Maybe Illinois Can Get By Without A Governor

As I predicted, Illinois' punk governor is going to stay right where he is. No sense giving up his office. Then he'd have no currency to plea bargain his criminal case, when it comes to that. You all know where his sleazy attorney will begin the discussion...the governor will resign if you just give him probation.

Forget the fact that about all he can do these days is the ceremonial functions and signing bills already passed by the state legislature. They certainly have the plurality to override any veto by the punk--he might as well not even try. All of the officers heading the major departments of the state government are elected, not appointed, so they have no loyalty or responsibility to the governor. They can all continue to do their jobs meeting the requirements of the state laws without direction or interference from the governor. Some of them have already said that they've had no contact with him for more than a year anyway.

It looks like the punk can drag this out until he's thrown out of office in the 2010 election. The experts all say that the impeachment process takes a long, long time and Illinois has never done it before. They're making up the rules and process as they go along. The criminal case that will eventually be brought by the U.S. Attorney could easily take until 2010 until it is finally adjudicated. It took years to get the trail of the former governor started. Then the trial iteslf took more than four months, follwed by several ore months for the appeal to be heard. The punk governor can easily drag this out until his term is over.

So maybe the whole event proves that the state can function quite nicely without a governor. It sure raises the question: what does the governor do anyway? We know what he can do that's bad. But with the sunlight shining on his every action and decsion, what bad can he do?

Boy, am I glad to be a resident of Florida, where the state government seems to work quite nicely, thank you very much.