Talk:Rod Blagojevich/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Gubernatorial administration

This heading could have these external links added when the lock is removed:
KidCare http://www.allkidscovered.com/

FamilyCare http://www.familycareillinois.com/

(the latter ruled unconstitutional) http://illinoisissues.uis.edu/archives/2008/05/state.html
Greg0658 (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

looks like a hatchet job to me

Who ever wrote many sections of this article clearly has a bias AGAINST this chap. Is he an honorary Republican or something? Maybe we can call this the Hillary Syndrome. I think the person above is prob the one sliding things from what he perceives as bias in favor to bias AGAINST as opposed to a neutral article.

Like the Fox news motto—fair, balanced and unafraid. The problem with this website is it is overloaded with out-of-work left wingnuts living in their parents’ basement eating Funyuns.

Get a job! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.39.192 (talk) 15:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I love this. This shows just how nuts some right wingers are. Here's an article that, according to him, is biased ... AGAINST A DEMOCRAT ... and he's upset!??! What's next? Getting angry about a very favorable and flattering article about Newt Gingrich? What a genius. And while I don't live in my parents' basement, I also don't keep nude pictures of Sean Hannity in my sock drawer. By the way, these funyuns are delicious.  :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.229.98.8 (talk) 15:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


Blago has "accomplished" a lot in his 6 years in office. He makes George "Lyin'" Ryan look like a petty thief by comparison. Sorry, but his term in office has been rife with corruption, and there's no covering it up here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, arrested by feds just this morning, in front of his family to boot. I would guess that 69.37 doesn't know how politics in Illinois works, not at all. Left wingnuts? Ha. Blago is a Democrat, corruption crosses all lines 'round here. ;-) --IvoShandor (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Since I agree with this section title, I'll add what I think is a root cause: using the accrued government pension and health care funds to keep the state and its commonfolk afloat, coupled with layoffs and budget cuts in the state government, culminating with a detachment from the Springfield machine and the tiers of benefit disbursement. Best wishes LtGov Quinn.Greg0658 (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Blagojevich vs. Blagojević

I think that more correct would be: Blagojević,he is of Serbian origin and they don't use ch, but c with carrons: ć/č. --Smihael (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That might be an interesting bit of trivia for somewhere in the article, but in English it ends in a "ch". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
All official documents in the State of Illinois end in the ch so I think we should keep it the way it is. There's no need to load up this article with tons of trivia. Illinois2011 (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Impeachment

Can anybody provide the source; Blagojevich has been impeached today. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's one. [1] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
And things are a little askew in the article, as there should be a brief, uncited mention of it in the intro, and the fully cited details down in the body of the article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll go along with that. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, I believe the Impeachment section should be moved to the bottom of the article. Anybody (with the know-how) wanna move it? GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Why was the Impeachment section removed? GoodDay (talk) 20:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki

Can anyone please adjust the interwiki to the (just added) Dutch Wikipedia article Rod Blagojevich? I can't ... 2NG (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"Dangerous" position on Bank of America

I found the statement that critics say his position on BoA is dangerous odd with no futher explanation. Does anyone have a problem with the fact that the person quoted as saying "dangerous" in the cited Bloomberg article has represented Bank of America. It is not a very credible critic. Or maybe it could note that that position is taken by someone connected to BoA. (Frankie816 (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC))

Added the critic's name and credentials.Shsilver (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ravenswood Manor Residency

I have corrected this article to reflect the fact that Blagojevich is a resident of Ravenswood Manor, not Ravenswood which is an entirely separate neighborhood in Chicago for the second time in the last few weeks. Furthermore, I have also engaged in a discussion with User:Writeful who has previously corrected the Ravenswood, Chicago article on this matter. --TommyBoy (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep an eye on the article, it was correct at one point, I think with a discussion to boot, but I noticed a change in my watchlist, unfortunately I wasn't confident enough in my knowledge on the issue to revert, glad it was sorted out. --IvoShandor (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Blagosphere

I was redirected from blagosphere to this. why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathbal101 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Were you looking for Blogosphere? Blago is a common nickname for the Governor, its probably someones idea of a joke. Livewireo (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
It's a term that's been turning up here and there in the media. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

misspelling 'blog' as 'blag ' is an xkcd joke...related maybe? 74.10.227.130 (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Free Rod Blagojevich

Some idiots out there actually have a movement called Free Rod Blagojevich. I don't know who is behind it, but it might be worth including in the Wiki entry. What do you think? http://www.freerodblagojevich.com Or maybe it's just too stupid.

