BARTOLO’S RETURN: Are the White Sox a dumping ground for aging stars?

I’m starting to wonder if there is something in the character of the Chicago White Sox that makes them a “dumping ground” of sorts for aging ballplayers past their prime.

The White Sox made an attempt to bolster their pitching rotation by signing aging hurler Bartolo Colon, who once was an aspiring star pitcher for the Cleveland Indians who also had some solid seasons for the Los Angeles Angels.

BUT AFTER HAVING an injury-plagued season in 2008 with the Boston Red Sox (he only got into 7 games out of the 162-game season), he found himself unemployed to the point where he was willing to listen to the White Sox – who are hopeful his arm can recover to the point where he can be a useful ballplayer in ’09.

But it was similar logic that caused the White Sox to take on other aging stars, all of whom clearly showed that their best days were in the past and that no one would remember their careers for anything that was achieved on the South Side.

Take the career of Sparky Lyle. He was once one of the best relief pitchers in the American League, and combined that skill in throwing a slider with a prankster nature (Sparky’s derriere and birthday cakes had unusually close relationships on many occasions) to make him one of the most notable ballplayers of the 1970s.

Fans of the New York Yankees remember him as one of their team’s all-time stars, while Red Sox fans remember him as a would-be star who got away (does anybody remember Danny Cater?)

BUT LYLE’S CAREER included a stint in Chicago. In fact, this is where it all ended for Sparky as a major league ballplayer.

The White Sox picked him up for the latter half of 1982, and about all that was proved was that the Philadelphia Phillies (who employed him the first half of that season) were justified in getting rid of him.

In 11 games, he pitched 12 innings, and managed to get the final save of the 238 he managed to build up during his career. Otherwise, it was a forgettable stretch of time.

Is something along those lines what we’re likely to see from Colon? An aging star for the Indians will give the White Sox nothing, except some speculation in future years about what the White Sox could have achieved had they not let him go following one year he was with the Sox in 2003 (winning 15 games that season)?

IF THAT IS the case, the Colon is the latest version of Rocky Colavito.

For those too young to remember Rocco Domenico Colavito, he was a star slugger in the 1950s and early 1960s who entertained Indians fans of that era. In fact, the more irrational of them (perhaps it’s something about drinking water from the Cuyahoga River) talk of the “Curse of Rocky Colavito,” which refers to his trade to the Detroit Tigers and the fact that the Indians have not won a World Series championship since.

On a side note, that is the difference between Chicago Cubs fans and fans of real baseball clubs. Indians and Red Sox (Babe Ruth) fans talk of curses caused by the trading away of star ballplayers, while the Cubs think they’re cursed because some Andy Frain usher had the sense to kick a fan with a goat out of the ballpark.

Eventually, Colavito wound up with the White Sox. It was 1967, the year they lasted in the pennant race to the final weekend of the season, before getting swept in a season-ending series to the last-place Kansas City Athletics (who departed the Midwest a few weeks later for their current home in Oakland).

COLAVITO WAS A part of the reason the White Sox couldn’t rise above the pennant race pack consisting of the Red Sox, Detroit Tigers and Minnesota Twins.

When a Colavito bat was supposed to be a major factor in their pennant drive, the fact that he hit only .221 with three home runs and 29 runs batted in over 60 games is worthy of blame.

It is awful.

Are we destined to see something similar from Bartolo this season? Will those of us White Sox fans who are hoping the ball club can once again contend for a division title someday be blaming Colon’s girth and age for failing to inspire the Sox?

AGE 35 IS not old in real life. But when it comes to athletics, it borders on ancient – even in today’s era where physical conditioning enables some devoted athletes to play ball well into their 40s.

The problem is that Colon has never been a conditioning freak.

The 235-pound weight indicated by baseball officials is likely a generous estimate. I remember the one time I interviewed him coming away thinking this was someone whose girth was larger than mine.

So Colon will be remembered as the guy who managed to win 150 games thus far during his 12-season career pitching in the major leagues, and he got 135 of those wins during a span from 1998 to 2005.

ONE CAN ARGUE he was once one of the best pitchers in baseball.

