, I agree, no rush at all.--IvoShandor (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Usually they wait until they're out of office to arrest them, but this time I guess it couldn't wait. They've had both Republicans and Democrats go to the Big House. It's a non-partisan state of corruption. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems that a good portion of the page is already related to his controversies. Maybe a Controversies of Rod Blagojavich? Livewireo (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever - just be sure you spell his name right. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well of course we should let the justice system...umff...Innocent until proven....snrfff...snicker...Oh who are we trying to kid, he's busted - BUWAHAHAHAHAHAAA!...TheDarkOneLives (talk) 11:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Official Department of Justice press release

{{editprotected}} Please add this link, probably to External links but perhaps as a ref. It's a much better (as in official) source than the various media reports: http://chicago.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel08/dec09_08.htm Flatterworld (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Additionally to the information regarding this individual it is important to point out that this gentleman is a corrupted crooked.

--72.88.143.43 (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. As much vitrol as we spew on this guy, he hasn't been indicted and is innocent until proven guilty.Livewireo (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

He has been indicted. Chicago tribune is hosting the indictment. http://www.chicagotribune.com/media/acrobat/2008-12/43789434.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.193.41.50 (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not defending him. But any bias should stay out off the page and stay here. Livewireo (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

@Flatterworld, please note that this page is not fully protected, just semi-protected. Anyone with an auto-confirmed account may edit this page. Please consider becoming auto-confirmed and see if this enables you to make edits. Ronnotel (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been away awhile, but since this page is linked from the main page, don't we drop the protection? Forgive me if I missed a change in this protection policy. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy to drop the semi protection but I'm unfamiliar with the "front page" criteria. Do you have a link to the policy? If someone wants to fully unprotect go ahead. Ronnotel (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Further, I believe you may be referring to the policy that prohibits Today's Feature Article pages from being protected. Could be mistaken, but I don't believe it is the case that simply linking to an article from the front page implies that protection should be dropped. Ronnotel (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I was just asking from what I thought I remembered the policy being. It's highly possible that I'm completely wrong. --Ali'i 17:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

it's all good :) Ronnotel (talk) 18:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

 Not done. The page is not fully protected; {{editprotected}} is not needed.  Sandstein  18:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Current semi-protection should be sufficient for now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

There was a link to this article on the Main Page, but now it's gone. Anyone know why this happended? Illinois2011 (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Since I saw an IP wanted information added, IPs can use {{editsemiprotected}} to request changes to semiprotected articles. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Obama?

Has this entry been sanitized of any unfavorable references to Barack Obama? There's been so much recent activity that it's hard for me to ascertain from the page's history, but it really seems so. Blagojevich was a confidante of Obama, an early supporter, and connected to one of the bete noires in Obama's history, Tony Rezko. I'm not calling for any character assassination, but the absence of any connection to Obama (other than some favorable and largely irrelevant references to Obama's death penalty reform bill) seems really conspicuous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.24.111 (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Today Obama denied any knowledge of this stuff, and Fitzgerald or his office said there is nothing on the tapes to implicate Obama in any of it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering how many times Blago said to "Bleep" Obama, and according to some news outlets, the fact that Rahm tipped the feds off, I think obama is quite clear of this mess. Not sure if that will keep the rightwingnuts from getting their panties in a bunch. Lucifer (Talk) 22:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

More likely is the fact Obama and Blogojevich had deals together earlier and Obama promised G-Rod (as the call him in Illinois) a lot, then once Obama got to be President, he thought he was above being taken down. There are way too many connections. Sure Obama didn't know anything, the same way Reagan didn't know anything about Abscam. Obama said to his people "Do it, I just don't want to know about it." That may mean you don't know but you still authorized connections or the go ahead.

That is most likely why G-Rod was so mad, 'cause Obama or his people went and backed out. Look at all the stuff they had on G-Rod, why did they wait till AFTER the November elections. 'Cause our other Democratic Senator Dick Durbin would've been effected. They could've busted him in October. Why didn't they? Because Durbin and Obama most likely used their Senate influence to wait.

They claim the reason they busted G-Rod now is because he was gonna sell the Senate seat. So why not wait till the DID it. As long as two weeks G-Rod is on record as saying he knew the FBI was wiretapping him? So anything he said is suspect. G-Rod fed them what they wanted to hear.

This is a HUGE mess and if it doesn't involve Obama and Durbin, it surely was known to them and they kept the public from knowing it so there election chances weren't hurt. 63.26.76.32 (talk) 23:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)eric

The question that you pose was asked by reporters to Fitzgerald, and he gave answers. Whether or not you believe those answers is beyond the scope of Wikipedia, and an article talk page is not the place to discuss it. Switzpaw (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This is all about Blagojevich. He's been a crook from the get-go. The feds said today that there is nothing on any of their recordings that implicates Obama in any way. This was strictly Blago's scheme. But look on the bright side: He was only soliciting bribes, not prostitutes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Did the FBI actually say that there is nothing on any of their recordings that implicates Obama or did they say they are not alledging that Obama was implicated. There is a difference. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Obama is important here. He is about to be the US President. Any connections that can be cited should be brought to the forefront whether they are positive, negative, or neutral. It must be addressed.—Who123 05:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I see my mention of Obama in the intro is being deleted. What are people trying to hide?—Who123 05:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Hiding and undoing disruptive edits are not the same thing buddy. Grsz¹¹ 05:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Placing Obama in the intro is *not* a disruptive edit. It is fact whether we like it or not.—Who123 05:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Except this article is about Blagojevich and not Obama. Switzpaw (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The article should highlight the relationship to Obama. The possible importance of the relationship should not be swept under the rug.—Who123 05:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Except this article is about Blagojevich and not Obama. Switzpaw (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Obama is related to Blagojevich. Considering Obama's importance, this should be highlighted. People are deleting important factual information.—Who123 05:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop being a troll. Grsz¹¹ 05:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place for personal attacks. Why do you wish to hide the Obama connection and insult me?—Who123 05:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Your edit was just bad. I could see a case for including the gist of this article on how Obama's phone call to Emil Jones led to the Illinois Senate overturning Blagojevich's veto of an ethics bill prompting Blagojevich to seek campaign contributions from state contractors before Jan 1. Want to paraphrase it and put it in the appropriate part of the article (hint: not the lead)? Switzpaw (talk) 05:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This so-called relationship between Obama and Blago extends only to the fact they are in the same party and hail from the same state. This is a classic guilt by association smear attempt by the right. It's patently obvious and does amount to trolling. From the criminal charges filed in order to obtain the arrest warrant: "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 "motherfucker [the President-elect] his senator. Fuck him. For nothing? Fuck him."" (p. 63). These guys are not friends, associates, cohorts or otherwise in cahoots. Just stop before my head explodes and my eyes ooze out all over the floor. --IvoShandor (talk) 05:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

As they were pointing out on some of the news stories tonight, Obama distanced himself from Blagojevich quite awhile ago, presumably when he figured out that the guy was poison. As quiet as Bush was during the McCain campaign, he was front-and-center comparied to Blagojevich, who was basically shunned by the Democrats. That X-rated quote from ol' Rod certainly says a lot about both him and Obama. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That's noteworthy right there. The abuse you all were ladling on WHO123 is clearly motivated by partisanship. As the person who started this discussion section I think it's more than a tad risible that you all interpreted my suspicion of the Obama-sanitizing to refer only to an Obama connection with the bribery scandal. But what Baseball just alluded to perfectly illustrates what I was actually referring to: Obama clearly had *some* relationship with Blagojevich; to leave the latter's entry (almost) completely silent on their (putatively former) relationship is willful blindness. Read the New Yorker Profile on Obama by Ryan Lizza sometime; there's no such thing as 'guilt by association' in Chicago - everyone knows everyone, the entire Chicago political machine is a swamp. Bravo to all those political zealots like Switzpaw, Baseball Bugs, and LuciferTiger who leaped from their concealed political positions to refute a charge they had completely misinterpreted. I think we'll all be a little more skeptical of any supposed disinterestedness you claim in future edits. BasilSeal

The problem with all this is, as I've tried to point out, *nothing* has been sanitized. Stuff about Obama has been added, not removed. I'd tend to agree that it doesn't make sense to mention it in the lead as if it's the most important thing about Blagojevich, and to date, outside of Obama's distancing, nothing *has* surfaced that would really fit, beyond saying "Blagojevich was governor and Obama was senator" (and the tapes in which Blagojevich cusses out Obama mostly bear this out). I'm not from Illinois and I'm not a political partisan, but I confess I find this all more than a little baffling. Plenty of politicians served during another's term, and even during another's scandal, but as it stands, to someone who hadn't even heard of Blagojevich until this broke out, the article says pretty much all that can be said re this relationship (and even that seems a bit out of place). And if this is about the article on Barack Obama, I checked, there was nothing there either and nothing that was removed. As an editor, it's just frustrating whenever someone claims "Something's been removed!" and it's easily provable that it hasn't (and this happens often enough with non-political stuff, usually because someone read it on another website or another wiki and so on). -- Aleal (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

But, see, that would be the appropriate response. You very adroitly went through the page history (which, as I mentioned in the initial post, I found too tedious and cumbersome given the monsoon of recent updates) to come to the conclusion that "nothing has been sanitized." I applaud your effort and I think it stands in stark contrast to the individuals I cited above who, rather than directly refuting the charge of sanitization, curiously popped up, both barrels blazing, to lambaste anyone who thought Obama had any connection to Blagojevich (which was not the issue), and to make derisive political wisecracks (see below, and IvoShandor above and elsewhere) that revealed their particular interest in the matter. BasilSeal

Who123: The pseudo-reality you inhabit must be a fun place. Obviously, you have a political agenda. Obviously, you are upset that your Presidential candidate got his ass handed to him in a paper bag in the election. Let's face it: if Obama farted in the same room as Blago's cousin's housekeeper's son's school librarian, you'd consider that some sort of dark association that proves some kind of vast leftist conspiracy, and you'd insist on having it in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.98.8 (talk) 14:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

To unsigned 24.229.98.8:

"Pseudo-reality"? With all due respect, you know nothing about my political thoughts, beliefs, or affiliations. You are not a "mind-reader". WP is not a place for personal attacks or other forms of harassment. Since it is clear that you know nothing about me and politics, I will share a bit. I believe that corruption is a problem. It is a problem in all spheres of life including politics (whether democratic or republican). It is also a problem here on WP as seen in this article and the discussion of it. I request that everyone leave their politics at home and follow WP policies including being nice.—Who123 04:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't confuse "corruption" with trying to maintain an article from a historical perspective. Some of us have made edits to this article before this scandal broke out, knew of allegations of Blagojevich's corruption long before Obama was in national spotlight, and recognize that when recent events happen editors will come along and try to insert material that is immaterial to the biography. Yes, some readers are going to come here looking for information that seems relevant to a side issue (e.g. "What does Obama have to do with this?") However, we have to be prudent in considering the weight of facts that are presented and concentrate on the focus of the article -- the who, what, when, where, why's of Rod Blagojevich and his governorship. Switzpaw (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a corruption problem here on wikipedia? Are you accusing some editors of this page of being paid or otherwise offered inducements to edit? That is a rather serious allegation please provided evidence or don't make such ludicrious suggestions. Some editors may be failing to maintain an NPOV or letting their political opinions cloud their judgement but thats quite different from being corrupt. If we are unable to write a decent article on this guy that's a problem, but it's probably not a problem due to corruption Nil Einne (talk) 10:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If there is any actual evidence of corruption on Obama's part, it will undoubtedly turn up. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

On corruption here:

Excerpts from M-W Online on the definitions of the word:

impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle

inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (as bribery)

a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct

So yes, I believe some of the actions of some of the editors here is corrupt. As editors here we should be acting together under WP policies to produce the best article possible. Instead, the editing and discussion has been corrupted by irrational political bias.

