The current Illinois scandal involving Gov. Rod Blagojevich's (D) alleged attempt to sell President-elect Barack Obama's former Senate seat demonstrates we need a constitutional amendment requiring special elections to choose replacement Senators. In the future, there will always be a question about the possibility of some type of secret deal involved in a governor's selection of a new Senator. How can voters be sure that a political or monetary favor was not involved in the selection?

The timing of the election should be sufficient to allow preparation for conducting the election while insuring selection of a replacement as soon as possible..

The only possible exception might be in a general election year if there were four months before the scheduled primary or general election. Conduct of a special election might hamper preparation for these elections. In this case the legislature, rather than the governor, might be allowed to select an interim Senator from among those wishing the office who would serve until the next primary or general election.

Governors like Blagojevich will probably protest limiting their ability to function as power brokers by using Senate appointments to reward political allies or make some money for themselves. Over the last 50 years governors have been the officials most likely to be prosecuted for corruption. Former Maryland Governor Spiro Agnew had to resign as vice president because of corrupt behavior while serving as governor. His successor as Maryland governor, Marvin Mandel, went to jail for corruption. Allegations of corrupt behavior as governor got President Bill Clinton in trouble in the Whitewater scandal.

November 29 will be the 100th anniversary of the birth of the black preacher known as "Mr. Civil Rights". No, I'm not talking about Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., although this man was named after his preacher father.

Rev. Adam Clayton Powell, Jr, was conducting civil rights demonstrations when Dr. King was still a child in the 30's. As assistant pastor at his father's Abyssinian Baptist Church he was in charge of providing food and clothing to those who couldn't afford them, on one occasion he even gave the shoes he was wearing to a man who couldn't find his size in the used clothing.

When he succeeded his father in 1935 it was the largest Protestant congregation in America. The church itself began as a protest against the segregated seating at New York City's First Baptist Church in 1808. A century later the church would call Rev. Adam Clayton Powell, Sr., to be its pastor.

Rev. Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., recognized that providing food and clothing wasn't the best way to help people, so he began an effort to get jobs for blacks. His Coordinating Committee for Employment used mass protests such as his "Don't Buy Where You Can't Work" campaign to persuade various businesses, including Harlem Hospital, to hire more blacks. In 1941 he used a bus boycott to force the hiring of 200 more blacks by the transit authority. In 1941 he integrated the New York City City Council when he was elected as its first black member.

In 1944, he became the first northern black from a state other than Illinois to be elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. Rep. Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., informed Congress: "I'm the first bad Negro they've had in Congress." The other black Representative, William Dawson of Chicago, had avoided challenging the status quo.

Powell promptly integrated the House dining room and barber shop. He persuaded other members of Congress to stop using the n- word on the floor of Congress. He pushed for an end to segregation in the military and the District of Columbia and invented the "Powell Amendment" which, if successfully attached to legislation, prohibited racial discrimination in the use of federal funds. Many years later a similar provision later was adopted to require equal treatment for women.

Later he played a major role in getting President John Kennedy's New Frontier and President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society legislation passed.

Unfortunately, late in his career he succumbed to the temptations to misuse power and was eventually expelled from Congress for corrupt activities. Charles Rangel subsequently replaced him. Powell died on April 4, 1972.

The focus on Dr. Martin Luther King's contributions has obscured the fact that King didn't start the fight to end segregation, he merely carried that fight to the south where the resistance was greatest. Rep. Adam Clayton Powell didn't start the fight either, but he escalated it. As a preacher he demonstrated that public protests and boycotts could change the situation. As a member of Congress he began the difficult process of changing government racial policies. Perhaps the military would have been integrated without his efforts, but his support certainly helped. He forced President Harry Truman, who needed the black vote in the north, and others to deal with the issue of racial discrimination.

The Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education didn't happen in a vacuum. Charles Sumner had argued before the Massachusetts high court that "separate but equal" was impossible a century earlier in the Roberts case which had served as a precedent for the ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson. Society had changed, at least outside the south.

Integration was the coming thing. The nation's principle government organization, the military, had been integrated as had its most popular sport, baseball. Men like Rep. Adam Clayton Powell were demonstrating that they no longer considered racial discrimination acceptable.