But a combination of age, physical conditioning and the sense that anything that can go wrong to a Chicago ball player will makes me wonder if the White Sox are destined to be the team that allows him one last game pitching in the major leagues – in between stints on the disabled list.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: After getting White Sox fans to briefly believe he was returning to Chicago in 2008, Bartolo Colon signed a contract to play ball on the South Side (http://www.upi.com/Sports_News/2009/01/15/Bartolo_Colon_returns_to_White_Sox/UPI-62431232051556/) during 2009.

Colon is considered one of the best Los Angeles Angels ballplayers ever. Somehow, I doubt (http://www.halosheaven.com/2008/12/27/702907/top-100-angels-bartolo-col) he will achieve the same status in White Sox history.

“Aunt Deb” will still be welcome these days at the Blagojevich residence

It wasn’t the least bit surprising. State Rep. Deborah Mell, D-Chicago, performed her first act Wednesday as a state legislator from the Ravenswood and Lincoln Square neighborhoods – she voted in support of her brother-in-law.

Of course, Mell is the sister of Illinois first lady Patti Blagojevich. Which makes her brother-in-law that Elvis lovin’ fool who won’t live in the Executive Mansion and whom many political people in Illinois want to take down.

WHEN THE ILLINOIS House of Representatives was forced to repeat its vote to impeach Rod Blagojevich, it came down as 117-1, with Mell being the lone Blagojevich supporter.

Personally, I’m inclined to agree with House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, D-Chicago, who said people should “give her a break” because she was in a position that involved family.

It’s also not like her vote significantly swayed the impeachment vote. History will record that the Illinois House twice voted overwhelmingly against Blagojevich. Only people who are pathetically obsessed with the idea that absolutely everybody must despise Blagojevich (and secretly wish for him to be beaten brutally) can find something to get upset about.

Yet there is disgust being presented, even though I would have been surprised if Mell had done anything other than vote “no” when confronted with an impeachment resolution.

READING SOME OF the reader commentary offered up by various news-oriented websites presents an ugly picture of the Illinois electorate (although I wonder how many of these are out-of-staters who don’t know what they’re talking about, and likely were posting those comments at times during the day when they should have been working).

What particularly amazed me was the notion offered up by several people that Mell should have cast a vote of “present,” or perhaps should have found herself to “accidentally” be in the ladies room when the vote was taken.

“Conflict of interest” is the phrase being tossed about. She shouldn’t have had a role on Wednesday in what was a formality (since the reality that Blagojevich will be impeached and face the possibility of being removed from office came true quite some time ago).

I don’t agree.

WHAT WOULD HAVE happened had Deb Mell gone so far as to vote “present?” That would indicate a refusal to vote either “yes” or “no,” although some like people like to insist that a “present” vote might as well be a “no” because it deprives supporters of a measure of a “yes” vote needed for its approval.

How many of these same people now blasting Mell for voting “no” would be trashing her for being cowardly and hiding behind the concept of a “present” vote? Is this truly a case where Mell was going to be dumped on, regardless of what she did.

I kind of respect her action, in that she came out and took a stand. History will record (in large part because so many news organizations are going out of their way to make sure Mell’s “vote” is reported) that she did not try to engage in some legislative gobbledygook that she could later try to claim was not really a vote in favor of (or against) her brother-in-law.

She came out and picked a side. I’m sure she realizes the fact that this will now turn a portion of the electorate in her legislative district against her. In fact, if not for the fact that her father, Alderman Dick Mell, is the political powerbroker in that Northwest Side ward, I’d be wondering if this vote alone would be enough to ensure she never gets re-elected to public office.

AS IT IS, it is a good thing that Deb Mell has decided not to seek an immediate promotion to Congress. She wouldn’t get it, even with her father’s help. Besides, the dozen or so political peons running in the March 7 special election primary to replace former Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., will have an intense enough fight without Mell adding to the turmoil.

Now as it turned out Wednesday, Mell evaded reporter-types who wanted to question her about her family support. In a written statement, Mell claimed the man described in the Illinois House impeachment committee’s report does not resemble the Rod Blagojevich she has known for decades.