On a personal basis, I stopped here after hearing about this issue for information. I found the article lacking. I decided to do my best to try to improve it. Every edit I made was reverted without sound reason and I was met with personal attacks and harassment. This kind of behavior is not limited to this article, it is rampant on WP. It is the reason I have stopped wasting my time editing on WP and use WP less and less as a source for information. All the best.—Who123 14:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest your take a look at Political corruption which is the form of corruption we are talking about here. If you want to talk about other forms of corruption, please clarify before bringing such odd issues into the discussion. We could also talk about data corruption but that seems irrelevant. Suffice to say, I se eno evidence of political corruption here Nil Einne (talk) 17:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedians Changing History...Are We?

How fascinating. Before the allegations surfaced, this article was loaded with Obama mentions of support for Blagojevich. Now that Blgojevich is under one of the worst corruption scandals in the last 50 years, mysteriously, the Obama mentions are all vaporizing. I find it odd....why was mentioning Obama relevant and important last month...and now suddenly...magically...its not relevant anymore? If Obama's support and high praise of Balgojevich in 2002, 2006 was important enough to mention in this article last week, surely its still important enough today right? I mean...history is history. Facts are facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.108.5 (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You're arguing guilt by association. In fact, Obama's supposed high praise of Blago shouldn't have been there in the first place, as it's POV-pushing, puffing up Blago - or, conversely trying to set Obama up later, as anyone from Illinois knew this was likely to happen eventually. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Unreal. How badly does someone have to lose an election before their supporters just give it up. Good grief. --IvoShandor (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I've worked on this article for a long time, and I've never seen any mention of Obama in the article. If it appeared last week, it was a new addition.--Gloriamarie (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't normally get involved in political articles (though reading what goes on in Illinois politics is indeed an eye opener). However, since page histories speak louder than words, and in case this crops up again, I've gone through the logs. From November 5 through December 8, there were exactly two references to Obama. One that Obama wrote the death penalty reform bill, the other than Blagojevich would choose a senator to replace Obama following the presidential election (and the only change to that one was to note Obama had been elected). That's it. (Prior to November 5, there was just the death penalty note). There's now more about Obama in the article as it currently stands. So nothing has been censored or removed and no "facts" suddenly edited out. -- Aleal (talk) 08:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, I thought that comment seemed a bit off-base, thus my reaction. On Illinois politics, especially Chicago I highly recommend Mike Royko's book on Richard J. Daley, Boss. --IvoShandor (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Who123. welcome to the we wrote history the way we see, wikipedia. I don't find it all that amazing that entries and article vanish when it suits this lot. These pages are nothing but POV...why would all entries on there relationship vanish just this week, Please this is the normal of wikipedia, do you expect an unbais historical correct page ...hahha. The timing is perfect, it was ok before he was arrested but now, get rid of it quick....under the wikipedia rug. You must really ask the question that, any out going Senater, where the power to replace his seat is in the govenors hand and they had no conversation on the matter, come on,

Err, 83.64.176.178, please take a look at the links I posted to the page history, or go through the history yourself if I like (more time-consuming that way, true). No "entries on there relationship" have vanished just this week. Nothing has gone under the Wikipedia rug. -- Aleal (talk) 16:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

GOD !@#$@$#%@@~!!!! PEOPLE!!!! "On December 10, Quinn went further and called for Blagojevich's resignation.[154] " This is the biased kind of @!#$ that needs to stop being on Wikipedia. I was here last week trying to make things factual as possible. Hence why I don't donate or care for the contemporary framework of Wikipedia these days. I have discussion about getting a closer to the Truth statement in this talk page. This is more of an inferred statement. Here is the source statement: “The governor has to resign, or at the very least step aside.” This can be inferred differently. Can we at least try to make it closer to the truth? --Cyberman (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is an issue of bias at all (it doesn't seem to further any agenda one way or the other), but the more typical conflict of how something should be written,from an edit based on the NY Times headline, which referred to it as a call to resign (and that part was added just today). Actual relevant quotes work best here, so I went ahead and did just that. -- Aleal (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

middle name?

Do we know what the R. stands for? If so, we should add that to the article. --Rajah (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Rascal. Or maybe Rezko. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, his father's name is the explanation provided. Read the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.50.64 (talk • contribs)

I believe the article says (or at least it use to) that Blago doesn't have a middle name and that he uses the initial "R" in honour of his father. I'll have to check. Illinois2011 (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, my memory was correct. It's citation 11 in the article. Illinois2011 (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Locked Article and Full of Dead Links

Which is why I don't donate to Wikipedia anymore -- too many locked articles.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.31.50.64 (talk • contribs)

Maybe you could pay for the articles you want unlocked? That would be in the Blagojevich tradition. As for me, I have doubled my donation every year since I started here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There aren't that many articles that are locked from established users. Most locked articles are just locked from ips. All you would have to do is create an account and start editing. Sysops don't lock articles just for the fun of it. They do it when vandalism is a persistent problem, or when it's obvious that it will be. Illinois2011 (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, almost no articles are protected forever, at least I don't think so anyway. --IvoShandor (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If you mean full protection then you right. But some article are indefinitely semi-protected. While they are unlikely to be protected forever, they are protected for a long time Nil Einne (talk) 10:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Where are the dead links? I worked about a month ago getting rid of most dead links; if there are any more, please say which ones you're referring to.--Gloriamarie (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Quinn asks Blagojevich to "step aside"

