Hastert takes ball, goes homeFollow

The resignation comes as a surprise/not-surprise depending on how you look at it. Rumors of it have been floating for months but Hastert's camp has always denied them. But I guess it's not much fun being a powerless ex-Speaker. Or, as FOX News invented the office for him, "Minority Speaker"

I'm curious to see how the special election goes. I fully expect the seat to remain Republican but Democratic unknown David Lastert made a presentable showing last election (40%) in this conservative district considering that he was running against the Speaker of the House. If I had to pick a Republican, I'd want Jim Oberweis to win. Not because I agree with any of his policies but because the state GOP tries their damnedest to pretend the guy doesn't exist.

Anyway, I know it's local news of limited interest but it's not as though I'm spamming the good stuff off the front page. If you want to make the topic more general, do you have any opinion on mid-season resignations (aside from scandal)? Should elected officials feel an obligation to serve the term they have been elected for or is it acceptable to seek greener pastures halfway through the gig?

A fascinating debate from a British perspective.

The idea that an elected official or representative should continue to serve beyond their shelf-life is a tad silly.

I don't know the details of this chap, but I can think of a number of reasons why a politician may wish to throw the towel in; if:

- His heart's no longer in it.
- He no longer feels he can make a difference
- He no longer believes he has the confidence of his electorate or peers
- His loyalty to the party line or a developed policy is no longer sincere
- His circumstances have changed, or
- He wishes to make a protest against the current administration, whether national, regional or local.

In either of those circumstances, I'd say a politician is duty-bound to make way for a committed alternative who believes they can deliver and carry the mandate of the electorate.

The big difference here in the UK is that the people have the opportunity to intervene mid-term where they believe that the incumbent is no longer fit for purpose. By lobbying our representatives (both Members of Parliament and local Councillors) to call a vote of no confidence, we can avoid waiting years for a change when it's needed.

So my respondent question is this ((Let's use the PoTUSA for this poll):



Not intended as a Hijack:- I'm genuinely curious, particularly whether the views are aligned to a Republican / Democrat stance.

Back to Hastert for a minute......I think it's mainly #1 & #2. He was easily voted back into office last election despite some minor scandals* and his district is largely Republican. I don't doubt that he could win another term if he ran. Whatever I may think of his party's stances, Hastert did a good job of helping his district grow economically from a rural farming community into a growing exurb of Chicago. But he's been the longest reigning Republican Speaker in Congress and I think his party's defeat last election took the wind out of his sails and he doesn't know what to do with himself as one more congress-critter out of 435.


*The Foley/page thing and some land deals. While Foley may or may not have made a national difference, it didn't really scathe Hastert at all.

Hmm. I appreciate that there'd be absolute instability if we could oust our premier for an individual indiscretion, ****-up or outrageous comment, but in relaity it's only ever been able to happen when a long-term sequence of events (deepening economic decline or long-term rises in unemployment).

I also think it's another example of the cultural difference between an old (stagnant?) democracy and a relatively young democracy. There are some things that Brits just accept that Yanks wouldn't tolerate, and vice-versa.

I do enjoy these paradoxes. Our Christian Head of State is the de facto head of the official State Religion, but we won't tolerate the curch interfering in politics, whereas the US officially separates church from state, while religious leaders have massive influence over votes.

Cultural differences for teh win!

As Al "The Pub Landlord" Murray says:

"You've got to 'ave rules.
Where would we be if we 'ad no rules? France!
Where would we be if we 'ad too many rules? Germany!"

fhrugby basically nailed in on the head IMO.

If your system includes a defined legal process for replacing an elected official before their term is concluded (aside from an actual violation of office), the political reality is that the opposition will do everything they can to use it. We have enough rhetoric, innuendo, and negative attacks aimed at making politicians look bad in the public eye today when the only way to remove them is to make them so embarrassing to their party that they have to resign. Imagine how much worse this would be if all you had to do was convince enough of the public to vote no-confidence?

Our entire political process would devolve into nothing but "gotcha" politics. It's bad enough already IMO. I don't think it's a bad thing that the voters should have to think far enough ahead to vote for someone who they think will actually be an effective leader down the line, and not just the guy who tells them what they want to hear today. Recall elections allow the public to be lazy. They can elect someone based on the issue of the day and then toss them out tomorrow if that person isn't what they want for whatever the issue of the day is then. Voting is not just a right, it's also a responsibility. Being "stuck" with the person you voted for is how you learn to make a good choice when you vote the first time.

Obviously, that doesn't apply if the person actually violates his office or the law in some way. Talking purely about voter initiated recalls. Those are a bad idea because they're too easily implemented by just spending some cash on an ad campaign.


As to the Hastert issue specifically? I don't think it's a surprise. He's been saying for some time that he would not run for re-election. Resigning early allows the Republicans to put someone in his place today who'll have sufficient name recognition down the line when it really counts. I can only assume that they'd much rather fight for a replacement in a special election when they can focus on just that, then have it potentially be lost in the wash of a big general election. Assuming they win, they'll have the incumbent in said election and be better poised to retain the seat.

Agreed. As much as I personally don't like Bush, unless he's impeached and fired for some offence, etc, I don't want him out of office early, because it makes a mockery of the intended stabilty of the entire system. Anyone who wants him (or wanted Clinton, etc,) out enough to want to do something like that is too shortsighted to realize the exact same thing can just as easily happen to Their Guy next time.