Then, she engaged in the piece of rhetoric that is also getting her trashed by people who want the world to be unanimously aligned against Gov. Milorod.

“I regard him as innocent until proven guilty and many of my constituents have expressed this view,” she wrote.

BELIEVE IT OR not, there are people who probably would tell you they are “good Americans” who have a problem with the notion of Mell using an “innocent until proven guilty” standard to Blagojevich.

In a technical stance, those people are correct. U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald has to meet that standard when he brings his criminal case against Blagojevich in U.S. District Court in Chicago some time around the year 2010.

Impeachment is a political process, and the normal legal standards of a criminal proceeding do not apply. In fact, it is totally possible that a political official can be “impeached,” then “acquitted.” That would mean he would remain in office, and the political legacy of “impeachment” would come to be seen as legislators overreacting.

Now I’m not saying I expect Blagojevich to beat the rap. I think the loss of Blagojevich’s ally, Emil Jones (due to retirement), will allow many former Blagojevich allies in the Illinois Senate to “go with the flow” and vote “yes” to convict/remove from office.

BUT IT SCARES me to think that some people have a problem with the concept that someone making an accusation against someone else ought to have to prove their argument for it to have any force.

The idea that so many political people are going to feel intimidated into a “yes” vote, or are going to perceive the whole impeachment process beginning in the Illinois Senate on Jan. 26 as “political payback” for a guy they always resented having to share political power with, ought to be seen as a problem.

And if the Illinois Senate really does not give more consideration to the thought expressed by Mell, then it runs the risk of holding proceedings that Blagojevich into a character similar to presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. Both of them were impeached, but avoided being removed from office.

History is nowhere near as harsh on either man as their contemporary partisan opponents desire.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: The commentary (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2009/01/deb-mell-refuse.html) was more intriguing than the story itself.

The Illinois Senate was not inclined to hear Rod Blagojevich’s quotations from Abraham Lincoln that urged political people to work with him to resolve the political dispute (http://nwi.com/articles/2009/01/14/ap-state-il/d95n4te00.txt), rather than proceed with a “trial.”

The Illinois House of Representatives’ repeat of an impeachment vote competed with (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99353050) Hillary R. Clinton’s confirmation hearing as secretary of state for the designation of Wednesday’s top government-related story.

Will the Chicago Cubs EVER be sold?

I’m not sure how much of this is just the fact that I care less about the “product” put forth by the Chicago Cubs on the playing field, but I’m sick and tired of stories about how the ball club has yet to be sold.

I especially don’t understand those people who want outspoken billionaire Mark Cuban to own the ball club (one of two that has been in operation every single year of the National League’s existence). But that is a different issue, and at this point, I’d settle for the silliness that a Cuban-run ball club would bring to Chicago, just to put an end to the financial nonsense that is passing for negotiations.

IT JUST STRIKES me as ridiculous that an owner of Tribune Co. who expressed his desire to unload the ballclub (saying he knew “nothing” about the business of sports) nearly two years ago has been unable to bring the hammer down to complete a deal.

This inability to complete a deal is made more ridiculous by the fact that the Cubs are supposedly a “historic” franchise that can command a premium price because there is a demand for a team with its sense of history.

It’s not like this is the San Diego Padres up for sale.

Yet still, Cubs “fans” (an absurd breed in and of themselves) have had to endure two seasons of knowing that their team was in limbo, unsure of what the long-term future would hold because no one knew who would be in charge of that future.

THE FACT THAT the Cubs were good enough in those two seasons to manage to win division titles makes the situation even worse, because a serious baseball operator would be able to take the ball club that came close to winning a National League pennant (which would be a first for the Cubs since 1945) and refine it to the point where it could win something in ’09 and be a legitimate contender for years to come.

Instead, who’s to say what will really happen with the Cubs. I can’t help but notice that most baseball-related coverage these days with regards to the Cubs focuses on the fact that the National League’s central division is getting weaker with no apparent dominant team.

So the Cubs could continue to bumble their way into division titles (which are cute, but don’t mean much if you can’t actually win the league championship) amidst inferior competition.

Now I know there are Cubs fans who would be content to say their ball club won another division title. When your team hasn’t won a league pennant in 64 years (and officially made it to a full century since it last won a World Series title), you learn to settle for what you can get.

PERHAPS THERE’S A certain sanity to that attitude, since life isn’t always fair and doesn’t always allow us the opportunity to get what we want.

But a good part of what professional sports is about, from the perspective of the fan, is providing a diversion from the realities of life.

The ballpark ought to be the place where I can go for a few hours to forget about partisan politics and economic troubles and any other social troubles I may be having.

What it ought not to be about is a ball club behaving in a ridiculous manner. If it is for sale, it ought to be sold. If someone had a ridiculously high price in mind for the purchase that just isn’t going to happen because of current economic troubles, then somebody within the outgoing Cubs management needs to face reality.

IN FACT, I got a boost from a recent Chicago Tribune story about the continual delays in selling the team. The story noted, rather matter-of-factly, that the total purchase (regardless of who actually bought the team) was expected to be about $800 million.

I can remember when the followers of Tribune boss Sam Zell were insistent that a sale of the Cubs bring in $1 billion. That figure was based largely on the fact that the sale of the Boston Red Sox a few years ago managed to set a record for ball club transactions with a price of nearly $700 million.

Some people just naturally assumed that a Cubs sale would top that figure, even though that Red Sox transaction also included the entities that broadcast the ball games, which means the buyers (including the New York Times Co., owners of the Boston Globe newspaper) were also getting the right to make money off of baseball broadcasts.

So where do things stand now?

FRIDAY WAS SUPPOSED to be the deadline for the three entities that reportedly remain in the running to buy the ball club (pending approval by Major League Baseball, which means the other owners – even Jerry Reinsdorf of the White Sox – and Commissioner Bud Selig get a say).

Yet now, we learn that the deadline is “flexible.” Who’s to say when a prospective new owner will be chosen? A part of me would not be surprised to see the Cubs go well into the 2009 season before learning who will run the team for the foreseeable future.

Now I understand the fact that Tribune Co. is in bankruptcy court. And even though the ball club was not included with the rest of the company in that legal filing, the Cubs departing owners are obligated to show that they got as much cash as possible from the sale for the benefit of the media company as a whole.

But enough is enough. I’m tired of this Cubs stuff (or should I use first lady Patti Blagojevich’s preferred phrase for the business dealings of the Chicago National League ball club?)

HOW MANY CHANCES do the business entities currently in the running get to continually sweeten their bids before somebody pounds the gavel, so to speak, and declares the ball club “Sold!”

These continual delays are getting to the point where the Cubs’ performance in the boardroom has become nearly as embarrassing to the city’s image as the team’s play on the field.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Last week Friday turns out not to be the real deadline for (http://www.upi.com/Sports_News/2009/01/13/Chicago_Cubs_sale_deadline_extended/UPI-46311231858268/) submitting bids to buy the right to operate a Chicago-based ball club in the National League.

I’m not alone in wondering (http://www.nbcchicago.com/sports/baseball/This-Cubs-Sale-Will-Never-End.html) if this bidding process will ever end.

Even if officials pick a winning bidder for the Cubs in the next week or so (http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2851:why-the-final-bidder-for-the-cubs-may-not-be-the-final-bidder&catid=30:mlb-news&Itemid=42), the process could be reopened if baseball officials have a problem with the bid. Anybody who doubts that should note how successful the White Sox were (http://www.brainyhistory.com/events/1980/august_22_1980_153076.html) under the ownership of Eddie DeBartolo.

EXTRA: Somebody’s confused

First, the Chicago Tribune up and goes and endorses a Democrat for president of the United States. Then, the Tribune is thinking of becoming a tabloid-format newspaper (weekdays only).

All I can say is that this newspaper seems determined to show the world that it will not be restricted by its past, even though that past is what gives the Tribune much of the character that made it unique in the world of newsgathering organizations.