I know it seems like a minor point, but Lt. Gov. Quinn has said that Gov. Blagojevich should "step aside" as per arrangements in the state constitution, specifically mentioning that this did not involve resigning. It's a temporary step aside. This is important, because, as other politicians have said, asking for Blagojevich to resign might be seen as a presumption of guilt, whereas stepping aside just allows for a smoother running government during personal turmoil for the Governor. Anyway, the long and short of what I'm saying is, can we change the sentence about Quinn asking Blagojevich to resign to asking him to step aside? Bunsky555 (talk) 04:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Gloriamarie (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

 Not done What was actually said by Lt. Gov. Quinn? I'm talking about verbatim. Use a quote and source it. --Cyberman (talk) 11:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There are references all over the place. Here's one from WGN. [5] What's unclear from this report is whether Quinn himself said "step aside" or if that's just what the newscasters are inferring. Feel free to do some research on this yourself. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Then I suggest removal of such sentences and references to people saying such things until hard evidence is there. Otherwise, it seems like hearsay. I would say the newcasters are inferring that. As wikipedians, we are not to infer this. You can document that many media have said "step down." But that is not close to the Truth, since it is what the media said not Lt. Gov. Quinn. This is a place for facts not bias. It seems as though it was implied and not explicit. If any of you want to word the implied language correctly, go for it. Source the speech and discussion. --Cyberman (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

All the news sources seem to be using that phraseology. Other references to Quinn's comments: [6] [7] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"Quinn cited the state constitution as providing a temporary step-aside option for Blagojevich." I think that is more close to the Truth. I'm sure the Lt. Gov. did not want to explicitly state things.--Cyberman (talk) 14:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The Sun-Times quotes him as using that term. He does seem to be playing a delicate game here, as he's basically saying, "Let me take over." Quinn has been known as Mr. Ethics during his career. Hopefully he still is. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The point is to be as factual as possible while removing bias. --Cyberman (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I made a change I think is appropriate. --Cyberman (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Education Funding?

Please verify the comments about the Governor's "...record increases in funding for education every year..." Increasing funding to elementary & secondary schools by pulling back 2-5 % of the approved funding for the state universities in the middle of their fiscal year really isn't increasing funding. It is just robbing Paul (higher education) to pay Peter (primary education). Illinois State University has repeatedly been 'robbed' to the point of hiring freezes, staff raises reduced to less then the inflation rate, reductions in supply budgets, and raises in employee co-pay & insurance deductibles rates. The percentage of the ISU budget that is funded by the State is less then 40% and declining. Ironically, ISU is the state's premier Teacher Education institution - graduating more teachers each year then virtually any other university in the country - yet it receives less & less monies to educate the educators.Redslippers (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)redslippers

I remember that a few months ago, much of the text in this article sounded like it came straight from a press release from the governor's office. I concur with the above poster's comment. I don't have sources (except for word of mouth), but if they were found I think it would be relevant for inclusion. Switzpaw (talk) 06:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Please find a source and put that information in.--Gloriamarie (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Biased Editing

Clearly some of the Governor's supporters came on here and removed almost all of the critical information, particularly the additions since the Governor's arrest Tuesday morning, which were quite neutral and thorough. Also removed were all but a passing reference to his Federal arrest for official corruption. These edits violate the WP:NPOV standards.Themoodyblue (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Wikidemon's recent removal of specific material from the lead was necessary, but it wasn't inappropriate. The lead is expected to be a summary-- see WP:LEAD There presently is a reference to the 9December2008 arrest in the lead, and an entire section on the arrest, Rod_Blagojevich#Federal_arrest_on_corruption_charges. Further, a new article has been created to deal with the federal corruption charges, with links from this article. For now, I'm going to place the material back into the lead and remove the NPOV-check template. But, either way, this is not an NPOV issue, but rather one of how best to organize the material. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

-Well in reviewing the history it is being done on bith side, please review, June 2006 and lasest, read 2002 election, it reads like Obama never knew him and it reads like distance is now a better version of history. All the citations dated Dec 10, 2008..what a shame, to write these pages to protect ones views, how sad.

read this, : By all accounts, Blagojevich and Barack Obama are not close.[14] During the primary, state Senator Barack Obama backed Attorney General Roland Burris, but backed Blagojevich after he won the primary, serving as a "top adviser" for the general election.[15] Future Obama senior adviser David Axelrod had previously worked with Blagojevich on Congressional campaigns, but did not consider Blagojevich ready to be governor and declined to work for him on this campaign.[15] According to Rahm Emanuel, Emanuel, Obama, Blagojevich's campaign co-chair David Wilhelm, and another Blagojevich staffer "were the top strategists of Blagojevich's 2002 gubernatorial victory," meeting weekly to outline campaign strategies.[15] Wilhelm has said that Emanuel overstated Obama's role in the sessions, and Emanuel said in December 2008 that Wilhelm was correct and he had been wrong in his earlier 2008 recollection to The New Yorker.[15]

This never existed until a week ago....

