is not positive. There is something ungenuine in the way he is coming across. I know he supposedly has a great reputation for integrity. But something is not right here.

I have an uneasy feeling. As a longtime counselor, I go on intuition. 

He should have turned down this appointment. That would have impressed me...Patrick Frank

by Patrick Frank (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 14 comments) on Friday, Jan 9, 2009 at 10:17:56 AM

  (0+)

I agree, Burris does give one an uneasy feeling in the gut. But...........

His past indicates an upright citizen with little in way of negative dealings.  That in itself makes him an outcast for the Senate.

It is true he has not won any statewide election in Illinois, making him a liability in the future for the Democrats.

However, none of these things should exclude him from the post he was legally appointed.  If the law means anything he should be seated. The fact he may not win in 2010 should have absolutely no bearing on this decision. 

by Dennis Kaiser (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 35 diaries, 730 comments [137 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 9, 2009 at 10:37:21 AM

  (0+)

Why is everything about getting reelected?  That is a big part of what is wrong with our government.  They spend most of their time campaigning when their reelection is a virtual certainty anyway (95%).

I can guarantee you that if the reelection rate in the Senate/House was 50% rather than 95% we would not have a mostly disfunctional Congress.

And this is because the electeds would actually have to represent their constitutents in order to keep their job which they don't do now.

Let Burris be a Senator.  If the people do not reelect him, so be it.  That is how our system is supposed to work.

If all that matters is re-electibility (read how much money they can raise), then let's just give them jobs for life.  Oops, that is what they already have.

by John F Howes CPA (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 28 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 9, 2009 at 11:29:33 AM

  (0+)

I was thinking the same thing, Rob.  We know Blagojevich can be bought.  We knew he would appoint a Democrat to replace Obama.  We know a strong Democrat would have a huge incumbency advantage in the 2010 election.   

So who would have the interest and resources to buy a weak Democrat for an interim appointment?  The Republicans, that’s who. 

We do not know what form that payment would take.  If it’s anything more than small bills in a shopping bag, it would surely be traceable.  So I suspect there is a promise of generous future rewards for Blago after he leaves office … maybe with some earnest money now in a shopping bag. 

I agree with Patrick, that Roland Burris should have turned down the appointment.  But that is not something the egocentric Mr. Burris would do.  It is not in his nature. 

And ‘egocentric’ is putting it mildly.  He has claimed that were it not for him, the “Trail Blazer,” there would be no Jesse Jackson.  There would be no Barack Obama.  There’s an ego for you.   

The man already has erected a mausoleum to himself, complete with his resume’ engraved on three large granite panels (and yes, there is plenty of room to add “United States Senator”).  There was no way Roland Burris would decline the nomination, however tainted it might be. 

Let’s see where Blago lands when he leaves office.  Then it might be a little easier to follow the money.

by Richard Wise (35 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 88 comments [2 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 9, 2009 at 10:46:19 AM

  (0+)

I believe you are on target Rob. This whole Burris thing has republican footprints all over it.

One has to ask "who benefits from this manuever". Bingo, repubs. That question is a good one to ask regardless of the topic when it comes to poltiicans and politcal moves.

What puzzles me is why ppl still thunk our congress has any authority on judgment call regarding ethics and legalities. Congress members(the most of them) are the most immoral and unethical ppl I can know of, but they keep telling us they are the authorities on these morals.

I like Burris as far as a politician, but I have a feeling  he ain't corrupt enough to serve IN OUR USA Government!

