Incompetent Elected Official of the Month: Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-Ill.)

“Corrupt, mentally ill and absent is no way to go through Congress, son.”

Here are a few questions about Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., of the Illinois Second Congressional District:

1. Why is Jesse Jackson, Jr. still on the ballot as the Democrat running for Congress in Illinois’ 2nd District, when he himself admits that he is laboring under a disability that has prevented him from doing his job, and doctors tell him that the road to recover will be a “long one”?

2. Why didn’t Jackson resign his seat, which he has been unable to fill except in name for six months due to his illness?

3. Why are the mostly Democratic voters in his district preparing to return him to office, at a time when the United States, even more than usual, needs all of its members of Congress alert, trustworthy, stable and present, when Jackson is incapable of being any of those things?

It would be a different story (slightly) if Jackson was such a Congressional stand-out that it would be worth holding out for a miracle, as Democrats did in the case of brain-damaged Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. He is not, however. The only reason he was elected to Congress at all was because he carried his famous father’s name. His only jobs before Congress were working for Jesse Jackson, Sr. There are two serious investigations going on regarding corrupt activities by Jackson as a representative, one regarding his involvement with the alleged auctioning off of President Obama’s Senate seat that sent former governor Rod Blagojevich to prison, and a more recent FBI investigation into misappropriation of campaign funds. He’s hardly an exemplar of Congressional dignity: in 2007, he threatened fisticuffs with a Republican colleague. Nor has he distinguished himself with his policy acumen and problem solving skills. Here is Jackson cure for America’s economic problems, for example, in 2011:

 “I believe … in the direct hiring of 15 million unemployed Americans at $40,000 a head, some more than $40,000, some less than $40,000 — that’s a $600 billion stimulus. It could be a five-year program. For another $104 billion, we bailout all of the states … for another $100 billion, we bailout all of the cities.”

As lawyer Steve Martin says in “All of Me,” after his client tells him that she has made arrangements for a shaman to transfer her soul to the body of a young, beautiful woman before her own body dies: “Good plan!”

Here’s all you need to know, really, about Jackson, Jr.: CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) named him one of its most corrupt members of Congress in 2009, and CREW, which begins with the presumption that all Republicans are corrupt and all Democrats are as pure as Ivory soap, never names a Democrat to this list who isn’t dirty through and through. On top of that, we have the fact that Junior disappeared in June without telling his constituents where he was, and has been unable to do his job since that time because of his battles with depression and bi-polar syndrome. Neither of are easily treated or cured, and are definitely not desirable maladies for one who works in Congress, which could make Pollyanna suicidal.

Jackson has already missed 25% of his current term, and will probably be able to serve during even less of  his next one, if any of it. The only explanations for why neither he, nor his party, nor the public have already made sure that he is replaced with a trustworthy, qualified, functioning representative are:

  • Jackson needs the job, and is irresponsible.
  • Democrats want to keep the seat, and are irresponsible.
  • Second District voters are ignorant, which is irresponsible.
  • All of the above regard the political fortunes of Jesse Jackson’s son more important than the fate of the nation, which is beyond irresponsible, or
  • All of the above.

Before the election, Ethics Alarms will post its traditional “Dirty Dozen,” the most unethical candidates running for high office in 2012.

Guess who is likely to top the list?

___________________________________________

Sources:

Graphic: Wikipedia

 

 

 

34 thoughts on “Incompetent Elected Official of the Month: Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-Ill.)

  1. So, you are surprised that he learned from the best, i.e. JJ, Sr.? From the state that gave you more former governors in prison than any other state? From a state whose US Senator made his way from obscurity through funding by subsequently convicted criminals, voted “present” to obscure his true political essence, and was thrust onto the world stage to a Presidency he was unprepared to assume? Tsk, tsk, Jack…..

          • I prefer observable reality to game theory, TGT. Nor do I care to reduce my fellow citizens to pawns on a chessboard. Politics should involve informed citizens making rational choices based on motivations of civic virtue.

            • You have no idea what game theory is, do you? It is reality and it is not derogatory in the least.

              Also, should has nothing to do with it. I agree with you on how voting should happen, but you might as well be saying that there should be an unlimited amount of oil in the world or that all women should look like Mila Kunis.

              • Game Theory is a military invention that is used to depict a possible scenario and challenge the participants to deal with it under the parameters set forth. The defining factor of its worth is how accurate those established parameters are to being with. The U.S. Navy’s “rainbow plans” of the 1930’s were constructed on the basis of a possible war with Japan. That “game” was pretty well scrapped by an unforseen event- Pearl Harbor! Politicians tend to fare even more poorly with this, as their slanted worldview gets in the way. Perception is NOT reality, TGT. Reality is what it is. Now… what the hell does oil or Mila Kunis really have to do with this? I think you’re nursing a few obsessions here!