TAKE A LOOK at the graphic to be found here (http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/towerticker/2009/01/chicago-tribune.html) that shows just how a tabloid-format Tribune compares to a broadsheet format. Then come back to the Chicago Argus and ponder this point, which is based on my own observation and knowledge of newspaper formats.

Is the problem with that tabloid Tribune page the fact that there aren’t enough graphics? In short, that it would be a paper that wishes it were a broadsheet.

And isn’t much of the problem with the recently redesigned Tribune broadsheet newspaper is that the graphics are overdone to the point where one gets the impression that somebody wishes the paper were truly a tabloid?

Basically, is the problem with the Chicago Tribune these days a matter of the people in charge not having a clue as to what kind of publication they want to be?

IF ANYTHING, TRYING to determine the answer to that question is more important than coming up with new formats or graphic elements or any other nonsense.

But at least the Tribune had enough sense when it came to last year’s presidential endorsements. Just think of how ridiculous and out-of-touch with its home city the newspaper would have looked had it persisted with its rigid Republican endorsements and backed Sarah Palin for vice president?

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Chicago Tribune management seems to think that commuters who are turned off by the Sun-Times’ slight history of being liberal will want to read a tabloid (http://www.poynter.org/content/content_view.asp?id=156872) version of the one-time World’s Greatest Newspaper.

Illinois may amend smoking ban

So what does the Illinois House of Representatives do for a follow-up act on its first day in session after impeaching a governor? They take on a controversial measure that banned smoking of tobacco products in most public places across the state.

The Legislature and soon-to-be former Gov. Rod Blagojevich actually passed the smoking ban just over a year ago, so as to bring all of Illinois in compliance with places such as Chicago – where tobacco use in public has been improper for some time.

BUT THE REFUSAL of judges and prosecutors in certain parts of the state (ie, some rural counties) to enforce the public health-related ban caused too much of a mess.

So under a measure approved by the Illinois House on Monday, the state would alter the smoking ban so as to make it a civil complaint that would be enforced by the Illinois Department of Public Health.

In short, the courts and prosecutors who want to view the ability to “light up” a cigarette as a rebellious act of “freedom” (instead of what it truly is, a tyrannical act of forcing their tobacco stink on everybody around them) are no longer a part of the process.

It will now be the health-related state agency that includes among its duties whether to seek penalties (which will consist of fines) for people who insist on lighting up a cigarette in public.

WHEN ONE CONSIDERS that the Public Health Department can have a say in determining that a business is too environmentally unsound to remain open, it can be argued that businesses that think they can get away without enforcing “the law” would now face the possibility of losing whatever licenses they require in order to remain open.

How many business owners are going to be willing to be shut down, just so that one of their “customers” can light up and spread a stink?

This probably makes more sense than considering the offense some sort of criminal act. It’s not like the law, as it exists now, ever called for anyone going to prison (or even jail) for the act.

In fact, there’s really only one question about the proposed change, and it is not an issue of substance but one of procedure. Can the General Assembly get its collective act together to pass this for gubernatorial approval soon? Could one of Blagojevich’s final acts as governor be the amending of a law he originally approved in 2007?

OR IS THIS going to be a measure that takes some time, which means that a new governor would wind up signing the changes into law some time this summer?

What complicates things is that Tuesday is the final day of existence for the current Illinois General Assembly.

The “new” General Assembly elected on Nov. 4 (which consists of many of the old members, plus a couple of newcomers) will assume control on Wednesday.

In fact, this burst of work being completed Monday and Tuesday is the final moments of the 95th Legislature, trying to get one or two last bits of legislation on its way to the governor’s office for his desired approval before it becomes history.

SO IF THE “old” Illinois Senate does not manage to ram this measure through a committee hearing and the full chamber on Tuesday, the bill that was passed by the Illinois House on Monday will fail.

The idea itself will have to be resurrected during the spring before the 96th General Assembly, along with the thousand or so other bills that likely are to be introduced during the “Spring of 2009.”

Now I suppose in the big picture, it really doesn’t matter much whether the state Senate approves the proposed change Tuesday, or whether the whole state Legislature has to approve a new bill based on the same idea some time this spring.