Dwharrington (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Per Google News there's been zero interest in the site and so there's no rationale for adding it to the article. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Besides, Hot Rod never does anything for free. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, it's satirical. Just read the "10 Reasons Why" page. Nice one Baseball! -125.238.34.165 (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I am quite sure that if Blagojevich has anything to do with the "Free Rod Blagojevich" movement, it won't be free since he will try to sell it to the highest bidder. Are these people who are running the "Free Rod Blagojevich" website serious, or is this a tongue in cheek site? Themoodyblue (talk) 05:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

"Striven"?

On the Rod Blagojevich page, it says that he has "striven" to improve traffic safety laws. shouldn't it be "has strove" or "has strived"? "Striven" is a past participle, not a past tense. 4.159.181.130 (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Give it about a week, and then it will be, unequivocally, in the past tense. --IvoShandor (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
No, the correct present perfect form is "has striven", not "has strove". Perfect tenses do use the past participle. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 06:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Or, you could simply say, "has tried to" or "has worked to", and make it sound less like an English class. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

'Strived' (weak past participle) or 'striven' (strong past participle) are equally correct. Possibly 'striven' might sound somewhat antiquated to some English speakers. 'Strove' is unequivocally the preterite/imperfect tense of the strong verb, so cannot be preceeded by 'have/has':

Strong forms: strive (pres.) -- strove (pret./imperf.) -- striven (past part.)

Weak forms: strive (pres.) -- strived (pret./imperf.) -- strived (past part.)

In a particular context it's obviously better style to stick with either the weak or thge strong verb forms.

Geoff Powers (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Impeachment

Peoples, Blagojevich was not Impeached & Convicted by the Senate. He was Convicted by the Senate, but impeached by the House of Representatives. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a source for the second (Jan 14) impeachment vote? which was 117-1. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It's mentioned in this Tribune story. [2] Speaking of which, the Tribune editorial board is probably raising a toast tonight. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The section on his removal from office says he was removed and barred from office by a unanimous vote. As we all know, it was done by two separate votes, as stated in the introduction. This should be fixed in the body of the article. 145.116.9.130 (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. There was one vote to remove him from office and a second to bar him from future offices of honor, profit or trust under the State of Illinois. It is extremely rare for an impeached governor or other office holder to be barred for life from holding future office. I think that shows just how serious this mess truly is for Illinois. Also, I believe from what I have read in the press that both votes were 59-0, although I don't know that absolutely for certain. The entire record should be published on the Illinois Senate proceedings journal pretty quickly. The entire record of the debate, trial, testimony and votes should appear sometime in the very near future on The Illinois Senate Journal Page Website Themoodyblue (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Introduction & impeachment

Observation: About half of the introduction discusses the corruption charges and impeachment directly and much of the rest talks about his lack of popularity. Although certainly this whole spectacle is what is most noteworthy about him this seems non-encyclopedic. First, the corruption charge is a single very short-term event. Second, even if one argues that he deserves to be villified the article should try to be balanced.

--Mcorazao (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

For most people, this might be true. For Blagojevich, he was notable as governor for bringing stalled budgets and bills and getting little done, while being investigated for years. This led to unpopularity. When he did accomplish something major, it was by executive order and it was usually declared unconstitutional by a court later.--Gloriamarie (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Many crimes and other pecadilloes are "short-term events" that become by far the most interesting and noteworthy "accomplishments" of people's careers. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. I am afraid, though, that I do not agree with these atttitudes. The Adolf Hilter article is a good example of an article with a very balanced introduction. It does, of course, mention the more heinous aspects of his life but it does not attempt to try and convict him before the article has even gotten started. And certainly one cannot say that, whatever Blagojevich did, he is as bad as Hitler.
The intro needs to be rewritten.
--Mcorazao (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Name pronunciation is wrong

The audio pronunciation of "Blagojevich" is incorrect. It sounds like his name ends it "it" instead of "ich". The ex-governor says it with a distinctive "ich" sound at the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.82.115 (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Quinn became Governor, at the moment of Blagojevich's conviction

Just so we're all clear, people. Quinn became Governor before taking the gubernatorial oath of office. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Elvis?

There is no mention of his fondness for Elvis. Should this be included? It has been mentioned in various news reports. Twested (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

After being kicked out of office, Blagojevich may have felt all shook up. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. As part of his plea for mercy just before being booted, he should have asked them to don't be cruel, to love him tender, to let him be their teddy bear. But it was now or never, and they said he was nothin' but a hound dog, cryin' all the time; the devil in disguise. The charges stuck like glue, and they returned him to sender. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Bah da, bah da, bah dom. GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Verifiable, but not notable, IMO, I see no point in including it as he's not particularly noted for being an Elvis fan; it would be like mentioning what condiments he likes putting on hot dogs. 24.8.252.164 (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"Mr. Blagojevich"?