                • *sigh*. Game theory is the study of finding likely and best strategies in situations. It is not simply war games. It’s much greater than that.

                  Your comments on perceptions not being reality are true, but completely pointless. First, perceptions do determine what people do. Second, as for voting, we don’t have to get to perceptions. Despite what people make think about the situation, their votes are extremely unlikely to matter. As such, it’s rational to not spend significant amounts of time becoming informed.

                  My point about the “shoulds” was appropriate. There are lots of things that we can say should occur, that doesn’t mean it makes sense for them to occur or we can rationally be upset that they don’t occur.

                  • Ahhhh (heaving a sigh of disgust). First you mischaracterize my statement on the ORIGINS of game theory. Then you ramble around the “perception” issue. The third paragraph was predictably pointless as well. You just tried to throw up a verbal smokescreen after I waxed you on your snide accusation that I knew nothing of game theory. That, too, was predictable.

                    • I didn’t ask you about the origins of game theory and I didn’t mischaracterize your statements. You greatly undersold game theory greatly, like you did in your prior comment.

                      I didn’t ramble on the “perception” issue. I pointed out why your statement was worthless. You seem to have no ability to critique my statements, so they stand.

                      The third paragraph is returning to my previous point and is in direct response to your comments that Mila Kunis and oil have nothing to do with the matter. No one said they did. They were anologies.

                      I’ll grant that you have some basic understanding of what game theory is, but you don’t understand how or when it applies. That’s clear from your pooh-poohing of it in a completely applicable situation. Well, either that or you’re an unethical asshole. There isn’t a third choice.

                    • There was nothing else to critique, TGT. You got knocked down and tried to throw up a smokescreen to cover yourself. And you still are!

                      So, you’re saying that I didn’t say anything with the perception comments, or that you can’t critique what’s true?

                      I’m making specific claims on the matter, not a smokescreen. You’re ignoring my specific claims and making general accusations.

  2. Bless you, Jack, for caring, but we voters usually get exactly what we deserve. In the case of Congress Critter Jackson’s district they may have the right to be irresponsible. but odds are they will still demand someone, somewhere “fix it” when things finally go belly up.

  3. I was a bit surprised by the original “surprised” comment. Isn’t he on the ballot under the banner of the party who gave us Ted “the swimmer” Kennedy and Robert “sheets” Bird… in Senate seats they believed they owned. Ex. “Kennedy’s seat”. The Giffords situation is the same. Voters “represented” by empty chairs is OK..??

  4. What is there to say about Jackson except, “like father, like son”? Well, perhaps there is more. Jackson- like Sheila Jackson Lee, Alcee Hastings, John Conyers, etc.- is the product of the racialist/entitlement genre of politics that ignores all criminality and perpetuates itself in racially gerrymandered congressional districts… which are likewise noted for electorial corruption. Until this practice is stopped- and until enough citizens vote on principle instead of payoffs- this kind of official will continue to blight the halls of Congress.

  5. So, your argument boils down to:
    (1) He doesn’t do his job
    (2) Is unqualified for his job
    (3) Is corrupt
    (4) He is incompetent
    (5) He REALLY won’t do his job in the future (which may be a blessing given his qualifications and ability)

    This does make him a good candidate for “Incompetent Elected Official of the Month. Unfortunately, he is also a minority and a Democrat in Illinois, so I would say this also makes him their perfect candidate. The more he is criticized in the press, the more popular he will be because he is being ‘oppressed’. It seems like an honest black Democratic official can’t survive in such an environment because they would feel they had to say something about the corruption. This would bring down the wrath of all the corrupt officials, who would call them an ‘oreo’ or an ‘Uncle Tom’ as well as the scorn and hate of all the people who benefit from the corruption and graft (Romney’s ‘47%’). Your nomination of him for this ‘award’ probably bumped his approval rating 0.002%.

      • Still trying hard to push that 47% thing, huh? The man at the meeting who asked that question was referring to the increasing number of Americans who have become dependent on federal largesse and, thus, are more liable to vote socialist out of that dependency. This is a genuine concern. Those of us who believe in our constitutional republic recognize the danger of this. “A society of sheep must in time begat a government of wolves.”- Bertrand de Jouvenal

        • I’m not pushing here. I’m pushing back.

          The rest is just silly. First, social security is not the federal largesse. Second, it was the claim that these people are lazy and that these people are only Obama voters and all Obama voters that was, rightfully, attacked.