Either way, it is likely that the change in statewide smoking ban will go into effect sometime during 2009. But this is a measure that in so many ways is so commonsensical that it would be a shame for it to have to wait a few more months.

IT’S NOT LIKE the General Assembly isn’t capable of ramming a new law through in a matter of hours when it is an issue desired greatly by the Legislature’s leaders. I still remember the final days in January 1997 of the General Assembly that ran the state during 1995-96. For those of you with short memories, those were the two years that Republicans controlled the entire Legislature and all six state constitutional offices.

Knowing that their ability to ignore everybody else and ram partisan measures through to their desire was about to end, THAT Legislature managed to pass a measure altering nonpartisan elections and the ability to vote a “straight” ticket with one punch on Election Day, just because it was believed by GOP partisans that the “straight punch” is what cost their preferred candidate for Cook County state’s attorney (remember Jack O’Malley?) his bid for re-election.

The “last-minute” bill rammed through the Legislative process can be used to impose punitive measures. Wouldn’t it be nice if one of the final acts (if not the last one) of a General Assembly run by retiring state Senate President Emil Jones, D-Chicago, were to be a measure that improves a law already in existence?

Besides, the new state Senate likely to be run by state Sen. John Cullerton, D-Chicago, is going to be absorbed so quickly with matters of impeachment and removal of Blagojevich from office that final legislative approval on a smoking ban could be the past positive action we see in weeks from the General Assembly.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Current fines for people caught violating the state smoking ban are up to $250 (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/01/statewide-smoking-ban-amended.html), while businesses that permit smoking can be fined at least that amount.

The overbearing tactics of some smoking ban supporters do not overcome its merits (http://chicagoargus.blogspot.com/2007/12/ban-ashtray-ads.html), while the idea that people who support smoking are (http://chicagoargus.blogspot.com/2008/07/since-when-does-safety-harm-freedom.html) fighting for our freedoms is just absurd.

Does Reid feel foolish these days?

Watching the opening sketch of Saturday Night Live this weekend made it clear that some people want to peddle the notion of Roland Burris and Rod Blagojevich as a couple of nincompoops (with the latter being a potty mouth as well).

Yet I can’t help but wonder if the list of political fools these days ought to include the senator from Nevada who also happens to be leader of the U.S. Senate. Every time that Harry Reid tries to take a firm stance on the whole issue of replacing Barack Obama, circumstances force him to back down.

IS REID REALLY so clueless? Or does he merely act too impulsively, rather than think things through rationally?

Friday was a particularly bad day for Reid, who tried to use the fact that the Illinois House of Representatives proceeded with plans to impeach Blagojevich to change his stance on Burris back to his original view – that anyone associated with Gov. Milorod is too tainted to be in the same legislative chamber that once held Ted Stevens and John Edwards.

How else does he go from saying on Wednesday that it is very likely Burris will be accepted into the ranks of the Senate to having Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., say for him on Friday afternoon that senators will now take a hard-line stance on Burris’ political fate.

But before the day could end, that stance got dumped on. Durbin claimed that the Illinois secretary of state’s refusal to certify the paperwork from Blagojevich that made Burris a senator was so legitimate that the Senate was prepared to be a stickler about the existence of a state seal.

WHITE, WHO WAS getting tired of being used as the excuse for rejecting Burris in the Senate, went ahead and provided some paperwork that Burris allies believe shows his support.

So unless Reid is prepared to take up this issue as a personal crusade, using all of his influence to dump on Roland Burris, he’s going to have to accept the fact that the political powers that be in Illinois are inclined to accept (or at the very least, tolerate) the idea of “Roland, Roland, Roland” for two years.

Unless one wants to accept the idea that a slightly conservative senator from Nevada should be able to overrule the view of people from Illinois as to who the junior senator should be, then one has to accept the concept of Burris on Capitol Hill (and not, as Saturday Night Live portrayed him, using a fake mustache and glasses as a disguise to try to sneak into the Capitol).

Regardless of how this situation turns out, Reid has managed to ensure that he will be the one who winds up looking ridiculous.