Is this aricle serious/ i don't know much about this guy, but this article is disrespectful. Im inclined to assume its simply written by people who don't much like him and ignore it. But someone should write a more balanced and fair article. Some of us aren't here to laugh at people but to learn about them. For example, if he had low approval ratings, then how did he get elected? There would have to be a good reason for those ratings if they happened before the scandal. Also, Im not aware that he has not been convicted, but merely accused, theu he has never been arrested, although he has probably been taken in for questioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is Blagojevich granted an honorific in so many parts of this article? Surely that's entirely out of step with both WP and encyclopedic convention, which is to use surname alone except where cases of confusion might arise? 81.158.1.233 (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point! I move that we globally search and replace. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
"Mr." may be appropriate for the New York Times, but not for wikipedia. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Whether or not you agree with Blagojevich, as a former governor he deserves the respect that the position grants. It's best to show him respect, so that your case is given more thought —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.28.141 (talk) 12:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Respect does not enter into this, it is about proper procedure and policy regarding honorifics. No one will give more or less weight to the article if an honorific is used. It is the factuality of the article that will offer the wieght the article deserves. The former governor was impeached for his activities and therefore was likely striped of his rank and title prior to ending his office. Simply referring to him by his proper surname should suffice. Your thoughtsIlliniGradResearch (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hair

I have heard many commentators and reporters on news analysis programs on the radio and television mention his unusual hair style. Maybe this should be mentioned in the article with sources. --Triadian (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Bar from Future Office

Does anyone have authoritative infomation on the following question -- Can the State of Illinois bar him from future election as a US Representative from an Illinois congressional district or as a US Senator from Illinois? Or would such a ban be a usurpation of the perogative of the US Constitution to be the sole definer of the qualifications for those offices? (Obviously, this is almost purely a theoretical question, as the electorate is highly unlikely to elect him even if they are permitted to do so. Still, there is the precedent of Alcee Hastings, elected to Congress itself after conviction on an impeachment as a Federal judge, although the US Senate did not impose a ban from future Federal office in that case, and under the US Constitution, the US Senate does have the right to impose such a ban in Federal impachment cases)

Unless its explicitly outlawed by the U.S. or Illinois Constitutions (it is not), I would think that the State of Illinois can do this. As far as I know these are state, not federal elections, so state law trumps (unless the Constitution is changed), IANAL though.--IvoShandor (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The US Constitution does set some qualifications for who can run for the US House and the US Senate; however the individual states are permitted to add further qualifications if they so choose, so long as it doesn't contradict those the US Constitution sets. I know of nothing in either the US or Illinois constitutions that prohibit the banning of specific individual people from holding elected offices at the state level (and elections to the US House and US Senate are conducted by the states; though the federal government does have limited regulatory powers as defined by the US Constitution). 24.8.252.164 (talk) 07:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Wow, way to get it exactly wrong. The states have no power to add qualifications. -Rrius (talk) 06:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Since I really cannot edit the page(locked), the ECHL teams had striped and orange unis for his time in prison as a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.106.73.244 (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Earlier comments are correct. State constitutions and local charters are different and have different rules for governance. Kwame Kilpatrick, as part of his punishment, was barred from office for a period of five years in Detriot. Whether he gains another office after the five years have elapsed remains to be seen. It appears as if Mr. Blagojevich has been banned from public office for life, within the state of Illinois. It has not been stated whether he will be ineligible for office in any other State or for federal office. USN1977 (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The Supreme Court has ruled that the states cannot add qualifications to federal offices (for example in its decision on term limits. As a result, Blagojevich can run for federal office in Illinois. -Rrius (talk) 06:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

duplicate article Rod Blagojevich Gubernatorial administration

Rod Blagojevich Gubernatorial administration is nearly a word-for-word duplicate of this article's 2002, 2006 election and Gubernatorial administration sections, and then all the content of Rod Blagojevich controversies after it. Is this a work in progress or am I missing something? Terrierhere (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Since those two pages are virtually duplicates of this article, I think a merge and redirect may be in order. --TommyBoy (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Terrierhere (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I have formally proposed the merger. --TommyBoy (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion on this issue can be found under the "Merger Proposal" section below. --TommyBoy (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Second Serbian American governor?