I don't have time right now to check to see if any of those newspaper editors and columnists who are calling for Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens to resign are also endorsing Sen. Barack Obama. If any are doing both they are hypocrites and probably partisan or even racist.

Sen. Ted Stevens was recently convicted of not reporting various gifts and home remodeling work from a powerful oil services industry company. Sen. Barack Obama received money from the University of Chicago hospital in the form of a doubling of his wife's salary after he was elected to the Senate and then attempted to circumvent the normal National Institutes of Health grant process by earmarking brain trauma research money for the hospital. He also attempted to earmark $1 million for a hospital expansion project. Ironically, one of the critics of Obama's research earmark was Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens.

Both Senators have accepted favors from those who wish their help in obtaining government benefits. That used to be called bribery. Why should one Senator who has taken a bribe have to resign and another allowed to become president?

Is it because one is older than the other or of a different party or has a different skin color?

We apparently have different standards here in Kansas than they do in Washington. One of the county commissioners who is retiring this year has an auto dealership. When the county purchased vehicles that his dealership bid on he abstained from participating in the decision. Local city council members abstain if a decision impacts their outside interests.

If Sen. Stevens were honest he wouldn't have accepted favors from a company that did business with government. If Sen. Obama were honest he would have stayed out of any decision involving his wife's employer instead of actively attempting to obtain funds for the employer.

Perhaps Obama could be excused on the grounds he is too young to know any better, but if so he is also too young to be president.

We should have the same standards for all Senators regardless of their party affiliations. Young Senators should be held to the same ethical standards as old Senators.

Not all racists are anti-black. Some racists believe that blacks are less capable of being honest and thus shouldn't be held to the same ethical standards. I believe that blacks are just as capable of being honest as whites and should be expected to adhere to the same ethical standards. I don't recall ever working with a black person whom I thought was dishonest, but there were a couple of white law enforcement officers who became crooks.

Norm Crosby suggested during the Jerry Lewis Telethon that this may be the election when voters "hope that nobody wins." He might be right.

Sen. Barack Obama has suggested that Sen. John McCain would be a continuation of the Bush administration. I wish that I thought one of the presidential candidates would be as effective a president as George W. Bush, but I don't. The current set of major party candidates may be the worst since the 19th Century.

I would rather have four more years of George W. Bush or Bill Clinton than have four years of either Barack Obama or John McCain. I would rather bring back Jimmy Carter or George H. W. Bush, in spite of their ages, than have four years of Barack Obama.

Neither George W. Bush nor Bill Clinton will be considered a great president, but both are likely to look good compared to which ever of the major party candidates wins this year's election.

The only ability Obama seems to have is the ability to con people into thinking he can handle the presidency. He has never handled any executive position and doesn't understand the War on Terror or the current economic situation. There is more to being president than just looking good on television. Fred Thompson knows how to act like a president on television, but I wouldn't have voted for him either.

Obama is less experienced than the 20th Century's least experienced president Warren G. Harding. Obama shares Harding's tendency to associate with corrupt individuals. Unlike Harding, Obama may himself be corrupt considering that he attempted to earmark a million dollars to his wife's employer after the employer more than doubled her salary Providing government benefits after receiving money is usually consider bribery.

He cannot understand that regardless of whether or not the U.S. should have invaded Iraq, the country has become a battleground in the War on Terror. If we leave before the Iraqis are able to keep al Qaeda from taking over, Osama bin Laden (OBL), or another al Qaeda leader, will move to Iraq and use its oil revenue to fund al Qaeda's operations.

Obama doesn't understand that if OBL is hiding in Pakistan, OBL is doing so because even if the U.S. kills him there, his successors might be able to use the action to either take over Pakistan or at least gain access to some of its nuclear weapons. Sending troops into Pakistan, as Obama wants to do, could spark a full scale war with Pakistan which not only has nuclear weapons, but also a population nearly as large as the combined populations of World War II Germany and Japan.

OBL is not a Hitler type leader who wants power for himself. OBL believes he is pursuing a cause that is bigger than he is. He believes he might benefit in the afterlife if he became a martyr to that cause.