AFTER ALL, HIS original change in stance from Tuesday (when he said “no” to the idea of Burris and Capitol police escorted Roland from the Senate chambers) to Wednesday had a measure of face-saving included in it, because it included talk of conditions that Burris would have to meet in order to be seated in the Senate.

So it could have been argued that Burris had to make some concessions in order to get Reid to back down from his opposition.

But those conditions (including Burris’ cooperation with the Illinois House panel that recommended impeachment for Blagojevich, a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court of Illinois and a change in stance from Secretary of State Jesse White) appear to have been met.

The real significance of Durbin’s appearance Sunday on the CBS weekend interview program “Face the Nation” was to see how the Senate Democrats led by Reid would try to justify once again changing their mind, without coming across as completely clueless.

REID HAD DURBIN on Friday saying that the U.S. Senate was prepared to wait out the Illinois Senate to remove Blagojevich from office so that a new governor (Pat Quinn) could pick a new senator.

Yet Durbin on Sunday said what anyone with common sense realized on Friday, on Tuesday of last week, or even a month ago back when federal prosecutors in Chicago sought a criminal complaint against Blagojevich – waiting out impeachment and removal proceedings will take way too much time, leaving Illinois short-staffed in its political representation in Washington for the interim.

So now, the Senate’s staffers who actually comprehend the legalese that makes up many bills will have to look at the paperwork that White signed on Friday to see if it truly is the same as having a letter from the governor with the state seal affixed, and also will read through transcripts of Burris’ testimony that was meant to say as little as possible while not catching himself in any kind of lie.

It would be nice to think these documents are getting straightforward readings so as to make Reid and his top Senate aides understanding of Burris’ legal situation.

FOR IF IT turns out that Reid and his gang are merely looking for another technical trap that could be used to allow them to change their minds once again and revert to a hard-line stance against Roland, they will wind up making themselves look ridiculous.

In fact, that could wind up being the historical legacy of Rod Blagojevich, a middling, intellectual lightweight who became governor of Illinois and managed to reduce everyone he came into contact with to his level of half-wit thought – even the high-and-mighty Senate Majority Leader.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: After going from “no” to “yes” back to “no,” Harry Reid had (http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/01/11/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4712919.shtml) Dick Durbin come up with some political rhetoric that implies the answer to the question, “Will Roland Burris ever become a U.S. senator” may actually be “yes.”
Rod Blagojevich’s “appointment” of Burris to the Senate has made the Senate look as foolish (http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/blagojevich/1372391,w-democrat-burris-blagojevich-011109.article) as Blagojevich himself.

Saturday Night Live’s sketch that attempted to parody Burris and Blagojevich struck me (http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/roland-burris-cold-open/926143/) as being more notable for its incredibly awful impersonation of MSNBC news anchor Rachel Maddow.

Reid ought to get the Burris situation behind him (http://reid.senate.gov/) so that the Senate can shift focus on trying to put together an economic recovery package that actually can work.

There are some positives in what was otherwise a crummy day for Blagojevich

Either I really have a problem with the concept of impeachment and removal from office for Rod Blagojevich, or I just have too peachy an outlook on life these days.

For while Friday will go in the history books as the day that Illinois’ governor was impeached (setting up the prospect of a trial in the Illinois Senate to determine if he should be removed from office), it was not a totally negative day for Gov. Milorod.

IT WAS THE day that the Illinois Supreme Court handed down a ruling that helps Blagojevich in getting his way with regards to his appointment of a new official in the U.S. Senate. And it was also the day that someone, ANYone was willing to go on the record in support of the governor.

Milton Patterson, who has been in the Illinois House of Representatives since 2005, turned out to be the guy who made my Friday morning prediction incorrect.

Instead of a 118-0 vote (or any kind of unanimous vote), Patterson became the lone politico who voted against impeachment.

The final vote was 114-1, with one other representative, Elga Jeffries, voting “present.”

NOW I DON’T know much about Patterson. He arrived on the Statehouse Scene after I left it as a regularly assigned reporter. In fact, he hasn’t put together much of a record in the Legislature.