"...was the second Serbian American to be elected governor of any state of the United States, after George Voinovich of Ohio." What about Michael A. Stepanovich, who was governor of Alaska?--80.133.227.247 (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Alaska was not a state when Michael Anthony Stepovich was governor. He was governor of a U.S. Territory. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see...Thank you.--80.133.227.247 (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Picture

I think now would be a good time to find a new picture for Blago rather than his old congressional photo, preferably one from the recent events of his impeachment. Nite Owl II 22:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Merger Propoasal

Hello. I am 150% for the merger of the three articles into this one.--Never give up! Never surrender! (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree- Rod Blagojevich Gubernatorial administration appears to be a recently-founded page intending to differentiate his administration rather than the person. It uses this article as a basis for the content, and definitely needs work, but should remain. As for Rod Blagojevich controversies, I support the merge. a little insignificant (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
On second thought, support. a little insignificant (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree. The other two articles should be merged into this one. B00P (talk) 08:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Support in part and Oppose in part The controversies should certainly be merged into this one. It is 28KB and this one is 35KB. By the time they are merged and overlap is eliminated, this would probably be 50KB. I think his gubinatorial article should remain separate. I think it is fairly normal for bios to have separate articles for different elective offices. This one is 45KB. I don't think it can effectively be merged back in.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Why has discussion stopped and no action taken place? NickDupree (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I have responded to User:NickDupree's question on his UserTalk page. --TommyBoy (talk) 01:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Support on Administration and Oppose on controversies - It appears to me that the three articles need three things done. First, make sure there is nothing in Administration that doesn't appear in one of the others, then make it a section redirect to the "Administration" section here. The Administration article seems to just repeat what is written here. The ultimate test for content forking is whether the article would be too long or give undue weight to a part of the subject without doing it. With the elections and controversies being forked already, I don't think it would be too long, and the description of his six years in office, when that is the office he is best known for having, is not given undue weight. Next, the controversy article needs to include the Children's Memorial story in with the federal corruption arrest. It was part of the affidavit filed at the time of his arrest and is in the federal indictment. It makes no sense to handle it separately. Once that is done, the "Controversies" section here needs to be trimmed and altered to reflect the Children's Memorial change. Once the "Controversies" section is in better summary style, this article and the controversies will be better off. -Rrius (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I absolutely support merging. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The merger proposal has been executed with respect to the Rod Blagojevich Gubernatorial administration article, but failed with respect to the Rod Blagojevich controversies article. --TommyBoy (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Patti Blagojevich Page

I suggest Patti Blagojevich's page be re-created. Her page takes up space on Rod's page. It would just be a good idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.230.69 (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC) 

I agree, I was looking for her page and was redirected here? wtf? --71.107.78.149 (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Book Release

I added book release information as well as three citations regarding the release from two third party sources )Chicago Trib, and UPI) while citing the book directly without comment on the book other than its release, in line with NPOV. Comments?

IlliniGradResearch (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Did he do it?

Do you think he really did it? He claims that the prosecuters won't release the tapes and stuff so maybe there's something fishy going on :S 78.82.140.213 (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see the Rod Blagojevich corruption charges page the last time I was here (only this article) but this is what I'm wondering about:
Blagojevich insisted that unlike Richard Nixon who did not want his tapes heard during Watergate, he wanted his tapes heard in order to reveal the whole truth, which he felt would vindicate him.[118]
On January 27, Federal prosecutors played four recordings from among the thousands of intercepted calls from Blagojevich's home and campaign offices. Although lawmakers trying to build an impeachment case wanted to hear more, the prosecutors feared further collaboration could jeopardize the criminal case against the governor.
It just seems very odd to me. 78.82.140.213 (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing odd about it. Until the preliminary hearing, those tapes are evidence and cannot be released. He knows that and he's posturing. He's hoping that the average person will not understand the legal process and do as you are doing, which is to question the prosecution's validity without ever stepping in a courtroom. In other words he is committing 'dirty politics', and quite frankly in my humble opinion, he's pretty horrible at it. And yes, his honorific is stripped immediately after being impeached. You don't get to keep the 'honor' after being impeached, because you have no honor. Seriously, how is this hard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.112.64 (talk) 10:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

What does it matter? Illinois REALLY is the Land of Corruption! I should know, lived here for 34 years, and have watched as this state has become more and more and more and more corrupt!!! Take it from someone who's lived here that long, do NOT move to Illinois, because all this corruption will eventually come back on this sate, and when that happens... well, I don't want to be here when it does!!! I hope Edgar runs for governor, and cleans up this HORRIBLE state!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.206.21.58 (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Voinovich is not a Serb

George Victor Voinovich was born in in Cleveland, Ohio, by Serbian father and Slovene mother. So, does it make him a Sebian? Does he consider himself a Serb? If you can't find any reliable source proving that he's Serbian, then it's a POV and I suggest you to remove it. Just because some person has Serbian roots, doesn't make it a Serbian. He was born in a different continent in Slovenian-Serbian marriage. His first name is George, and I don't know anyone from the Southeastern Europe who is named George. By the same logic he could be Slovenian. But he isn't.