- Fair point - I am trying to keep something THIS hot from getting biased on either side, and those were the most recent, and obvious, changes. On the other hand, do you think Canada would take Illinois as a province? Juusssttt kidding.... Themoodyblue (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Illinois has a long history of corruption, but places like New York and Louisiana are pretty good at it too. Maybe Illinois has simply honed it down to a science. In any case, Obama has been distancing himself from that character for quite awhile now. He was practically invisible during the campaign. Unlike people who keep cronies around, Obama is pretty good at jettisoning potential "cancers" on his career. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, to the anonymous user, please read the discussions above. Up until December 8th, there were only two very passing references to Obama. Then a couple users made a big deal about how not enough was said about him in the article, claiming previous references in which Obama had praised the man were removed, and so on. So the new section and statements were added to fill that, and also because new statements have come out to address this issue. So it's not being done to "protect one's views." Personally, I'd just as soon leave that section out since it sounds awkward, but right now it *is* a breaking news story, so better to have a cited section to deal with it. -- Aleal (talk) 16:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Relationship with Obama

I read over the discussions regarding Blagojevich's relationship with Obama and am dissappointed at the bickering, politicizing, and personal attacks of some of the posts. As Wikipedia editors, we are supposed to assume good faith.

That said, I think we should have a section devoted to Blagojevich's relationship with Obama for the simple fact that many people who come to this page are coming here specifically because they want to know what that relationship is. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Ha, no. Prove it. Grsz¹¹ 17:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Grsz: You should know that stalking is also against Wikipedia policy. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Today's news says Obama is calling for Blago to resign, but it's not clear whether he's more appalled at Rod's overall behavior, or at Rod calling him a "motherf'er". Meanwhile, at least a dozen mock entries have appeared on eBay, offering Obama's vacated Senate seat for sale. Where would we Illinoisians be without a sense of humor? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You gotta love eBay! 216.239.234.196 (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course they had a relationship

Mr. Obama has a relationship with Mr. Blagojevich, having not only endorsed Blagojevich in 2002 and 2006, but having served as a top adviser to the Illinois governor in his first 2002 run for the state house.

That 2002 endorsement came at the same time that Axelrod had such serious concerns about whether Blagojevich was ready for governing he refused to work for his one-time client.

According to Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., Mr. Obama’s incoming White House chief of staff, Emanuel, then-state senator Obama, a third Blagojevich aide, and Blagojevich’s campaign co-chair, David Wilhelm, were the top strategists of Blagojevich’s 2002 gubernatorial victory.

Emanuel told the New Yorker earlier this year that he and Obama “participated in a small group that met weekly when Rod was running for governor. We basically laid out the general election, Barack and I and these two.”

Wilhelm said that Emanuel had overstated Obama’s role. “There was an advisory council that was inclusive of Rahm and Barack but not limited to them,” Wilhelm said, and he disputed the notion that Obama was “an architect or one of the principal strategists.”

(Emanuel later changed his recollection of this story to Rich Miller’s “CAPITOL FAX,” saying, “David [Wilhelm] and I have worked together on campaigns for decades. Like always, he’s right and I’m wrong.”)

Either way, others now around Obama were less enthusiastic about Blagojevich at the time, namely David Axelrod, Obama’s senior campaign adviser who will soon be a senior adviser at the White House.

Axelrod had worked for Blagojevich in his past races for the House, but he declined to work on his gubernatorial run.

“He had been my client and I had a very good relationship with him, but I didn’t sign on to the governor’s race,” Axelrod told the New Yorker. “Obviously he won, but I had concerns about it…I was concerned about whether he was ready for that. Not so much for the race but for governing. I was concerned about some of the folks — I was concerned about how the race was being approached.”

On the Chicago TV show “Public Affairs with Jeff Berkowitz” on June 27, 2002, state Sen. Obama said, “Right now, my main focus is to make sure that we elect Rod Blagojevich as Governor, we…”

“You working hard for Rod?” interrupted Berkowitz.

“You betcha,” said Obama.

“Hot Rod?” asked the host.

“That’s exactly right,” Obama said.

In 2004, then-Gov. Blagojevich enthusiastically endorsed Obama for the Senate seat after he won the nomination, and Obama endorsed Blagojevich for his 2006 re-election race in early 2005.

In the Summer of 2006, then-U.S. Sen. Obama backed Blagojevich even though there were serious questions at the time about Blago’s hiring practices.

At the time, numerous state agencies had had records subpoenaed, with U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald telling authorities he was looking into “very serious allegations of endemic hiring fraud” with a “number of credible witnesses.”

In an interview with the Chicago Daily Herald in July 2006, then-Sen. Obama said, “I have not followed closely enough what’s been taking place in these investigations to comment on them. Obviously I’m concerned about reports that hiring practices at the state weren’t, at times, following appropriate procedures. How high up that went, the degree at which the governor was involved, is not something I’m going to speculate on.

“If I received information that made me believe that any Democrat had not been acting in the public interest, I’d be concerned,” Obama said.

That said, Mr. Obama said, “If the governor asks me to work on his behalf, I’ll be happy to do it.”

Apparently the governor did. At the Illinois State Fair in August 2006, Obama spoke on Blagojevich’s behalf.

“We’ve got a governor in Rod Blagojevich who has delivered consistently on behalf of the people of Illinois,” Obama told the crowd.

In January 2007, Blagojevich’s office reserved the Old State Capitol for Mr. Obama’s presidential announcement at Obama’s request.

Blagojevich spokeswoman Rebecca Rausch told reporters that “Representatives for Sen. Obama contacted the governor’s office regarding use of the Old State Capitol. We contacted the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency and reserved the Old State Capitol for the Senator on February 10th.”