A search of the “Wikipedia” website on Friday offers up the briefest of biographies on Patterson, listing the committees upon which he serves in Springfield, along with an update added Friday afternoon informing readers of Patterson’s role that morning in the Blagojevich impeachment.

Which means that regardless of anything else Patterson eventually accomplishes as a legislator, he’s likely always going to be remembered as Blagojevich’s lone supporter.

He’s going to be the guy who went with his “gut feeling” and decided to vote “no” on impeachment for Blagojevich because, as he told reporter-types at the Statehouse, “I have no firsthand knowledge of any of the evidence.”

NOW SOME PEOPLE are going to argue that he should have gone along with the report issued by the House impeachment committee, which spent the past few weeks hearing evidence and building a case against Blagojevich – one that received a 21-0 vote of support on Thursday.

Others are going to claim his “gut feeling” is a sign of his incompetence, as he is not capable of basing a vote on evidence presented to him.

But a part of me actually gains a bit of respect for Patterson, just because he did not want to be pressured into going along with the political equivalent of a “lynch mob.”

Instead of spewing rhetoric about “freak shows” (like long-time Blagojevich critic and state Rep. Jack Franks, D-Woodstock, did), he was willing to cast a vote that I’m sure he realizes will gain him a certain level of political infamy.

IT CERTAINLY IS a bolder move than Jeffries’ “present” vote. I would have respected her more if she had “accidentally” missed the vote because she was in the rest room.

Patterson’s vote was not the only plus for Blagojevich. The Illinois Supreme Court gave political people the legal means by which Barack Obama can be replaced in the U.S. Senate, although Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., on Friday said some senators want to play political hardball with the issue.

It had been expected that the Illinois high court would order Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White to certify the proclamation Blagojevich previously issued that made Roland Burris his choice to be Illinois’ junior senator.

Instead, the state’s high court ruled that the proclamation is legitimate even without having the state seal applied (which is a gesture that the document in question is a legitimate government document, and not counterfeit).

SO NOW, WHITE did not have to do anything that would appear to be making him back down from his previously issued stance. But he wound up giving in late Friday, and signing the Blagojevich document.

In theory, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and other Senate Democrats who previously said they wanted nothing to do with any lawmaker picked by Blagojevich could back off by claiming Burris has legitimate credentials to be in the U.S. Senate. But Durbin said some political people now want to wait for the Illinois Senate to act, regardless of how long it takes and how long the seat from Illinois remains open.

The bottom line?

Blagojevich will be able to say his pick for the Senate should get the post, and that it is Washington bureaucrats who are interfering with Illinois. I’m sure that in Blagojevich’s mind, that fact will be the one he remembers about Friday. “Impeachment” action will sink to the back of his mind.

SO WHERE DO we go from here?

Next week will be another set of dueling images. Burris fighting for a U.S. Senate seat will take up some public attention, as any attempt to deny him the seat will wind up with Reid taking all the blame.

But the Illinois Senate is likely to begin its share of the impeachment proceedings during that same week. They will have to decide whether Blagojevich’s behavior during his six years as governor amounts to an “injustice” (which is the only legal standard written into the Illinois Constitution with regards to impeachment).

For his part, Blagojevich says he expects there to be more support in the state Senate than there was in the Illinois House. But there are going to have to be a slew of Milt Pattersons on hand for the Senate to fail to come up with the two-thirds support that would avert the Pat Quinn prediction of Blagojevich being removed from office prior to next month’s bicentennial of Abraham Lincoln’s birth.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Milton Patterson may have written his entire political biography (http://www.ilga.gov/house/rep.asp?MemberID=1121) on Friday.

Thirty-nine of the 59 members of the Illinois Senate will have to vote “yes” for Rod Blagojevich (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28582066/) to be “convicted” of political offenses worthy of his removal from office. That is separate from a criminal conviction in U.S. District Court, which will occur in a couple of years.

Blagojevich has made himself the central focus for people paying attention (http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0109/p25s33-usgn.html) to Illinois political (http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2009/01/gov-rod-blagoje.html) issues.