Obama's comments about the current economic situation are just simplistic partisan nonsense. He fails to recognize that the sitaution results from global economic problems rather than the policies of President Bush.

The basic problem began with a boom during the Clinton administration. Historically, economic booms fuel greed and encourage those with money to feel they cannot lose regardless of the risk. Booms may also encourage politicians to believe that busts are a thing of the past. The boom could have gone bust with the double shock of 9/11 and the Enron collapse, but Bush helped prevent that outcome.

McCain isn't much better on economic matters than Obama, but he does recognize the dangers of tax increases in a bust situation. If I remember standard economic theory taxes should be increased during growth periods to prevent a boom situation and pay off any debts and reduced during recessions to stimulate the economy. Reducing taxes is less expensive than sending out economic stimulous checks.

As an experienced executive McCain won't be distracted by having to learn how to be in charge of an organization. McCain has a better understanding of what can go wrong because of his experience during the savings and loan crisis in the late 80's.

McCain understands the War on Terror and recognizes the need to win on all battlefields. He is unlikely to make the mistake of starting a war with Pakistan.

McCain's weakness is that he doesn't come across as a strong enough leader. I don't expect him to be another Roosevelt (TR or FDR), but he could exhibit the fiestiness of Harry S. Truman. McCain was too laid back during the debates which is one way he is like George W. Bush.

Obama also shares a trait with Bush. Obama decided to follow Bush's example and choose an older vice president who could tell him how to handle foreign policy. If Obama really were as intelligent as his supporters claimed he would have selected a woman for his vice president.

I'm not a fan of Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, but I would concede that she would have been a better choice for vice president than either Sen . Joe Biden or Gov. Sarah Palin. She would have been a better choice for President than Obama or McCain.

Obama's foolish decision to choose Biden allowed McCain to select Palin as his running mate. She's the only bright spot in this dismal election. She is better prepared to be president than Obama. Like Vice President Calvin Coolidge, who became president after Warren G. Harding died,. she was selected for the vice presidency during her first term as governor.

Theodore Roosevelt, who like Palin was 42 at the time he was selected as vice president, was also in his first term as governor. However, he had also briefly been an under secretary of the navy as well as an army colonel (the army equivalent of the rank achieved by McCain in the navy). It's too early to say Palin is another TR, but she has a similar enthusiasm. TR may have been the ultimate presidential maverick.

I wasted another evening Tuesday Oct 7, watching one of the media events ignorant journalists insist on misrepresenting as debates. The candidates repeated the same cliches they used in their first debate.

Once again Sen. Barack Obama demonstrated that he is dangerously ignorant in the area of foreign policy and the War on Terror. Once again journalists ignored his mistake.

Obama. is apparently incapable of understanding the fact that sending military forces into another country without permission is an invasion. It doesn't matter why the troops enter the country, it is still an act of war. The fact that Osama bin Laden might be in Pakistan doesn't mean the U.S. can invade Pakistan without fear of retaliation -- and Pakistan most definitely does have nuclear weapons.

Obama doesn't understand the volatility of the situation in Pakistan. The country has been on the brink of a civil war for many years and its government could fall at any time. An American invasion would force the government to declare war on the U.S. to try to keep the country united. The first action in that war might be a nuclear attack that would wipe out our forces in the Middle East.

Obama's obsession with bin Laden and Afghanistan indicates he doesn't understand the War on Terror. This war isn't a traditional war against an enemy with a geographic base.

Al Qaeda can function without bin Laden and might even benefit if the United States killed or captured him. Others are available to head al Qaeda if something happens to bin Laden.

Death at the hands of the U.S. would make bin Laden a martyr and violent Muslims would rally to avenge his death. Capture of bin Laden would provoke efforts to capture Americans any where in the world in an attempt to obtain hostages to trade for him.

Al Qaeda doesn't have a fixed location that it has to defend. If pushed out of one area, al Qaeda will move to some other area with a large Muslim population. If the U.S. leaves Iraq before the Iraqis are able to maintain stability in the country, al Qaeda will move in and use Iraq as a base.