"George" is a Greek name, from "ghiorghios", meaning "farmer". Greece is in southeastern Europe. "Ghiorghi", "Georg", and "Gyorgyi" are all variations on the name. And so what if you don't know anyone from SE Europe with that name? Does that mean it's never ever happened? 24.166.235.75 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC).

Regardless of his parents national origin, he is 100% American. Besides that, in this country, your name doesn't define you, your upbringing does. He's not identified as a Serbian-American in his hometown -- he grew up Catholic in a heavily Slovenian neighborhood, and was a proud 'son' of the Slovenian-American community there. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

"George", i.e. "Đorđe" (pronounced "georgeh"), is a very frequent Serbian name, as is Viktor. In some ways its the Serbian name. The name of the Serbian royal Karađorđević family is derived from it. George Victor Voinovich, i.e. Đorđe Viktor Vojnović, is a Serbian American. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I guess you didn't bother to read the comment before you responded with the same mantra. The origin of his name is neither here nor there. He's half-Serbian and half-Slovenian, so no, he's not technically a Serbian-American... unlike Blago, Voinovich is of mixed parentage, and to call him a Serbian American is both misleading and inaccurate. And furthermore, the names 'George' and 'Victor' are also present in Slovenia (as well as a host of other nations... and most importantly for our purposes, one of those nations is America)... and they both pre-date the establishment of either Balkan nation, so what is your point? Since you obviously aren't familiar with Cleveland, or its natives, you really aren't in much of a postion to talk about what or who Mr. Voinovich is or isn't. He's the best known face in the Cleveland's Slovenian community (and that's the largest such community outside of Slovenia). This isn't the stage for a Balkan-nationalism argument, and anyway, this article has nothing whatsoever to do with George Voinovich, and his name doesn't belong on the article page. Feel free to talk about Blago all you like though.Ryecatcher773 (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
How about you take it easy, eh? This is my first post here, I've half a mind to report you on Wikiquette. I'm just trying to help with local insight into Serbian names. His ancestry is irrelevant, we're talking about his ethnicity. The surname "Vojnović" is also just about as Serbian as it gets. Most Serbo-Croatian surnames are indistinguishable among themselves (i.e. you usually can't tell whether its a Serbian or a Bosniak or a Croatian name), but Vojnović is one of the few exceptions. The guy's a Serb. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 06:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, you've missed the point. No one is denying 'Voinovich' is a Serbian name by origin. No one is denying he is half-Serbian. You're not making the distinction between appearance and actuality. While the name Voinovich is Serbian, 'the guy' is not a Serb -- he's an American, born and raised. In America, if you were born here (see: the 14th Ammendment) -- not to mention raised here, you are an American. It isn't helpful to anyone who doesn't know anything about the man otherwise (as you're claiming to 'help' with insight), when you keep calling him a Serb (which, being an American by birth he is technically not) and meanwhile completely overlook the fact that his mother is Slovenian -- which, since you are delineating between 'ancestry' and 'ethnicity' he is also ethnically a Slovene. Despite his Serbian name, in his hometown of Cleveland, Ohio, he is 'ethnically' identified with the community of his Slovenian mother.Ryecatcher773 (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh, American nationalism, one of the main causes of wasted posts on Wiki. In short: nobody is contesting that he is American. An African American - is American. A German American is an American, and a Scotch-Irish American (such as J. David Salinger) is also an American. This person is Serbian American by ethnicity, or perhaps Yugoslav American if that ethnicity is a mix of Slovene and Serbian. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 18:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
It isn't American nationalism at all, it's just the fact of the matter. And if anyone is being nationalistic, it's you -- which wouldn't be such a big deal, except that this particular issue is extremely sensitive to anyone who lost loved ones in any of the several former Yugoslavian nations that suffered under ethnic cleansing during the 90's... much of which was propagated by [Slobodan Milosevic]] and the likes of Arkan). People died over whether or not they were a Serb, Bosniak, Croat or Albanian Kosovar, so it is certainly important not to gloss over someone's complete ethnicity in this case.
The bottom line is (and what I'm calling you out on), what you are exhibiting in your claim that he is a Serb sounds alarmingly like of ethnic supremacy. And to say 'Yugoslavian' instead of acknowledging his Slovenian side is sweeping the issue under the rug. Slovenia was an autonomous nation before it was absorbed into the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, which was founded by Serbs in 1918. And probably most important for the purposes of the contextual reality of any article involving George Voinovich (and the main point about him being a native-born American) is that you are completely ignoring the fact (which would be impossible for you to understand being several thousand miles away from Cleveland, Ohio) is that George Voinovich isn't even culturally a Serb. He's not even Orthodox -- his Slovene mother raised him Catholic, and he grew up in a Slovenian-American neighborhood... and by the way, you don't even have your facts complete on Salinger either -- his father was a Polish Jew, and he was raised culturally as a Jew. In America, your last name isn't as important to your identity as it is in the Balkans. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, since you went there, I would advise you not to try to generalize people from ex-Yugoslavia especially in such an uninformed way. Few people actually lost someone, the combined casualties from all the wars amount altogether to some 100,000 people (in a country of 25,000,000), the vast majority of which were soldiers. Additionally, due to the ravages brought on by primitive nationalist sentiment, you may find that the next generation ex-Yugoslav may very well be fervently anti-nationalist, and may not care in the slightest about the petty insignificant differences between Serbs, Croats, and Bosniaks. I am a Croat, and I'm here trying to show that this person is, to be precise, an American citizen of Yugoslav (or Serbian-Slovene) ethnicity. (The Catcher in the Rye is a boring, shallow book with undeveloped characters, appealing to the average young person due to his/her superficial philosophical grounding and very shoal approach to literature.)
In the end it does not matter. To put it in a sentence: this person, an American, is either a Serbian American or a Serbian-Slovene American or a Yugoslav American. Take your pick, as it were. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You are an exceedingly enlightened individual. Your literary criticism is also appreciated. Good luck in all of your future endeavors. You should come check out the US someday. You might become more of an expert on that, too. Have a nice day. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As you should've guessed: been there, done that. Already am an expert. So far as I've heard the latest in the US is that Blago got a hung (bought-and-payed-for) jury on everything but lying to the FBI, and FOX News is claiming that "terrorists" are paying for a mosque on ground zero to organize their attacks on all things pink and fluffy (FOX just hasn't figured out that the guy paying for the mosque is actually one of their owners :), etc.
Have a terrific day yourself. :) --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