Another noteworthy mention is that BY LAW< Blago has every right to appoint this seat. BY law and Harry found this out and thus, the reason for his change of heart. Blago isn't half as dirty as the webbed group of repubs and Abramoff, nor the US ATTY office illegal doings.

by shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 592 comments [98 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 9, 2009 at 12:09:40 PM

  (0+)

Illinois state law requires the Governor's appointment to the Senate to be certified by the Secretary of State of Illinois. Until the Secretary of State of Illinois does that, he is not qualified to serve in the Senate. The Senate would be violating federal law if they seat Mr. Burris. Of course, federal law is the least of the worries of party politicians. They have done whatever they wanted to do and called it federal law for two hundred years, since they took over the government in the election of 1800. My prediction is that they will base their decision on what would happen in a European socialist government. A mere secretary at state level would not be able to stop part of a social movement, so Mr. Burris will be invited in without his certification. This will be as the governor planned, strengthening his position in his upcoming impeachment troubles. His impeachment will be similar to President Clinton's. Democrats will go through the motions and language of impeachment, concluding at last that the Governor was bad, but not that bad, and will leave him in office. It is like watching a dramatic play after reading the book. You already know the ending. Federal prosecutors do not appear to have a strong enough case against the Governor to convict him in court. He will claim he was just speaking allegorically. Unless they can prove money changed hands, it is all just Democratic Party politics, and the matter is as good as over. Which leads us to the state of the state of Illinois. You could take a skid row bum off of the streets of Chicago, put him in the governor's office, make him governor, and you would have a better governor than the incumbent because he would not know as much about Democratic Party politics in Illinois.

by Robert Winn (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 38 comments) on Friday, Jan 9, 2009 at 2:11:33 PM

  (0+)

To oppose the seating of Burris is to oppose the U.S. Constitution, itself.  I would have preferred Jackson or Davis, until today.  

Today, Danny Davis and Jesse Jackson, Jr., voted to endorse ethnic cleansing and blowing up children in Palestine.   Schakowsky also voted for the terrorism.  Burris could not do any worse. 

My great-grandparents died in Hitler's death camps and I know that the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people is wrong.  Why don't any of those who were on the list for U.S. Senate have a conscience?  Why kind of human being would vote for today's Roll Call 10 vote? Shame on the members of Congress who support genocide and ethnic cleansing.  They all owe an apology to humanity.

Blagojevich hasn't been convicted, yet.  What country are we living in where Democrats view other Democrats as guilty until proven innocent?  Blagojevich is a jerk.  But the jerks of Illinois elected him.  Maybe they should get brain transplants before they vote in primaries, next time. Maybe the voting age should be lowered so a larger percentage of voters still have their brains.

by Zan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments) on Friday, Jan 9, 2009 at 2:14:26 PM

  (0+)

The people of Illinois don't deserve to have two senators.

Any polity that continously returns politicians that are corrupt on the level of Blajoevich and many others in that state, and whose citizens think it is cool to have morons running their government, and take a local pride in that fact, should lose their representation.

Maybe if they were a federal enclave like DC for a few election cycles they would get there act together!

Louisiana is another civic dump where people think they are distinguished because they cannot elect an honest politician. And if NY goes with Caroline, they should be put on probation........... 

by Richard Hirschhorn (25 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 48 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 9, 2009 at 2:24:23 PM

  (0+)

I wouldn't say this absolutely has GOP fingerprints on it, but I've no doubt the thing you suggest  happens all the time.

To avoid the scenario of a weakened Democratic position in 2010, why didn't the DNC put more pressure on Illinios to move the impeachment of Blagojevich quickly?  As it stands, Reid's argument that any appointment by him is "tainted" is legally lame.  He's the governor, he has the legal authority.  He hasn't been convicted, yet, of any crime.

The Blago thing is weird.  Knowing he was under investigation, it's almost as if he wanted to be caught.  Yet what was heard on the wire tap isn't really a smoking gun, he didn't get caught actually selling the seat.  It isn't a "slam dunk" prosecution.  Fitzgerald apparently has things that are, though I don't know what.

It would indeed be interesting if the impeachment now moved along and the successor tried to void the appointment.  In a way it would be like Andrew Johnson's attempt to void an appointment of Lincoln's, which led to *his* impeachment.

by Maxwell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 409 comments [85 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:13:54 PM

  (0+)

Reid was an utter disaster as a Senate Majority Leader....