The Old State Capitol is where President Abraham Lincoln delivered his “House Divided” speech in 1858. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.176.178 (talk) 07:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Democrats support and endorse each other, news at 11. --IvoShandor (talk) 12:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent addition! This material should be either in this article or a related one.—Who123 14:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What did you think Obama was going to do, endorse the Republican? For another example, do you think George Bush really enjoyed endorsing John McCain? Come on. You want Obama-bashing, take it to KKKonservadia, where you'll be welcomed with open arms. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop the "mind-reading". I am not into "bashing" anyone and have not done so. Also, please read Wikipedia:Harassment and stop it. Thank you.—Who123 14:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read about "reliable sources" and "crystal ball", and stop it yourself. Thank you. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

There were many Illinois Democrats who did not endorse Blagojevich in 2006, including Lisa Madigan as one example, and I believe her father, the speaker of the House. Obama endorsed Blagojevich for 2006, and it was not a requirement. It should be in the article.--Gloriamarie (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The article already says "Blagojevich was endorsed by many Democratic leaders (with the notable exception of Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who claimed it was a conflict of interest since her office was investigating Blagojevich),[27] including then-Illinois Senator Barack Obama, who endorsed the governor in early 2005 and spoke on his behalf at the August 2006 Illinois State Fair.[19]" and from memoryu said that for the past few days. Perhaps read the artcle before bringing up irrelevant points? Nil Einne (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps read the revision history and you'd see that I wrote that part of the article :), so I certainly know what it says. I couldn't find a source that Michael Madigan didn't endorse Blagojevich in 2006, but I can't imagine that he did. I can't put it in the article unless I find a source, though. I was referring to the many state lawmakers who didn't endorse Blagojevich in 2006; if I find specific sources on specific lawmakers, I would of course put that in the article.--Gloriamarie (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

They had a meeting on Nov 5th to discuss the vacant seat

Dated November 5 from a Chicago TV station about Obama and Blagojevich meeting later that day to discuss filling his Senate seat: Ill. governor meeting with Obama today, By Carol Sowers Wednesday, November 05, 2008 at 10:39 a.m.

CHICAGO, ILL. — 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.

Illinois law states that the governor chooses that replacement.

There’s already been speculation about his selection…from Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. of Chicago’s south side who co-chaired Obama’s presidential campaign, to recently-retired state senate president Emil Jones, to the governor himself.

It’s likely the governor will make his decision quickly so the new senator will get some seniority before newly-elected senators take office in January.

Part of the timing depends on when Obama officially vacates his senate seat.

KHQA’s Alexis Hunt is speaking with Illinois Senator John Sullivan today about his thoughts on that replacement process, his time working with Obama in the state senate, and if there’s a chance Sullivan might play a role in the Obama administration. Watch KHQA News at 5:00, 6:00 and 10:00 p.m. tonight to hear what he has to say. http://www.connecttristates.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=217582

There's nothing useful in the link, and you've provided no followup to confirm that the meeting actually occurred. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Obama met with Blagojevich on November 5 to discuss filling his Senate seat? I thought Obama said that he did not discuss filling his seat with Blagojevich? I found that comment odd as it seems only reasonable to me that they would discuss the issue.—Who123 14:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you even bother reading my comment immediately above? The alleged citation points to an alleged future event. Can you find a citation that confirms the meeting actually occurred? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Does he need to? Would verbiage such as "On November 5, a local TV station reported that Obama would meet Blagojevich that afternoon to discuss filling the vacant Senate seat" be acceptable? BTW, that link doesn't work for me. Also, I'm not sure that's really a local Chicago TV station. I'm from Chicago and I don't think I've heard of it. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Would meet is a future possible event. That doesn't mean it happened. And as I understand it, the originator of that story has since refuted it. However, if you can find a reliable after-the-fact report, that could be a different situation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but my suggested verbiage avoids saying that the meeting actually took place; it is factually correct. Is there a specific Wikipedia policy that covers a situation like this? I would imagine that there may be many situations where a news outlet doesn't issue a second report on the same topic (since they already covered it) especially for something that (at the time) was relatively mundane. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Alternately, how about verbiage such as "On November 5, a local TV station reported that Obama was scheduled to meet Blagojevich that afternoon to discuss filling the vacant Senate seat". Now, it no longer refers to a future event. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's one where Obamba meets with Blagovich on December 1rst and 2nd but this seems dubious because this was just a few days ago and I'm sure other news outlets would have reported it.

http://centralillinoisproud.com/content/fulltext/?cid=34761 216.239.234.196 (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

KHQA TV has issued a clarification regarding their news story:

http://www.connecttristates.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=233822

How about the following verbiage: "On November 5, KHQA TV reported that Obama was scheduled to meet Blagojevich that afternoon to discuss filling the vacant Senate seat. On December 10, KHQA TV issued a clarification that they have no knowledge that the meeting took place." 216.239.234.196 (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What would be the point, other than to stir up rumors? Have any major news outlets picked up on this? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Or quash them. If it's not relevent here (and I'm inclinded to think that it isn't) I do think that it's relevent on the Blagojevich scandal page.

But to answer your question, no I'm not aware of any major news outlets having picked up on this but AFAIK, KHQA TV would be considered a reliable source. But, I don't think any news outlets have mentioned this is relation to the scandal so I think putting it in there would probably constitute OR. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Obama and Axelrod are denying that a meeting took place (see this article). The NYT does not report an alleged Nov. 5 meeting, but it does mention a contradiction in Axelrod's statements. Switzpaw (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

In the coming days and weeks, Obama's and Blagojevich's schedules are going to be heavily scrutinized. If there was ever a meeting or a phone conversation between the two, I'm sure it will come out.

In this interview recorded on November 5th, Blagojevich says he has not spoken to Obama. It's about 4 minutes in. I'm not sure what time it was recorded. http://www.wbez.org/Content.aspx?audioID=30008 216.239.234.196 (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

KHQA is licensed to Hannibal, Missouri. imo it's extremely unlikely Obama would spend time on the day after his election meeting with Blago. otoh, I find it extremely likely the delusional Blago would claim that he would plan to do so. Flatterworld (talk) 21:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Disowned?