Ah...DIRECTOR, it's you again. Yes, right after you lose your argument, threats for reporting and banning start :))) So called Croat who is well known communist sympathizer and pro-Serbian from the post you give on the articles on Yugoslavia, Serbia, Bosnia&Herzegovina, Slovenia and Croatia. It's incredible how people like you do not try to argue if Blagojevic is a Serb or not, even if he's much more of a Serb than Voinovich...maybe because he's not the shiniest example of Serbs? :)))) But in the end, WHERE are sources DIRECTOR? You usually have an outstanding ability to make an article as much communist or Serbian POV as possible, without breaking wikipedia rules (most of the time). You know, tons of quotes from only one side with one opinion, trashing background of the subject with unrelated pro-communist trash and adding gross, hidden, communist POV. Most of the articles are much more better now, but there are some where great DIRECTOR influence (garbage) still shines...like defending war criminal and dictator: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josip_Broz_Tito At least there are other wikipedians who are neither communists or radical Serbs, so all that garbage-articles you almost ruined with your communist POV are much more better today. Well, most of them..I am still disgusted by few articles defending communist war criminals and justifying (almost praising) genocides. It's strange to see you lose.. And that's ladies and gentleman, why everyone wants to get away from Serbs for an entire century (since they started first world war and forced other nations in first Yugoslavia which was Serbian dominated monarchy). P.S. don't worry, there are many likes of me (your own words from long ago)...at least 50 million people. You know, all nations that were once part of now dead(thank God) Yugoslavia, even many Serbs (believe it or not), who despise communism and war criminal Tito. And there were many, many loses in the war...and not all sides were equally guilty (like many Serbs or communists would like to think). Everyone, feel free to delete my comment, I couldn't resist, but to laugh at this communist Serb from Croatia(again). :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseeker1412 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

His correct first name is "Rod", not Milorad

Rod Blagojevich's first name is "Rod" & only "Rod" is on his birth certificate. His father wanted "Milorad", but his mother insisted on simple American name for both of her sons. But the father & the Serbian relatives always called him "Milorad". For more on this with specific citations, see Eric Zorn's Chicago Tribune blog item http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2010/08/milorad.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.92.192 (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Quick question

Should we link "lying to the FBI" to Making false statements - is that what he was found guilty of? Probably readers will want to learn more about the exact crime committed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Accurate according to this source.   Thorncrag  21:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 Done It would be nice to see th e"controversies" section integrated into the appropriate sections of the article. It also seems that that section needs better sourcing. Freakshownerd (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

General right wing bias

Right wing POV pushers are plauging this article and attempting to use it to attack all Democrats. there are glib insults toward the respondent in this areicle that do not meet the standard of an encyclopedia and are ridiculas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.38.173.3 (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Really need a new picture

Honestly, don't we have a picture of Blagojevich to use for his main image besides his congressional photo? - 108.82.70.231 (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I completely agree.Mpgviolist (talk) 03:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
What if we take the photo of him at ISU under the "Gubernatorial administration" section, resize it, and use it as the main photo? I can't find an official governor's photo of him anywhere.--Geno the Great (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Pistachios Commercial

Should the commercial he was featured in for Pistachios be added to this page? If for no other reason than it features a tagline to Rod doing it "innocently?"