          • Nobody characterizes Social Security as a handout, TGT. In this, at least, it’s supposed to be something we pay into- albeit involuntarily. The concept remains, though, that even in this, people are dependent on the federal government to cut a check. This gives the powers-that-be a psychological leverage, if nothing else. The main fear is not SS, but the myriad of “social spending” programs that are, besides being unconstitutional, are little more than a matter of enouraging indigency and dependence in order to secure votes. When you look at the illiterate tweets threatening Romney that have gone viral, you immediately notice that there are two terms that they invariably spell right: “food stamps”… and “assassinate”. That tells the story about as well as can be.

            • Nobody characterizes Social Security as a handout, TGT.

              You did with your federal largesse comment.

              In this, at least, it’s supposed to be something we pay into- albeit involuntarily. The concept remains, though, that even in this, people are dependent on the federal government to cut a check.

              Moving the goalposts. Moreover, silly. We’re also dependent on the federal government to clear our roads of snow. No one claims that that’s a serious problem.

              The main fear is not SS, but the myriad of “social spending” programs that are, besides being unconstitutional, are little more than a matter of enouraging indigency and dependence in order to secure votes.

              Do soup kitchens and private homeless shelters encourage indegency and dependence?

              When you look at the illiterate tweets threatening Romney that have gone viral, you immediately notice that there are two terms that they invariably spell right: “food stamps”… and “assassinate”. That tells the story about as well as can be.

              Straight out of left field. Also, you just made that up.

              • No, TGT. Factual right down the line. All you did was dodge and weave from the salient points. Unknowingly, you just made another point for my side when you referred to PRIVATE homeless shelters. People just aren’t as dumb as the Left would like to think.

                • Um, what? What did I say that was wrong? Tell me specifically and use evidence to back it up. Otherwise, this is just more generalities.

                  As for the private homeless shelters, that was to point out that private social programs create indigency, so there’s no reason to claim public ones do. I don’t see how that hurts me at all.

                  • You’re deliberately trying to sidestep the salient issue again. Private concerns (which are mainly Christian) attempt to aid a fallen individual not only with the necessities of life, but in a spiritual sense so that the person can recover and begin life anew. Nor are they run by monies sequestered from the taxpayer. They are not designed by bureaucrats to make dependency a way of life, or to garner votes. Again, you try deception rather than concede a point.

                    • You’re deliberately trying to sidestep the salient issue again. Private concerns (which are mainly Christian) attempt to aid a fallen individual not only with the necessities of life, but in a spiritual sense so that the person can recover and begin life anew

                      Soup kitchens and homeless shelters aren’t spiritual counselors. Christian aid is a red herring. I’m talking about public vs private, not religious vs. not religious.

                      Nor are they run by monies sequestered from the taxpayer.

                      How does the source of the money affect whether the actions cause indigency or dependence?

                      They are not designed by bureaucrats to make dependency a way of life, or to garner votes.

                      Begging the question

                      Again, you try deception rather than concede a point.

                      Where did I supposedly deceive?

                    • Ah. Now the “red herrings” heave their ugly mugs out of the water! Nor am I “begging the question”. That’s what you’ve been doing constantly. I pointed out the fundamental differences between private charities (most, but not all of which are run by “evil” Christian volunteers) and the government programs which have no interest in personal rehabilitation and which sequester citizens’ money to support them. Pretty straightforward, I’d say. I’m not surprised, however, that a socialist would not care to acknowledge it.

                    • Ah. Now the “red herrings” heave their ugly mugs out of the water!

                      And it was done so validly. You’re acting exactly like the AFA here.
                      Step 1: Do bad.
                      Step 2: Be accurately called bad.
                      Step 3: Complain about being called bad.

                      Nor am I “begging the question”.

                      *sigh*. You are flat out assuming that public social programs are designed by bureaucrats to make people dependent.

                      That’s what you’ve been doing constantly.

                      Where?

                      I pointed out the fundamental differences between private charities (most, but not all of which are run by “evil” Christian volunteers) and the government programs which have no interest in personal rehabilitation and which sequester citizens’ money to support them.

                      Don’t see an example here of me begging the question. Looks like that was another unsupported assertion.

                      You did point out that most private charity is Christian (which, incidentally, is just because Christians make up the lionshare of the U.S. populace), but that doesn’t mean that Christian programs generally do anything that public programs don’t. I pointed out that the actual examples: soup kitchens and homeless shelters don’t do spiritual work. If you have a problem with my examples, say so and say why. Don’t lie about the comparison I’m making.

                      Again, why does where the money comes from change the results on the people using the services?

                      Pretty straightforward, I’d say. I’m not surprised, however, that a socialist would not care to acknowledge it.

                      What’s straightforward is that you are not engaging with my arguments.

Leave a Reply to 49erDweet Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.