A few weeks ago, I checked Blago's page and it said he was Croatian. Now it says he is a Serb. It doesn't really matter which one is correct, but I just have this image of someone being so embarassed by Blago's scandal that they decided it was time to disown him by changing this tidbit of info on his Wikipage. Rain City Blues (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The current ref to him as a Serbian-American has a source which is extremely explicit. Presuming the article ever did refer to him as Croation, it was either vandalism or inaccurate information. It seems more likely to be vandalism since I see no evidence it ever did call him Croatian in a brief look through the edit history so it must have been there for a short time [8] [9] [10] [11][12] if it was ever there Nil Einne (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I also have a vague recollection of it saying Croation at some point, but spot-checking since August, I'm not seeing it. I don't think there's any question, though, that he's of Serbian background. Meanwhile, check out that Congressman photo, with its forced smile. He looks like a hoodlum from a B-movie. Come to think of it... Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Great video

You cannot say this didn't happen???? [13] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.64.176.190 (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is more news, cheif of staff met with the govenor and discussed the vactant seat. He now wants to say nothing, we have all heard of the DC two step, this is a new version called the Chicago tap dance.[14] it notes no wrong doing, but were are not saying that, We are saying there was contact between the two offices about the vacant seat. i would like a response from Baseball bugs on this as he seemed sure that this didn't take place.

I'm not sure what the video is supposed to prove (as far as the "you can't say this didn't happen" question), since all it does in factual terms (not in possible dramatic implications via music and highlighted quotes) is repeat what's already on the page. Baseball Bugs mostly seemed to be asking for a good source of an Obama and Blagojevich face-to-face meeting (which is what was claimed elsewhere on this thread, or appeared to be), and there still isn't (which doesn't mean they might not have met or that there might not be a good source; just that the LA Times blog isn't it, nor is anything else out there right now). There's proof that Emanuel had contact. Basically, assuming those conversations were taped, we'll know more fairly soon, since it is still a breaking story, but so far nothing that's surfaced strikes me as especially noteworthy or relevant to the current article (that could change, of course). The LA Times link is not a print article but an online opinion blog (though a well-organized and reasonably argued one), linking to or mentioning other papers and articles which mentioned tidbits. So far, reading through the piece and most of those links, nothing has been contradicted (the quote from Obama appears to be that he was "confident" that no representatives of his were involved in the dealmaking, not that the subject had never come up in anyway), and the biggest issue according to Andrew Malcolm (the blog entry author) is the perceived delay in releasing the contact info, which likewise isn't relevant to Blagojevich's article at this time. -- Aleal (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I should have noticed it before. The video is from the Republican National Convention and is a specific political tactic. It's not as extreme as it could have been, but as far as facts and direct knowledge of the circumstances, it means as much as a categorical denial from the Democratic National Convention. -- Aleal (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

So now Obama was "involved" in the 2002 election

How is Obama's marginal involvement notable now, but wasn't four days ago? I'm not sure how that one works... Grsz¹¹ 17:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether it's notable or not I can't say but it's not necessarily helpful to discuss what things were like a few days ago beyond putting paid to the oft made claim that we've tried to hide the connections after the scandal. All wikipedia articles are a work in progressx and this was hardly a FA four days ago so it's easily possible we were missing some details we should have had. While the motives of some of the people trying to add this information may be questionable that doesn't mean they're wrong. Whether they are wrong or right as I've said, I can't say Nil Einne (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. Granted it still sounds very odd when read but right now, better to have the specific details here, which make it clearer to the reader to decide. It seems weird though to pinpoint his specific role and not other "top advisers" and so on; however, I'm not sure if a full list would improve it. I think it really comes of the whole "breaking news" issue. Wikipedia really is not a news outlet, but it's being treated as one and people often use it as one, plus as see the discussions, all kinds of theories and political opinions on both ends. So in the long-term, it's probably pretty darn irrelevant and should probably be removed once it's no longer necessary to either explain the whole "relationship" thing *or* repeatedly point out that nothing has been hidden and there's no Wikipedia corruption (it shouldn't be necessary to do either, I know. In the short term, it's easier and more effective, clarifies things, and also makes removing any POV assumptions or vandalism easier if the facts as currently known are there. -- Aleal (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Organised crime?

Was Blagojevich involved in organised crime? The accusations he is under are enough to warrant impeachment if they move fast enough. To what degree is Blagojevich now or has been involved in organised crime. Also there is a problem he is still a state governor and he doesn't seem to be under that much stress about his recent arrest. How much of a risk to world security is Blagovich? What is this person involved in which otherwise than the obvious corruption is a threat to world security? To what extent is the world liberal media ignoring this issue? As was reported and I would suggest this article be promoted "Lincoln would be rolling in his grave".

Well, although there are some nuclear power plants in Illinois, I don't think there are any nuclear weapons, which is probably a good thing. I don't see how he's any risk to world security. If anything, this story is a distraction from serious security issues and other problems, and maybe we need a good scapegoat, since we can't throw stones at Alan Greenspan. As far as the "world liberal media" slander, let's put it this way: MSNBC, which is as liberal as they come here, has been having a field day with this one. Everybody under the sun knows Blago is going' down, except maybe Blago himself. The sharks are circling from all directions. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If yhe Jews complain is it organized crime? What it was about ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.243.75 (talk) 08:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

work as Elvis Impersonator

can someone add this in? blago worked as an elvis impersonator!! danke+

"Blagojevich’s spirited wife Patti, herself worth a full episode in the upcoming tv series as the Lady MacBeth of the whole affair. Overshadowed by her dad, Dick Mell (invariably described as the powerful alderman), and her politically ambitious sister, Patti was swept off her feet by Blago’s talents as an Elvis impersonator." from http://www.counterpunch.org/ 64.53.177.172 (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Blogs are not a Reliable source.Livewireo (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

No, but it's good stuff. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Stephen King Impersonator?