He was the worst of the Dem Quisling traitors who were completely beholden to the bush mob, allowing the Law to be broken with impunity.

If he is against someone it is probably for reasons that we don't even know about... Like that perhaps the person is not "vetted", not controlled, not "reliable".... Someone who could use the power of their Senate seat to "cause trouble"... Like Paul Wellstone did before his tragic death.

Reid was taped on TV local news right before the Democratic Presidential Primary MSNBC debate; supporting G.E. / NBC"S illegal black-balling of Dennis Kucinich from the debate... His sneering, hateful manner towards Rep. Kucinich in that interview showed the world what he is really all about.

Reid's state of Nevada is burdened with being the depository for the nation's nuclear waste... Despite clear evidence that there are very good alternatives to treat nuclear waste to remove the radioactivity... As China is doing now and Canada is now looking at. This is by using Hydroxy gas flame (H and O created by disassociating water), which removes over 90% of the radioactivity... Also experiments with LENR (cold fusion) show exactly the same results. There is little question that Reid is aware of the treatments... He ignores them and instead took the deal to stick his own state with the waste.

If someone should be impeached here (besides of course the bush gang lol), it should be him. At the very least, the Democrat Senators choosing him for another term as SML would be insane. His kowtowing to bush has proven he can't be trusted, he has no gravitas, and he cannot even control his own despising hatred of our leading Progressives on TV. 

by Steve Windisch (jibbguy) (17 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 360 comments [54 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Jan 9, 2009 at 3:32:27 PM

  (0+)

Kudos to Jesse White for refusing to certify the Roland Burris Senate appointment. And 100% support to President-elect Obama, Harry Reid and all Senate members who oppose seating Burris. This appointment is a travesty by our national disgrace of a governor.

All the news reports I have seen and heard have said that this flap is not about Mr. Burris, a respected, veteran public servant. But perhaps in part, it should be.

As reported in the Chicago Sun-Times, Burris was the governor's second choice. Danny Davis was contacted first. Assuming he did not wish to bear the Blagoyevich taint or anticipated a Senate showdown, Davis wisely declined. It was also reported that all of the other candidates save one–Mr. Burris--withdrew their hats from the ring. So why hasn't Burris distanced himself from the Guv? Could it be because the Guv and Burris had mutually beneficial financial dealings? Again according to the Sun-Times article, businesses controlled by Burris contributed mightily to the Guv, and the State rewarded Burris' consulting firm with close to $300k in contracts. Has anyone heard Burris denounce the Guv? Probably not. They are now confederates. Mr. Burris' determined battle to attain this seat is now resembling the Guv's resistance to stepping down–both are stirring up a lot of trouble. Both are ignoring the will of the people of the State of Illinois. Both are thinking only of themselves.

It is highly reprehensible and wrong-headed that Bobby Rush is playing the race card on this one. If in fact Harry Reid did say that Mr. Burris was unelectable, he had good reason and it had nothing to do with Mr. Burris' skin color. What about his age and the fact that he lost the last 3 statewide elections?

Now having seen Mr. Burris make a fool of himself, I can categorically say that he does not represent me nor would I ever want him to. If Mr. Burris truly wanted to work on behalf of the betterment of this state, he would come back to Chicago, and be on the frontlines urging the impeachment of our governor. An Irate Illinoisan

by jsw (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Friday, Jan 9, 2009 at 6:06:41 PM

  (0+)

Over 10% of the people of Illinois voted for Rich Whitney, Green Party candidate for governor in 2006. http://www.whitneyforgov.org/

by wagelaborer (6 articles, 1 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 307 comments [34 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Jan 10, 2009 at 12:41:17 AM

  (0+)

To oppose the seating of Burris is to oppose the U.S. Constitution, itself.  I would have preferred Jackson or Davis, until today.  