Here's a HuffPost article on the old commercial. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/01/rod-blagojevich-pitches-p_n_777335.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3daysaside (talk • contribs) 16:50, 3 January 2012‎ (UTC)

This article seems to lack some objectivity

This article opens by mentioning mr. Blagojevich is a convicted felon. Similar articles of famous people who were convicted of crime(s) like Wesley Snipes, O.J. Simpson, Li'l Kim have the occupations that made them famous mentioned first and the part about their convictions and sentences mentioned later.

I therefore suggest that the intro to the article be rewritten to better reflect mr. Blagojevich's political career and mention the conviction and the facts of that later. Robin.lemstra (talk) 13:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I updated the opening paragraph by moving the part about 'being a convicted felon' to the end.
I still find the 2nd paragraph more appropriate for later in the article though. Robin.lemstra (talk) 09:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
I moved around the 2nd and the 3rd paragraph in the intro. I think this is not only more objective, it also flows better chronologically. Robin.lemstra (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Approval Ratings Bias

Citations on approval ratings should either included sources others than the notoriously right leaning and inaccurate Rasmussen Reports or the section should be removed altogether Cosand (talk) 16:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The entire page needs to be scrapped and rewritten

This page is a train wreck and an assault on accuracy and objectivity. It is full of unsubstantiated and non cited speculation, tabloid rumor, and biased personal commentary, much of which is categorically absurd. Just a few of many examples

  • Soon after taking office in 2003, Blagojevich continued support of a moratorium on executions of death row inmates, even though no such executions are likely to occur for years (according to who?)
  • Blagojevich's lieutenant governor was Pat Quinn, with whom he had a sour relationship since taking office (Non cited speculation)
  • Blagojevich was often at odds with members of both parties in the state legislature who began to see him as "disengaged" and "dictatoria" (citation from an op-ed)
  • Approval ratings (The entire section is taken from a single right leaning pollster noted for their bias and inaccuracy)
  • Blagojevich's position in regard to guns (Which position?) was criticized by the Illinois State Rifle Association: "Rod should spend more time catching criminals and less time controlling guns." His support for making gun laws of Illinois more restrictive earned him the ire of gun owners' groups. (Non cited and bias commentary, not to mention having no encyclopedic value)
  • During the course of his political career, Blagojevich was involved in a number of controversies including at least a dozen separate federal investigations; the Tony Rezko indictment and trial; feuds with his father-in-law; contested state appointments; his residency, commute, and work hours; and allegedly withholding state funds from the Children's Memorial Hospital in Chicago. (Zero citation indicating most the items were "controversies", weasel words "At least a dozen", and the the reference to the Tony Rezko was failed Republican campaign fodder, never a legitimate public "controversy")

His arrest and conviction should be condensed in to a single section at the end of the page, as is seen on scores of other pages of public figures who have been convicted of crimes. It is my wish to edit the page and keep the accurate information found in the first third of the page, delete the non cited fabrications and comments, and clarify and correct the errors in the last two thirds, complete with verifiable citations. This will mean major edits to the page so at this time, I formally seek consensus on the OK for the re write and edit Cosand (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Since there has been no objection voiced to my proposal for a major overhaul, I have started the editing process and have removed duplication, Non cited material and bias unsubstantiated commentary Cosand (talk) 05:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

  • I would think more than 48 hours are needed before deleting most of the article. I noticed this on the recent changes page. Frankly, I am tempted to roll back your massive deletions if no one else does so first. Jusdafax 06:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you may want to wait until I am finished. I actually "deleted" very little, and did a lot more moving than deletion. Did we really need THREE accounts of his conviction in the same article? Commentary from the Illinois NRA, and weasle words like "at least a dozen" and "Tried to enact" as opposed to "proposed" (I think not) The page now also makes chronological sense as opposed to the way it was previously scattered. Not to mention THIS...Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page...."Through his father-in-law's connections"...ZERO evidence, citation and borderline libelous Cosand (talk) 06:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