It is no longer important whether or not Iraq should have become a battleground in the War on Terror. The fact is that Iraq is a battleground in the War on Terror and we cannot afford to turn that battleground over to al Qaeda.

Something interesting happened during the debate while they were talking about Iran. Sen. John McCain made Sen. Barack Obama look foolish.

At about the 1:05 mark into the debate Obama made various attempts to interrupt McCain. Navy Captain McCain got tired of this tactic and basically steamed over Obama and left Obama in McCain's wake, to use a nautical analogy. At one point Obama was sputtering like an old outboard motor.

The situation was similar to the old movie scene of the kid challenging the champ to a fight. The champ uses an arm to hold off the kid who flails his arms without hitting anything.

Obama challenged McCain by interrupting and McCain responded by verbally dominating Obama. McCain talked over Obama so Obama couldn't get a word in until McCain was ready to let him do so.

The spot isn't easy to find because McCain literally almost drowns out Obama. The volume needs to be turned up to hear Obama. I noticed it when I was watching the debate, but didn't write down the time so I had to go back to find it on the copy on my DVR. There may be another point in the debate where something similar happened.

Obama claims he wants to negotiate with the leaders of other countries. The incident with McCain indicates he shouldn't even consider it.

Talking with other leaders isn't just a matter of exchanging ideas. It can involve using the voice to dominate. Obama's sputtering against McCain indicates he isn't ready to deal with leaders who are even better at verbal domination than John McCain.

Obama seems incapable of understanding the basics of international affairs. Serious negotiations are normally handled by people who specialize in negotiating rather than by national leaders. Only dictators attempt to "negotiate" with other leaders because dictators believe they can dominate through the force of their personalities. President John F. Kennedy acted like he was weak when talking to Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev and we nearly had a nuclear war over Soviet missiles in Cuba.

Leaders like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are often master psychologists. They hold their positions because they know how to manipulate people. Obama would have a better chance taking on Michael Jordan one on one in basketball than challenging Ahmadinajad one on one in negotiations.

Obama still doesn't understand that attacking another nation is an act of war. If the United States were to openly send the military into Pakistan or try to bomb Osama bin Laden like Obama wants to do that would be an act of war against the sovereign state of Pakistan and Pakistan would be justified in retaliating. The fact that bin Laden is an international criminal is irrelevant.

Obama also seems incapable of understanding the volatility of the situation in Pakistan. Violent groups are very powerful in Pakistan and could use an open U.S. invasion to gain the necessary support to take over the country and gain control of Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

Obama may not understand that catching bin Laden would not do anything to reduce the treat posed by al Qaeda.

Many Americans believe it was a mistake eight years ago to elect a president who needed to have his vice president give him foreign policy advice. Many of these same Americans now want to repeat that mistake and elect Barack Obama who plans to take foreign policy advice from his vice presidential running mate.

Senator John McCain is correct. He and Senator Barack Obama should return to Washington to do the jobs we are paying them to do instead of participating in a political reality show called a debate. The place for two United States Senators to debate during an economic crisis is on the floor of the United States Senate. They can present their views about what to do and attempt to gain support from their fellow Senators.

Someone who cannot demonstrate leadership as a Senator will not be able to do so as President.

They can participate in one of those debates anytime. At present their responsibility is to take care of the business (TCB) they being paid to take care of as United States Senators. If Obama didn't want to continue being a Senator while he ran for president he should have done the honorable thing and resigned like Bob Dole did when he ran for president in 1996.

Obama doesn't want to TCB in the Senate. He prefers being a celebrity who goes around making speeches to adoring crowds because he likes to hear himself talk.

Would you promote someone who spends all his time talking about what he would do if promoted instead of taking care of business in his current job? Getting legislation through Congress is one of the president's most important jobs. Appearing on talk shows isn't.

Does Obama want to merely talk about some vague change or does he actually want to produce changes? Perhaps Obama doesn't want to return to the Senate to do his job because he has done such a lousy job as Senator.

If Obama wants to play the spoiled brat who has to have his way about a debate, perhaps McCain's running mate Gov. Sarah Palin can stand in for McCain while McCain TCB's in the Senate.