Today, Danny Davis and Jesse Jackson, Jr., voted to endorse ethnic cleansing and blowing up children in Palestine.   Schakowsky also voted for the terrorism.  Burris could not do any worse. 

My great-grandparents died in Hitler's death camps and I know that the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people is wrong.  Why don't any of those who were on the list for U.S. Senate have a conscience?  Why kind of human being would vote for today's Roll Call 10 vote? Shame on the members of Congress who support genocide and ethnic cleansing.  They all owe an apology to humanity.

Blagojevich hasn't been convicted, yet.  What country are we living in where Democrats view other Democrats as guilty until proven innocent?  Blagojevich is a jerk.  But the jerks of Illinois elected him.  Maybe they should get brain transplants before they vote in primaries, next time. Maybe the voting age should be lowered so a larger percentage of voters still have their brains.

by Zan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments) on Saturday, Jan 10, 2009 at 1:20:46 AM

  (0+)

Senate seats for sale: Possibly, anyone in power stands to be corrupt. Even with just a few tweakers in my Stepfordia, only the police are the true scumbags "running" the streets. It's sad, at least, most cities have gangs or somebody else they could conceivably hate worse. I look at the concept of our military as nothing more than 'narcs', as well; tho I respect their service much more than a cop's. Cops in my town are a nusance, at best. "Gung-ho" is conditioned/ingrained in youth who end up as the minority who hate on the majority (through state laws, no less).

It just makes me wonder who hated Spitzer and Blagojevich that much to blow the whistle on them. They must have rocked the good-ole-boy-network-boat sufficiently enough to piss off the wrong people. Isn't that the way it works? Otherwise, senators can get away with murder--assuming they have not otherwise ruffled too many feathers along the way.

Rod Blago's being impeached would dictate he's on his way out. Not sure how that works. If a senator or president is impeached, they can't still retain office, can they? (Will see if the inacted impeachment--verbage becomes real action.) Anyway, the ones who get bounced had to have done something to upset a collegue or nemesis. Marion Berry didn't piss off Wall Street. He did get caught on tape with hooker(s) and the rock that came along with (them). It made him a shoe-in for reelection in D.C. What can ya say, crack was big among the D.C. voting pool in the 80s?

I like the idea of Blago as a "double-agent" for the left & right as far as conspiracy theories go, softening a spot for a Repub. Doesn't his being impeached mean his nomination will get overturned, as well? (Likely, they actually have to get rid of him first.) You'd think so, tho Burris would likely be bummed out by it, regardless. If not, it kind of shows how crooked politicians are--if this whole thing doesn't provide yet another splendid example, to begin with. Contraversy seems to follow these high-rolling power players, in each and every case (especially once it hits the media).

The Right finding a way to replace Blago with one of their own seems even closer to the source of who had something to gain, and maybe why things unfolded the way they did. Two birds with one stone, if the right could get two of its own in IL gov't (senator & governor). What's Harry Reid stand to gain from all of this? Some sort of control over the appointed seat for governor, maybe even IL senator. It could be, somehow, he's the real whistle blower, then. I wonder. And, altho my diatribe is slightly redundant by this point, it's somewhat of a juxtapositon if it's even legal for an impeached governor to appoint a new state senator. It could also be seen as pointless to nominate someone who can only questionably continue the party's agenda in the future. Congress is dysfunctional no matter how short or long the rep stays there. How it IS and how it should be are two different things. Senators change eventually, lobbyists' interests don't. Being on tape accepting a deal when it comes to prostitution busts, even w/o the actual money exchange, holds up in court just fine. However, politicians are "professionals" in a league of their own. Nonetheless, 7 of 10 previous IL governors have faced corruption charges; one's still sittin' (in prison, that is). Guilty until proven innocent seems to work rather well for cops, courts, and the American heirarchy, as we know it. ~s IA 50644

by STEVE RISK (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 70 comments) on Saturday, Jan 10, 2009 at 3:11:35 AM

  (0+)