As was suggested at the top of the talk page, I also plan to compose a section on the controversy surrounding the severity of his sentence, to omit this part of the discussion is to render the page incomplete Cosand (talk) 06:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Ok, I will Assume Good Faith. Again, to be frank, several things alarmed me - your briskly worded User page statement (I am in fact a senior editor), your recent block for edit warring, and the massive deletions. However, you began adding material back in, so I took a look at that and decided you were unlikely to be a vandal. The real question in my mind is, to again be frank, whether or not you have a POV in favor of the subject. It seems quite possible from looking at your edit history that you are from Illinois, but that may not be important. Please note that I did not have this article watchlisted until now, and have a reasonably NPOV view of it. (I see I added a WikiProject Criminal Biography template last year to this page.) I do notice that the article currently fails to note the subject is in federal prison in the lede paragraph. Regarding the new section regarding the "severity" of the sentence, I will watch that with interest also, as the subject was caught on tape trying to sell a Senate seat. Allow me to warn against the wholesale deletion of accurately sourced material per WP:RS. Best wishes, Jusdafax 07:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem, and thank you. I welcome your scrutiny, suggestions and help. I hope that you take my user page statement in the constructive way it is intended. As stated, it is my concern that what has become, for better or worse, the most widely used reference on the planet, is sometimes rendered sterile buy rule overkill, and while on one hand causal editors are encouraged to be "bold", they are slapped on the wrist and marginalized when they are. Again, I look forward to your critique of my addition regarding the dubious evidence and the severity of the sentence at the triel. Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosand (talk • contribs) 07:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Revamped the page

As promised, I made extensive changes to the page, consolidated the legal issues at the end, deleted the tabloid content and weasel words, and added some balance to the page, I fell that this is now a bio page as opposed to the character assassination page it had been Cosand (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Poor quality references

There are some citations in this article which could be improved. For starters, the reference tag named "2002bio" is used heavily in the article. It's not even remotely close to what a proper academic citation should look like. It's more like a really bad clue. I've copied it below and replaced the angular brackets in the Wiki code with parenthesis for readability.

(ref name="2002bio")Copley News Service. Three Democrats battle for party's nomination for governor. March 9, 2002.(/ref)

Can someone please fix this reference if they know more about it?

DeeplyInspired52 (talk) 22:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Appeals section

The section on Patrick Fitzgerald is given undue weight and not appropriate for the article. This article is about Blagojevich, not Fitzgerald nor Scooter Libby and does not belong here. I propose that the section is removed. Cheerio. HoundofBaskersville (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Rod Blagojevich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Rod Blagojevich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

This page needs a critique of the Federal Trial, analyzing the lack of prosecutorial evidence and examining any possible prosecutorial misconduct. Certainly readers will wonder how this politically-motivated trial could have proceeded without any evidence of misconduct by Blago, and why the prosecutors did not face charges or disciplinary action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.51.122.18 (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. IMO the travesty which was the prosecution and absurdity of the sentence exceeds the relevance of the charges themselves Cosand (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I have essentially overhauled the page and it is now an actual informational article on the person in question as opposed to the partisan political hack job it was. The material is in proper chronological order, weasel words, bias and talk radio tabloid gossip has been removed, and the information on the Governors legal problems are balanced and complete. Cosand (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rod Blagojevich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Rod Blagojevich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Rod Blagojevich. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Potential pardon

Mention might be made that at the end of his presidency Obama reviewed his case and declined pardon or commute his sentence, and that Trump (just today) announced he would consider pardoning Blagojevich. SecretName101 (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Shoeshiner

As a perusal of this article suggests, Blagojevich was a shoeshiner at a young age. The article on shoeshiners shows many other prominent people have been shoeshiners. So, why remove the category? It isn't an insult. Hoktiwe (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Hoktiwe: Because it is trivia and not a defining characteristic of this subject, nor of other subjects where you have been adding the category. See WP:CATDEF (as I indicated in my edit summary when I reverted your edit). General Ization Talk 15:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@General Ization: I appreciate the clarification, but shoeshiner is rarely a person's defining characterestic, being something commonly done at a young age. A perusal of the shoeshining category shows that others in the category did not necessarily do the job as the thing they are known for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoktiwe (talk • contribs) 15:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@Hoktiwe: Exactly right. As something that is "rarely a person's defining characterestic", it is not something that should be applied as a category to people other than those for whom it is defining. I'm not concerned about the others in the category right now, nor should you be. We are discussing the articles you added to the category. General Ization Talk 15:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@General Ization: Ah, I see. Thanks. I'd like to learn more about this, as I mostly make category additions, a legacy of being a librarian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoktiwe (talk • contribs) 16:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Please see and click on the words highlighted in blue (defining characteristic, WP:CATDEF) in my comment above, which will take you to explanations of these Wikipedia concepts and guidelines. Also, please always sign your comments on any Talk page by typing four tildes (~~~~) after them. General Ization Talk
@Hoktiwe: Please also see the articles now included in Category:Shoeshiners and how their having performed as a shoeshiner is or was defining with regard to each of the subjects. General Ization Talk 17:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Please add to his page ..

See also

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rod_Blagojevich/Archive_2&oldid=1145699954"