My first thought on seeing Blago news footage was his resemblance to a young Stephen King. R.B. would be well cast in any dramatization of King's life.Tony (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

In early 2006, after the appointment of Claudette Marie Muhammad, chief of protocol of the Nation of Islam,[107] to the Illinois Commission on Discrimination and Hate Crimes, five Jewish members of this commission resigned. Muhammad distanced herself from statements subsequently made by Louis Farrakhan about "false Jews, wicked Jews,"[107] and Blagojevich has promised to "oversee meaningful dialogue with leaders of the Jewish, black and gay communities." Despite this, the Anti-Defamation League and anti-discrimination groups called for her removal from the state panel.[107][108] The resignation or removal of fellow commission member Rick Garcia has also been called for by the Illinois Family Institute, over statements made by Garcia about Francis Cardinal George.[109] Republican candidate for Governor Jim Oberweis echoed the call for Garcia's removal or resignation in an e-mail release as part of his campaign for the Illinois Republican gubernatorial nomination.[110]

do somebody call antysemitic to promote diloge with Jews ? Promoting dialoge its sound lic dictorialship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.243.75 (talk) 09:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking for information on: Questionable Appropriation of Earmarked Program Funds and Gag Order against State employees RE: same

I'm looking for information on Blagojevich having money swept from appx. 600 earmarked program-specific accounts into what I understand to be the State's general fund. This information was provided to me by a State employee responsible for disbursing monies from one of these funds to qualified recipients. This employee also told me that all State employees are under a gag order prohibiting them from discussing the issue. I am looking for detailed information on this matter, haven't found it online and was surprised there's nothing under this RB entry in WP detailing this. I would like to see an exact listing of all (I think the number was 638) programs from which RB is sweeping money and a breakdown of how/where those programs get their funding. My understanding is that *NONE* of the money comes from Illinois income, property or sales tax revenues but, rather, from direct fees or taxes on the specific activities their corresponding programs benefit; e.g., the IL DNR charges hunters and fishermen to hunt/fish and then puts that money back into programs, such as breeding pheasants and stocking lakes, that perpetuate the State's ability to levy those same fees/taxes the following season. (Also, some of the impacted programs receive money from the Federal gov't.) The State employee told me that none of this is illegal, but that RB did it unilaterally w/o the Legislature's approval; however, s/he said that in the case of her/his State agency, the corresponding Federal agency has refused to provide next year's funding to the State agency until it can show where last year's money went (which is a problem apparently, because none of it went to the intended uses, but rather into the State's general account). Regardless of whether this is illegal, it isn't right and I'm dumbfounded that I'm having such a hard time verifying what exactly is going on and with what funds/programs as it would seem to me that this is a major ethical issue irrespective of whether it was accomplished through some legal technicality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.222.230 (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not always the the place to study news events of this sort - even important ones like the issue you describe. My suggesion is that you do a search for "Blagojevich fund sweeps" on a widely-used Internet search engine. You will find a lot. Bigturtle (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Bigturtle. While I still haven't found the specifics I was looking for, I found enough to confirm what the aforementioned State employee told me...I just still can't believe it...doesn't seem right at all and I can't believe this hasn't been a major news story...from what the employee told me, our governor has been doing these wholesale sweeps for a couple of years now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.222.230 (talk) 05:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is blame being placed at RB's doorstep when the 2008 swept funds initiative was sponsored by State Sen. Jeffrey Schoenberg (Dem - Evanston)? Also, everything I've found online contradicts what I said above that I was told by a State employee insofar as RB doing this w/o the Legislature's approval; they apparently sponsored it, approved it and sent it to RB to sign. (Additionally, on the "gag order" this article makes it sound like (a) it is specific to the IL DNR and (b) issued by an executive in that agency rather than a judge: http://www.sj-r.com/news/x810461523/-1-million-federal-grant-withheld). Bottom line, I would like to know if this is, indeed, a Rod Blagojevich issue (in which case maybe it should be included in this article) or if it is definitely not an RB issue (in which case maybe it should be part of another article or its own article?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.222.230 (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This is included in the article in the section on the 2006 election... Judy Baar Topinka accused him of the same thing: "A three-term state treasurer, Topinka said that she had attempted to block Blagojevich from using money from special funds for general expenditures without approval of the legislature; she said Blagojevich used the funds for projects meant to distract voters from his associates' corruption trials: “This constant giving away of money … a million here, a million there, it raids our already hamstrung government and deadbeat state.” [33] --Gloriamarie (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

So...previously, RB *did* sweep funds w/o the Leg's appv'l...and NOW the Leg just did the same thing itself?!? Wow! This is messed-up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.222.230 (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Cabinet

Many governor pages (e.g. Jon Corzine and David Paterson) have Cabinet templates. I can not find a website with the info to create one for his current Cabinet.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Reagan Vote

What is the deal with the comment about voting for Reagan under "Legislator". What does this have to do with him as a legislator? Was this legislation that he voted pro-Reagan on? This comment should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.131.7 (talk) 04:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I just thought it was interesting that he had voted for Reagan in the '80s. It's the only section it logically fit into, chronologically, at the time but it could be better in the Early Life part.--Gloriamarie (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah a random "He voted for Reagean in 1980 for President" does not belong. It is out of place and very random. Idiot remarks like that one should not be randomly put in there. You may as well tell us who he voted for every term for President. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.238.237.96 (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

His father's name

Shouldn't it be Radislav, with an L? I've never heard Radilsav, but Radislav is a rather common male Yugoslav first name. LarRan (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The spelling Radisav (no L} is quite common in Serbia, while in other Slavic countries the L-spelling is more common. Check it out on the Serbian language Wikipedia versions of persons with this forename.