Monday, September 29, 2014

Will we EVER get new A.G.?

One of the things I remember from the days of Harold Washington and Council Wars is that the aldermanic opposition to Harold was so intense that they rejected just about everything he proposed.


To the extent that there were political appointments of individuals who didn’t get confirmed until after the end of the time period to which they were originally appointed.


MEANING THAT A lot of positions sat empty and in a holding pattern – nothing was really able to go forward.


Why do I expect that the Congress is more than willing to have the same happen with regards to the position of Attorney General? Eric Holder, who was one of the few original Obama Cabinet members to remain in place the entire six years that Barack has occupied the Oval Office, let it be known he’s stepping down.


Obama now has to come up with a new attorney general to finish out the remainder of his presidency – running through January 2017.


Because of the process involved in finding a prospective nominee, there likely won’t be a “name” for anyone to consider until late this year. By which time, we could have had the Nov. 4 elections and there may be a Republican majority in the U.S. Senate.


WHICH WOULD MEAN open hostility toward anyone that Obama put forth. Heck, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, already is going about hinting that the Republican caucuses in Congress will be as obstructionist as the “Vrdolyak 31” in the City Council of old.


Would they really have the nerve to oppose anyone for just over two more years? Thereby waiting for the next president (whomever that turns out to be) to pick a new A.G.? Would they leave the legal office of the federal government in limbo?


I don’t doubt for a moment they fantasize about such an action; probably justifying it in their minds as the “tearing down” of a government they don’t trust. Although such actions are exactly why real people don’t trust the ideologues of the Tea Party movement.


I do find it amusing that the Chicago Sun-Times already has put forth the idea of Patrick Fitzgerald as a potential Obama nominee. The idea that he prosecuted both George Ryan and Rod Blagojevich while serving as the Chicago-based U.S. attorney allegedly would make him acceptable to all sides of a partisan argument.


ALTHOUGH I WONDER if it really makes him untrustworthy to all political people who would fear that he would go after their particular political interests and not focus attention solely on the “opposition,” whomever they might consider that to be.


I find it amusing that if he were to somehow get the post, he’d be the second-straight Attorney General with a record of going after Chicago-type political interests. Let’s not forget that Holder was once a U.S. attorney who handled the prosecution of Dan Rostenkowski – turning him from the mighty Ways and Means chair to a federal inmate.


But it should be noted the Sun-Times seems to be the only entity that believes Fitzgerald is in the running. The Washington Post recently came up with a half-dozen or so names of people who seem to have more direct Washington political ties.


They include Solicitor General Don Verrilli, Jr., who was the one who defended the Affordable Care Act when it was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States.


I CAN ALREADY hear the rants and rages from the individuals who can’t accept the reality that having so many people without health insurance in our society is a significant burden to us all.


That debate might even get more stupid than anything that occurred at City Hall during the Washington era.


All of which makes me think that there are political people destined to permanently taint their reputations in coming months with their actions. Just like Vrdolyak did all those decades ago.


It’s too bad some people can’t think before they open their mouths!



No comments: