Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Blagojevich, Burris and More Problems for Illinois Dems

Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's decision to appoint former state attorney general Roland Burris to the Senate seat being vacated by President-elect Barack Obama further complicates an already difficult situation for state and national Democrats.

Blagojevich has been operating under the cloud of scandal for the past month -- since he was arrested following a series of wiretaps that seemed to show he was seeking to sell Obama's Senate seat to the highest bidder.

Before Christmas, Blagojevich made clear he had no plans to step down and insisted he was innocent of the corruption charges against him. He had not made any public statement regarding the appointment prior to his announcement this afternoon in Chicago to choose Burris.

While Blagojevich is within his powers as governor to appoint Burris, early signs from Senate Democrats, who have control over who gets seated, are that any appointment by Blagojevich is a non-starter.

"He will not be seated," predicted one well-connected Democratic source.

Regardless of what Senate Democrats do, Blagojevich has forced the ball into their court by naming Burris.

Burris, the first African-American elected statewide in Illinois, is a well-known and credible politician. He is best known for his three straight unsuccessful runs for governor in 1994, 1998 and 2002; in that final race, Burris won the endorsement of Obama, then a state senator, but lost to -- you guessed it -- Blagojevich.

Rejecting Burris out of hand -- as Senate Democrats indicated they would do in a letter to Blagojevich today -- could create problems. While those close to Senate strategists insist that the refusal to seat Burris has nothing to do with him and everything to do with Blagojevich, turning down a black former elected official to replace the lone black senator might not sit well in some circles.

Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), who attended the press conference with Blagojevich and Burris, praised the governor's decision and said it was an answer to his prayers. Rush warned voters (and the media) not to "hang" or "lynch" Burris simply because he had been picked by Blagojevich -- seemingly injecting a racial element to the pick. Rush also said that while Senate Democrats have said they will not seat Burris, he would be surprised if any of them would go on the record in opposition to Blagojevich's selection.

The efforts to block the seating of Burris got a major boost late this afternoon when Obama, still on vacation in Hawaii, voiced support for his former Senate colleagues.

"Roland Burris is a good man and a fine public servant, but the Senate Democrats made it clear weeks ago that they cannot accept an appointment made by a governor who is accused of selling this very Senate seat," Obama said in a statement. "I agree with their decision, and it is extremely disappointing that Governor Blagojevich has chosen to ignore it."

Even so, Blagojevich's decision to move forward with the appointment has allowed Republicans yet another chance to hammer away at him and the Democratic party more broadly.

Blagojevich's choice of Burris "is emblematic of the old-school, pay-to-play culture that has plagued Illinois for generations and this appointment is another embarrassment for the people of Illinois," said Illinois GOP Chairman Andy McKenna.

National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn (Texas) laid the blame for the current problems in Illinois at Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (Nev.) feet.

"Senator Reid and the Democratic leadership in Washington and Springfield decided to play politics with this Senate seat and unfortunately, the people of Illinois are now paying the price," said Cornyn.

While it's almost certain that Burris won't ever be seated in the Senate, Blagojevich's attempt to do that makes for yet more problems for Democrats in Illinois and Washington -- turning a bad situation into a political nightmare.

By Chris Cillizza  |  December 30, 2008; 3:10 PM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Best Gubernatorial Campaign of 2008
Next: The Best House Campaigns of 2008

Comments

I've gopt to defend my birth state here. Though a life-long Montanan, I was born in Waukegan Ill. while my Montana father tioned nearby at the Great Lakes naval base. My mother was a local gal and so I am technically a native of Illinois, though I have spent very little time there. All my maternal relaives are there.

Illinois did not invent pay to play politics. I'm not defending the governor. If he' convicted he belongs in jail. But I hate to see this scandal charactorized as politics as usual in Illinois.

In fact pay to play is modus operandi all over the US, not just Ill. Illinois should actually get a gold star for exposing this in their current governor.

But for years there has been quid pro quo involving Senate appointments. They are widely discussed and documented in history, though there have been few criminal prosecutions.

So condemn Blagojevich all you want.

But leave Illinois alone!!!!!

Posted by: AlaninMissoula | January 3, 2009 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Harry Reid is so stupid. The Democrates will need him and his vote as well as Frankins. They all need to stop complaining and let him be sworn in as the new Senator from Illinois. Obama is stupid too, he should not have let the Clinton and Bush cronies into his cabinet. Work and his agenda will not get done or delayed. He will regret it, the RepublicanS are already saying they will block his stimulus package for 2009. Obama should CLEAN house and get rid of all those Republicans in Washington DC.

Posted by: mattadamsdietmanager1014 | January 3, 2009 12:03 PM | Report abuse

From HuffPo/CNN--depressing news. The Dems plan to physically confront 71-year-old Burris if he shows up on the Senate floor (see below). Conjures memories of George Wallace and Orval Faubus blocking AA children at the schoolhouse door. Unbelievable. What is the possible harm in seating Burris??

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/01/aides-democrats-have-plan-if-burris-shows-up/

Excerpt:

"Watch: What if Burris shows up?

The aide familiar with Senate Democratic leaders' plans said if Burris tries to enter the Senate chamber, the Senate doorkeeper will stop Burris. If Burris were to persist, either trying to force his way onto the Senate floor or refusing to leave and causing a scene, U.S. Capitol Police would stop him, said the aide."

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 2, 2009 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it funny that this whole Blago thing would have been over in a week if he was a Republican? Democrat dirtbags can go on forever and HAVE!

Posted by: leapin | January 2, 2009 5:14 PM | Report abuse

.

.

.

.


Everyone must not forget this is a DEMOCRATIC SCANDAL.

Like when we had the Mark Foley scandal, him operating on his own in his own place, the democrats loved to blame the whole thing on the entire Republican Party.


BUT in this case, we see how the DEMOCRATIC PARTY REALLY OPERATES - IT GOES TO OFFICIAL ACTIONS - THE WAY THE DEMOCRATS REALLY OPERATE.

And yet the Democrats REFUSE to take responsibility like they attemt to assign responsibility to the Republicans with Mark Foley.

This is the HYPOCRITICAL NATURE OF THE DEMOCRATS - always a bunch of deceiving liars like Bill Clinton, winking their way to the next deception. They are jokers, broadwayjoe, malis and all you democratic bloggers SHAME ON YOU !!!

.

.

.

.

Posted by: Yes37thandORulesForever | January 2, 2009 3:49 PM | Report abuse

"The Democrats fuss over Blagojevich’s appointment of Burris is for show. Burris is one of them-- their beef isn’t with Burris and has never been with Burris. Besides, everyone knows Burris never liked or respected Blagojevich--Burris sees through Blagojevich.

Democrats know their chances of legally blocking the appointment are slim to none. Plus, blocking the appointment without first getting Blagojevich to resign means a special election--which means a republican could very well be elected.

Better to make a lot of noise AGAINST Blagojevich about the appointment; then let the law/court force the senate to seat Burris; or let a compromise be worked out between the powers that be. This is not as complicated or problematic as the media is making it out to be--actually, it's a blessing for the democrats as they get a well-respected African American democrat who really has a chance to restore Chicago reputation over this ugly Blagojevich business.

Bottom line: democrats want a democrat in that seat. Burris is a democrat—and he’s a decent man to boot.

Posted by: txgall | January 2, 2009 11:06 AM"

Agreed. Your analysis is on target. It is hard to understand what's to be gained by trying to block Burris from taking the seat he was appointed to. He is a Dem, qualified, and well-respected. Also, if Burris takes them to court (actually Burris has already taken the Illinois Sec. of State to court), he will win so at the end of the day, Burris will get his Senate seat. This shouldn't be a big deal. From all appearances, Burris is a 71-year-old guy who just wants one Last Hurrah to finish out his long political career. Seems like Reid, et al. are spending a lot of energy blocking Burris for no good reason.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 2, 2009 12:41 PM | Report abuse

I don't think Burris can legally be stopped by anyone, but the voters in the next election. He is qualified as any U. S. citizen to be a senator. Obama's birthplace is irrelevant and certificate are irrelevant anyway. His father was a non-citizen.

Posted by: star_key2 | January 2, 2009 12:30 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats fuss over Blagojevich’s appointment of Burris is for show. Burris is one of them-- their beef isn’t with Burris and has never been with Burris. Besides, everyone knows Burris never liked or respected Blagojevich--Burris sees through Blagojevich.

Democrats know their chances of legally blocking the appointment are slim to none. Plus, blocking the appointment without first getting Blagojevich to resign means a special election--which means a republican could very well be elected.

Better to make a lot of noise AGAINST Blagojevich about the appointment; then let the law/court force the senate to seat Burris; or let a compromise be worked out between the powers that be. This is not as complicated or problematic as the media is making it out to be--actually, it's a blessing for the democrats as they get a well-respected African American democrat who really has a chance to restore Chicago reputation over this ugly Blagojevich business.

Bottom line: democrats want a democrat in that seat. Burris is a democrat—and he’s a decent man to boot.

Posted by: txgall | January 2, 2009 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Last try.

Mr. 37, the link below contains a PDF of O's birth certificate. The certificate, which has been formally certified by the state and examined by independent fact checkers, expressly indicates O was born on the Island of "Oahu" in Honolulu, Hawaii. Thus, contrary to your post, this would not have been the same certificate issued for someone born outside Hawaii. Oy.

...34, 35, 36, __, 38, 39...

Here is the link, not that you'll read it:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 2, 2009 10:19 AM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe

I have written the same sentence to you several times now - apparently you are dumb or intend on lying to people.


This document is the same one issued to babies born OUTSIDE the US so it proves NOTHING.


What part of that do you not understand???

You are like a little child - if something is 10 dollars and you have a single, you arent buying something by saying you have a 1 in the number.

Give us a break


Stop lying.


.

.

.

Posted by: Yes37thandORulesForever | January 1, 2009 5:58 PM | Report abuse

37 posted: "The document provided DOES NOT SETTLE THE ISSUE."

Pal, read what you just posted: O's birth certificate certified by the state and personally examined by independent fact checkers does not settle the issue of whether he was born in Hawaii. I doubt if time-traveling you back to O's delivery room would prove it for you. This was our last try...we give up.

On a lighter note, this is the Washington Post premiere of the memorable YouTube feature on Mrs. Schlossberg's unfortunate radio interview titled: "The More You Know: Caroline Kennedy." A buzzer goes off each time "you know" is said. We stress, despite all this, Mrs. Schlossberg is, and always will be, an O-Nation icon and hero.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAgI4AS1NVg

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 1, 2009 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Broadwayjoe


LETS SEE THE ACTUAL PAPERWORK - I DONT WANT TO SEE SOME LIBERAL WEBSITE

WHAT IS WRONG WITH OBAMA ASKING HAWAII TO RELEASE THE ACTUAL DOCUMENTS??


What is Obama hiding? Is Obama an Indonesian Citizen ???? Is Obama an Illegal Alien ??? I am a fair person however at this point ALL THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE POINTS TO THE FACT THAT OBAMA IS AN ILLEGAL ALIEN.


Many attempts have been made to request that Obama provide additional documents to settle this issue.

The document provided DOES NOT SETTLE THE ISSUE. It is the same document provided by Hawaii to babies born outside the country - so your continued reliance on that document not only PROVES NOTHING BUT IT PROVES YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO DECEIVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

GO AWAY


GO AWAY NOW.

.

.

.
.
.

Posted by: Yes37thandORulesForever | January 1, 2009 3:10 PM | Report abuse

I know it's pointless, Mr. 37, but here is one fact checker's final report on the completely bogus "issue" of O's citizenship. Enjoy the read:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 1, 2009 2:05 PM | Report abuse

To ALL YOU LIBERAL NUTS


It is not too much to ask to see a birth certificate -


Instead of doing that Obama just lawyered up - just like Hillary always did.

.

.

.

Posted by: Yes37thandORulesForever | January 1, 2009 12:02 PM | Report abuse

37, with all of your carpet-posted robo-troll rants, I know you haven't had time to draft an apology letter to Ms. Jarrett so, we have written one for you. No need to thank us. The pleasure is ours.
______
For 37's signature--

Dear Ms. Jarrett:

My name is Yes37thandORulesForever. I am a robo-troll. You see, every day, I post on multiple Washington Post blogs incoherent, quadrupled spaced, bigoted rants against the President-elect and his associates because, well, I have nothing else better to do with my time.

Recently I have been posting tripe that claims or suggests you are connected in some way with the Illinois governor's alleged pay-to-play scheme to sell the PE's vacant senate seat to the highest bidder.

Using my guilt-by-association theory, I also argue the PE and all his associates are implicated, maybe even Kevin Bacon as well (at least within six degrees), since they all were within Alpha Centauri at the time of the governor's alleged misconduct. Of course, I have not one sliver of evidence to back up my reckless rants, but lack of facts has never stopped me before. I am just that kind of guy/girl/thing.

Anyway, Ms. Jarrett, I was wrong. So please accept my apology for my previous idiotic attacks against you. And please give my warmest regards to the President-Elect and wish him a Happy New Year for me.

Mr. "Yes37thandORulesForever"

Now doesn't that feel better?...From O-Nation -- Happy New Year, 37.


Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 1, 2009 11:02 AM | Report abuse

Let me preface this by saying that I am not a big Obama supporter. I was, and am a Clinton supporter. I voted for Obama because that was the choice I had. McCain imploded towards the end. I could have lived with a Romney ticket, I can tolerate a RINO (Republican in name only), and he would get the economy going.

YOUR side made Obama possible. For gawd sakes, Bush had 28% favorables, and the election was still relatively tight for a while. People were more than willing to vote conservative, but you screwed it up. You left them with no choice but the "hopes and dreams", no experience candidate.

For the people who wonder why Obama has gone with former Clinton people....who else? Someone from the Carter administration? It's not like he has Democratic administration after Democratic administration to pick from. Failing that, he would have rank beginners, and we cannot afford that.

And, get off Burris. Yes, he is looking to complete his resume. Yes, he will be a Democratic seat filler, who won't stray from the party line. Get over it. Roland Burris carved the way for blacks to follow in Illinois, and remained squeaky clean despite associating with the nastiest political entities possible.

I loved the Burris quote of "hey look, Bobby Rush is in the room" (paraphrased) at the news conference.....what a coincidence. Rush made his point. But what he didn't say was why Burris was the guy.....not just "the black guy." He made the Burris appointment look like nothing more than affirmative action.

People forget quickly. We need to seat Burris, Franken, and (hopefully) Cuomo and move on. The circus needs to leave town and we need to get to work.

Lets look forward, and forget the trash in our rear view mirror. Both parties can share the blame for where we are. The only thing that matters is where you are when you quit. When you stop moving forward. When you are so obsessed with the past, you continually repeat it.

We are so stuck in the mud right now, we couldn't be pulled out with two tow trucks and a helicopter.

Posted by: kimba1 | January 1, 2009 10:56 AM | Report abuse

.

.

.

.


I have seen a great deal of unnecessary pain in my lifetime - I just do not see at all how electing a person with no economic experience, no business experience, no foreign policy experience and no defense experience CAN BE ANY GOOD FOR ANYONE IN THIS COUNTRY. This is a RISK that this nation should never have considered and it serves no purpose.


OK you liberals did it - and you are full of yourselves because of it.


But you have made an absolute joke of yourselves at the same time. Obama has now brought back the Clinton people who are the same people that your party rejectsd and said they did not want.


Explain that.


Now Blagojevich is lashing out and mocking how the race card was played this year in a disgusting manner.


This is how the democratic party does things.


This was the MOST IRRESPONSIBLE VOTE in the history of this nation. Who knows what will happen next.


Clinton sold out this country - when they wanted Hillary to raise cash in New York the Glass-Steagall Act when out the window - the regulations in place since the 1930s were tossed.


The Democrats are responsible for this - the money the lobbyists gave the DNC and what the Clintons did FIRST WIPED OUT MAIN STREET WITH THE TRADE DEALS AND NOW CLINTON HAS MANAGED TO WIPE OUT WALL STREET EIGHT YEARS OUT.

Yea yea yea all you liberals want to blame Bush for that too, however the facts do not support that idea - the "on your watch idea" Give us a break.


Take some responsibllity -


There was never a proper evaluation of just what a disaster Clinton was for this country and NOW OBAMA WHO IS SUPPOSED TO BE SO SMART JUST PUTS THE CLINTON PEOPLE BACK IN CHARGE.


This is the most idiotic course of events I have ever seen in my life.


.


.


.

.

Posted by: Yes37thandORulesForever | January 1, 2009 6:13 AM | Report abuse

In closer examination, I did find that although all those CROOKS AND THIEVES RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DOWN OF OUR ECONOMY (you know them:Freddie,Fannie,Raines, Johnson,O’neal, etc,…and their helpers and cover-up team: Barney Frank, Pelosi, Reid, Cox, Dood,Soros, and other weeds,…well you know the thing)
AAAHHH!!,…And do not forget all buddies of Obama(that is why he is going to ‘preserve them, right?)
Well,turned out,not all of them are COCOZOIDS,…somes are WACKADOOS.
However slightly different lethal species,all of them are VERY IRRESPONSIBLE ZELOIDS,…HEY!,.. WE DO NOT NEED THEM!
It is time for the letargic democrats that voted for this guy Obama take a second look at what they did and how they were TAKEN AS FOOL SHEEPS.
C’mon WAKE-UP! NOW!
Would you consider that TIME MACHINE now, to go back and change your ridiculous and pathetic vote for Obama? I do hope you do,…because I have to handle it to you ,…YOU REALY MESSED IT-UP!,…BIG TIME!

And about the superstar governor from Chicago,....he is doing what is supose to do,..consider this, if you will:

Gov Blagojevich is doing what is expected from him.That is the way those corrupted individuals that emerge from the CHICAGO CORRUPTED POLITICAL MACHINE do things.
He-he just wait for Obama when he starts to 'IMPROVISE EXCUSES' FOR THE 'MILD MISCALCULATIONS' he is about to do.
Oh! brother!,…that is going to be hilarious indeed!
Hey!,..HE IS NOT FIT TO BE IN PRESIDENCY,…YOU KNOW THAT , RIGHT?
Ok, I just want to make sure you know how pathetic your vote for this guy was.
Are you considering the TIME MACHINE now, to go back and undo your stupidity? YES? or NO?
Happy New year 2009!
Daniel Cabrera
Merrillville, IN

Posted by: morcab | December 31, 2008 10:00 PM | Report abuse

.

.

.

.


Blogojevich is basically mocking Obama by playing the RACE CARD -


Blogojevich is mocking the democratic party for putting up with Obama playing the racial baiting game all year.


YOU get what you deserve, and OH boy do the democrats deserve this one. I wonder what else Blagojevich has in his bag of tricks.

This move by Blagojevich is basically a parody of Obama.


Blagojevich is laying bare how morally bankrupt the playing of the RACE CARD is and how morally bankrupt the democrats have been all year by tolerating Obama and these RACIAL ANTICS ALL YEAR LONG.


.

.

.

.

Posted by: Yes37thandORulesForever | December 31, 2008 9:24 PM | Report abuse

BREAKING: BURRIS ASKS IL SUP. CT. TO FORCE SEC. OF STATE TO CERTIFY HIS APPT.

From HuffPo/Chicago Tribune:

"Burris, appointed by disgraced Gov. Rod Blagojevich on Tuesday to the seat once held by President-elect Barack Obama, asked the justices to force Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White to co-sign Blagojevich's proclamation that Burris is the state's new senator."

Posted by: broadwayjoe | December 31, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

.

.

.

.


Blogojevich is basically mocking Obama by playing the RACE CARD -

Blogojevich is mocking the democratic party for putting up with Obama playing the racial baiting game all year.

YOU get what you deserve, and OH boy do the democrats deserve this one. I wonder what else Blagojevich has in his bag of tricks.

.

.

.

.

Posted by: Yes37thandORulesForever | December 31, 2008 7:27 PM | Report abuse

37 posted: "I sense there is an anger out there...."
_____

37, weren't those the words of Ed Begley's character in the 1950s classic film "Twelve Angry Men"? Remember Ed went on a memorable bigoted rant (Don't you know about them?") in the jury room so out of control that, one by one, all of the fellow jurors, including Henry Fonda, turned away. Ed was then instructed by juror E.G. Marshall to shut his mouth for the remainder of the jury deliberations. 37, do you hear the sounds of chairs being turned away from the table?

The Blago affair is a local Illinois matter artificially pumped up by the media into something bigger. A sitting state governor facing as-yet unproven charges has validly appointed a legally qualified individual to O's vacant senate seat according to Illinois law. We may not like it but Blago's action was legal and we should support his appointee Burris, who has done nothing wrong as far as we know, and hope he serves his state and the country well in the U.S. Senate. Seat the gentleman and move on...to global warning, health insurance, the mortgage crisis, etc.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | December 31, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

I can't stay silent any longer. I thought that after a hard-fought primary and general election campaign, I'd relax and relish Obama's victory. But from my home state of Illinois, Blagojevich gets arrested for trying to sell his influence, caught ON TAPE speculating how he might benefit from selling the senate seat Obama has vacated, and then, naming Roland Burris to fill the seat.

Obama is abiding by the senate's decision not to seat anyone Blago chooses. Bobby Rush, who gave Obama his only defeat in a long since past congressional race, is advocating for an African American representation of the senate from Illinois.

The Illinois Senate Seat Is Not An African American Seat (I am One); It is Illinois' Senate seat, to be filled by the most qualified person our state has available. Second, I met Roland Burris at my church on two separate occasions. He's very personable, very approachable. But if he needs that for the crown of all of his achievements is to be chosen and seated as senator from Illinois, he could have waited until Blago is ousted from office to make his choice legit. Lastly, Blago is just like Drew Petersen in that he loves media attention. Is Blago a sociopath or a narcissist? I don't know, but I suspect a cross between both.

The sooner this jerk is gone the better. It just saddens me that Burris didn't exercise the good judgment to turn down Blago and wait. Now Burris' legacy will be tainted by a buttwipe who can't get flushed down the toilet soon enough. Blago has got to go!

Posted by: jrev7620042000 | December 31, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

I can't stay silent any longer. i thought that after a hard-fought primary amd general election campaign, I'd relax and relish Obama's victory. But from my home state of Illinois, Blagojevich gets arrested for trying to sell his influence, caught ON TAPE speculating how he might benefit from selling the senate seat Obama has vacated, and then, naming Roland Burris to fill the seat.

Obama is abiding by the senate's decision not to seat anyone Blago chooses. Bobby Rush, who gave Obama his only defeat in a long since past congressional race, is advocating for an African American representation in the senate from Illinois.

The Illinois Senate Seat Is Not An African American Seat (I am One); It is Illinois' Senate seat, to be filled by the most qualified person our state has available. Second, I met Roland Burris at my church on two separate occasions. He's very personable, very approachable. But if he needs that crown of all of his achievements to be cosen and seated as senator from Illinois, he could have waited until Blago is ousted from office to make his choice legit. Lastly, Blago is just like Drew Petersen in that the love media attention. Is Blago a sociopath or a narcissist? I don't know, but I suspect a cross between both.

The sooner this jerk is gone the better. It just saddens me that Burris didn't exercise the good judgment to turn down Blago and wait. No Burris' legacy will be tainted by a buttwipe who can't get flushed down the toilet soon enough. Blago has got to go!

Posted by: jrev7620042000 | December 31, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Broadawayjoe, or should I say David "the liar" Axlerod:


YOU know all of this is 100% on-the-mark correct so stop bothering everyone


.

.

.

.

I sense there is an anger out there, perhaps among pols, about how OBAMA PLAYED THE RACE CARD FOR HIS ADVANTAGE THIS YEAR. Blogojevich is out there exploiting this anger, but also Blago is poking his finger in the eyes of those in the Democratic Party who refused to call Obama out on his playing of the race card.


Blago is right on this one.


There is a notion that Obama was way out of bounds when he played the race card all year -

1) how Obama sought to evade scrutiny

2) how Obama's lack of experience was not called out,

3) How Obama treated Bill Clinton and Gerry Ferraro and got away with it.


The Rev. Wright thing was a legitimate issue against Obama - and he was able to evade that by calling the race card.


Tim Russert made clear to Obama in the debates that Obama used the race card in South Carolina.


The whole thing is a joke - Obama should be penalized for this kind of politics instead of gaining advantage.


I believe the nomination of Roland Burris is Blagojevich's way of poking at Obama on this issue.


.

.

.

.

Posted by: Yes37thandORulesForever | December 31, 2008 4:48 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe -

You should be tolerant of the intolerant.

Posted by: leapin | December 31, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse


.

.

.

.

Broadwayjoe

You can not have a candidate who claims to be Post-racial and the goes out and plays the race card - it really is too far out of bounds.


It is hypocrital.


This is the kind of stuff which leads people to believe that Obama is a fraud, a sham and a con man.

Sorry

You are wrong again.


.

.

.

.

Posted by: Yes37thandORulesForever | December 31, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

34, 35, 36, __, 38, 39...

37 posted: "I sense there is an anger out there, perhaps among pols, about how OBAMA PLAYED THE RACE CARD FOR HIS ADVANTAGE THIS YEAR."

As with your other 1000 intolerant posts, there is no factual support for this comment. O, in fact, devoted lengthy speeches, most notably his famous post-Wright race speech, to emphasize his personal commitment to go beyond the racial obsessions of people like you, 37, and the idiots who produced and distributed the "Barack the Happy N---o" CD. During the campaign the race card was played against O again and again. If it wasn't an endless loop of Rev. Wright highlights on Faux News, it was Mrs. Wm. Clinton explaining that "working people, you know, white people" would not vote for O understand any circumstances, or Phalin hate rallies, or making fun of O's middle name or O's relatives in Africa. You need to cut it out, 37. Only Bobby Rush raised a racial issue in connection with the Burris appointment and he was just stating, granted inelegantly, the obvious objective fact: that refusing to seat a respected Illinois public official who would be the only AA in the Senate might have political consequences. I don't think Rush had to go there, given that blocking Burris has no support under the law. No big deal.

Again, 37, the Phalin site, teamsarah.org, I am sure is awaiting your unique anti-O rants, er, insight; today please do them the favor of logging on when you have time.

34, 35, 36, __, 38, 39....

Posted by: broadwayjoe | December 31, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Although I no longer live in Illinois and therefore not privy to the man-on-the-street feelings, I know people who refused to vote for Obama for senate or president because they believed he would take Chicago politics with him to DC. By standing with the Senate, he is making the strongest statement he can make that this type of politics is not acceptable. I hope, especially for those who doubted his mettle, that he can stay above the fray throughout his tenure. I do not doubt for one second that Obama has the right stuff, but how he and his staff handle innuendo and conduct themselves privately will now undergo more public scrutiny than ever imagined.

Posted by: lindaj4 | December 31, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

.

.

.

.

I sense there is an anger out there, perhaps among pols, about how OBAMA PLAYED THE RACE CARD FOR HIS ADVANTAGE THIS YEAR. Blogojevich is out there exploiting this anger, but also Blago is poking his finger in the eyes of those in the Democratic Party who refused to call Obama out on his playing of the race card.


Blago is right on this one.

There is a notion that Obama was way out of bounds when he played the race card all year -

1) how Obama sought to evade scrutiny

2) how Obama's lack of experience was not called out,

3) How Obama treated Bill Clinton and Gerry Ferraro and got away with it.


The Rev. Wright thing was a legitimate issue against Obama - and he was able to evade that by calling the race card.


Tim Russert made clear to Obama in the debates that Obama used the race card in South Carolina.

The whole thing is a joke - Obama should be penalized for this kind of politics instead of gaining advantage.


I believe the nomination of Roland Burris is Blagojevich's way of poking at Obama on this issue.


.

.

.

.

Posted by: Yes37thandORulesForever | December 31, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

Seat the man you lib racists. You're trying to keep the black man down.

Posted by: leapin | December 31, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse


"I wonder if the crooks in charge aren't getting enough graft to go along?Posted by: king_of_zouk"

Zouk, call Dick Cheney and ask him!

Posted by: Thatsnuts | December 31, 2008 10:13 AM | Report abuse

"the Libs have not even officially taken over power and already they are proving themselves to be utter bunglers, only interested in lining their own pockets and screwing everyone else. If the rules don't fit, ignore them." Posted by: king_of_zouk

Poor Zouk he has confused the incoming democratic administration with the republican administration of 1/20/00-08

Posted by: Thatsnuts | December 31, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

yesterday NPR interviewed a former IL Gov (and former IL AG) who said there is essentially nothing anyone can do to keep Burris from being seated. Blago is Gov, and has the right to appoint anyone who meets the criteria to serve, which Burris does. The former Gov also cited a Supreme Court decision that limits the Senate's ability to not seat Burris.

Posted by: bsimon1 | December 31, 2008 9:57 AM | Report abuse

From O-Nation--

BHO, of course, is brilliant. Since he first announced for the presidency, he has made only three mistakes: 1. he mishandled HRC and Hillarians throughout the campaign, 2. he invited Warren to give the invocation, and now 3. he has joined Reid in supporting the refusal of the Senate to seat Burris. On the Burris issue he should have stayed out of it: he could/should have said this is a federalism matter between our federal legislature (the Senate) and the Illinois state executive branch (Blago). This clearly does not involve the federal executive branch, much less the "Office of the President-elect"; O has no legal role in any of this since he is no longer a senator. Unless he had a big problem with Burris (whom he supported in his gubernatorial race against Blago and who most say is honorable and untainted and is an AA icon in the state), O should have stayed out of it. O, sometimes, just say "no."

Posted by: broadwayjoe | December 31, 2008 9:37 AM | Report abuse


.

.

.

.

Dot dot dot.

Racist racist racist.

Dot dot dot.

.

.

.

.

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | December 30, 2008 11:44 PM | Report abuse

BLAGO IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

BLAGO IS STILL GOVERNOR.

BURRIS APPEARS TO BE A WORTHY CANDIDATE, PERSONALLY UNTAINTED BY BLAGO'S ALLEGED DEALINGS.

THE RULE OF LAW DICTATES THAT THE APPOINTMENT BE RESPECTED AS LEGAL AND BINDING.

WHO'S GOT A PROBLEM WITH THE RULE OF LAW?

IF SO, ISN'T THAT UNAMERICAN?

Speaking of which...

DOMESTIC TORTURE VIA RADIATION WEAPONRY:
AMERICA'S HORRIFIC SHAME

...but authorities say there is NOTHING TO INVESTIGATE.

So PLEASE read this and SAVE THE VICTIMS OF THE AMERICAN GESTAPO.

http://my.nowpublic.com/world/domestic-torture-radiation-weaponry-americas-horrific-shame

OR

members.NowPublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | December 30, 2008 11:24 PM | Report abuse

Bobby Rush has no shame...injecting the race card with inflamatory words like "lynching" demonstrates his ignorance, arrogance and lack of class. I guess that is just how he has gotten elected over the years...pandering to the mindless masses who fall for this type of black racism.

Posted by: nosurprise2me | December 30, 2008 10:19 PM | Report abuse

Leave it to a bottom-feeder like Blagojevich to make a defiant "I am not a crook" move which brings racial animus into play.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I knew this guy was dirt when he tried to strip Catholic pharmacists who didn't want to dispense "morning-after pills" of their right to practice their profession.

What next? Disallow kosher grocers who decline to sell pork chops?

It's all about what's good for Rod, and not a whit about anything else.

I try not to indulge my tendency to delight in the misfortunes of those I dislike, but seeing this guy in prison garb would make my day. Possibly even my week.

Posted by: officermancuso | December 30, 2008 9:13 PM | Report abuse

"I think Blago has put the Dems in quite a bind. As much as I hate the man, he made a move that nobody expected: He appointed someone who on his own merits alone, is a VERY worthy candidate for the Senate. How do the Dems get around this one? Eff Blago for putting us in this position!

Posted by: PeixeGato | December 30, 2008 8:54 PM"
______________

Bobby Fischer would have loved this guy Blago.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | December 30, 2008 9:06 PM | Report abuse

broadwayjoe said:
"Again, at the end of the day, Burris may not make it to the Senate but the media may want to hold its horses on this one."

I agreed with the points of your post, but when I got to this line, I had to laugh. You are suggesting that the media will take a step back and do some serious analysis before rushing to conclusions??? Those days are long gone. The media will milk this circus for all its worth, and then some.

I think Blago has put the Dems in quite a bind. As much as I hate the man, he made a move that nobody expected: He appointed someone who on his own merits alone, is a VERY worthy candidate for the Senate. How do the Dems get around this one? Eff Blago for putting us in this position!

Posted by: PeixeGato | December 30, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

What's all the fuss about? I mean the guy is on the hook for what? ONE felony? Sheesh. Chump change.

Some senator from up north got re-elected with a bunch more than that.

Besides, maybe the Democrats are better at corruption than Republican's, and Blago will slither off on some legal technicality.

Posted by: DonJasper | December 30, 2008 8:47 PM | Report abuse

Posted by Mr. 37: "Roland Burris is now legally entitled to the Senate Seat. Period. We have Harry Reid and Dick Durbin trying to stop him from getting the job he is entitled to for the next two years."

I can't believe I am saying this, but "37" is, well, right. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH. If Burris wants to litigate this, he wins -- not even close.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | December 30, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

Chris, it may be true that "it's almost certain that Burris won't ever be seated in the Senate," but the law is clearly on the side of Blags and Burris.

First, under Ohio law, the Secretary of State may not refuse to certify Burris's appointment. The law provides he must certify the appointment; he has no discretion in the matter. If he refuses, Blags will be successful in obtaining a court order (writ of mandamus) forcing the Sec. of State to do his duty and certify the appointment.

Second, Reid's threat not to seat Burris is an empty one. The Adam Clayton Powell case established that refusal to seat a member must be based on problems with the Member of Congress's legal qualifications to serve. No one has suggested that Burris is not legally qualified to serve (say, because he's not a citizen) or that Blags lacks the legal authority to appoint Burris. Just as the House lost in the Powell case, Reid will lose if he refuses to seat Burris and Burris then challenges him in court. In fact, Reid has even less of a justification to block Burris than the House did to challenge Powell because Reid's beef is with, as Bobby Rush correctly pointed out, "the appointer" rather than "the appointee." No court will accept Reid's dislike of Blags (or how Blags operates) as a valid reason not to seat a well respected, untainted former state attorney general and comptroller whom Blags has appointed.

Finally, Blags is innocent until proven guilty and, to many, it is far from clear his prosecution will be a slam dunk. A jury may balk at convicting Blags based on what they see as unseemly but perhaps commonplace political horse trading -- for instance, Mrs. Schlossberg's implied argument to Gov. Paterson seems to be: if you appoint me to HRC's seat, then I will raise millions of dollars of fundraising for you when you have to run to keep your governor's seat. Another problem is Blags' alleged deals were never consummated: he never appointed any of the folks he elicited favors from. And those individuals may never have actually provided Blags with anything, but at most simply talked about doing something for Blags.

Again, at the end of the day, Burris may not make it to the Senate but the media may want to hold its horses on this one.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | December 30, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

First of all, let's all put away our race cards, the threats not to seat any Blajo appointee were spoken long, long before Roland Burris.

Blajo is innocent.....until proven guilty, period. That is the American way.

He simply has out smarted all the party leadership with an appointee who is actually qualified, a black leader in Illinois politics for the past thirty years and someone who is squeaky clean.

Side note: in Burris' last run for Governor, he ran opposed by Blajo, and Burris was endorsed by...you guessed it, Barack Obama. And why not? Without barrier breakers like Roland Burris, there wouldn't be a President-elect Barack Obama.

This isn't about stepping on the Bush administration toes this time. This is a DNC thing, and you, Mr. President-elect, are the head of the party. It is about time you got back to work, and ended this nightmare.

It will be OK sir, we know you are black, we got the memo. Roland Burris is a ground breaking Black leader in Illinois politics since you were wearing short pants. If you don't come out loud and clear in Mr. Burris' behalf, I will lose all respect for you. You have already turned your back on the gays, are the Blacks next?

Posted by: kimba1 | December 30, 2008 7:50 PM | Report abuse

As an Illinois resident it's a HUGE problem for us. We're the fifth largest state containing the 3rd largest city. Whether Burris is qualified isn't the issue, he is tainted by the Governor which will affect his ability to serve the people of Illinois as he will have a difficult time serving on any committees with influence, sponsoring legislation that gains traction, etc. Illinois needs and deserves better. It's not about race, it's about serving the people of Illinois. And the provision that appears to give the Senate the right to block the appointment is actually something that was written after a tainted appointment to the Senate by the Illinois legislature in 1908!

Posted by: CCChicago | December 30, 2008 7:38 PM | Report abuse

Dear Senate Democrats,

Find a paper bag and take a couple of deep breaths. Then think this through.
Burris seems to be a fine, qualified candidate and would also put a black back in the Senate.
And since Al Franken is currently 50 votes ahead and likely to win in his election in Minnesota, the Dems would have a 59 to 41 seat majority. This is very close to filibuster proof. Only need one of the 3-5 moderate Republicans to vote for cloture and Voila!! With a big agenda to get through, this is not the time for nervous Nellies.
And the Illinois Senate seat can be decided by the regular process of a primary and regular election in 2010.
Come on Senator Schumer - have a little chat with Harry Reid and tell him to protest all he wants, but don't block the appointment. After all Reid has a good record of saying one thing and doing another.

Posted by: abowers1 | December 30, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

If Burris was good enough for Obama to endorse for governor, then he should endorse him for Senator also.

Posted by: brewstercounty | December 30, 2008 7:37 PM | Report abuse

I'm starting to like Blagojevich more and more. The same gang of Democratic white hairs that railroaded Clinton's candidacy though they would just run young Rod out of town and be done with him. He didn't run so well though. Good for him!!!

Posted by: brewstercounty | December 30, 2008 7:33 PM | Report abuse

KreuzMissile, I wish you well in Iraq. The
beautiful garden city of San Angelo and Lake Nastywater will miss you, I am sure.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 30, 2008 7:21 PM | Report abuse

Since Fitzgerald has taped conversations of the IL governor, one would think most voters and politicians would consider Blagojevich radio-active and avoid any contamination from associating with the Gov. Apparently Burris and Rush aren't going to let dirty politics interfere with their own political opportunism. What a shame!

I hope the U.S. Senate rejects any Blagojevich appointment. It would be a clear statement that its members understand the Constitution's intent to "form a more perfect Union" We'll all be watching.

Posted by: nlersch | December 30, 2008 7:17 PM | Report abuse

.

.

.

.


The democrats are just angry that Blagojevich has pulled the curtain from the democratic party and revealed to the nation how dirty the democratic party really is.

sorry guys.

If you oppose Roland Burris, then you are a racist. We have heard this reasoning all year - the Obama people are hypocrites if they do not apply the same reasoning right now - or condemn what the Obama people have been doing all year.


.

.

.

.

Posted by: Yes37thandORulesForever | December 30, 2008 7:06 PM | Report abuse

"I mean, the democrats ran around all year stating clearly that if you did not support Obama, that means you are a RACIST."

Which one. I know plenty of people said if you use specific racist dog whistles in attacking him yo were a racist, but not everyone who voted for McCain was a racist by any stretch.

"The democrats just look like so bad."

Not sure what that means, I don't speak valley girl.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 30, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

This is a nightmare.

Rest of the world, welcome to Illinois politics.

Posted by: camasca | December 30, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

Burris as principled black trailblazer picked for his own merits didn't last long. Can we "lynch" Burris now (in the words of Bobby Rush - not me) for being another sleazy Blago stooge?

Not much Reid can do to actually stop Burris from getting in. The courts will probably get deeply involved in this for a loooong time. Not what Obama needs...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | December 30, 2008 6:54 PM | Report abuse

.

.
.

.


Harry Reid has no Constitutional basis to block Roland Burris - and it does appear to be RACIST. I mean, the democrats ran around all year stating clearly that if you did not support Obama, that means you are a RACIST.


So by the logic of the democrats, Harry Reid is a RACIST.


To be honest, Roland Burris is going to be seated. There is nothing wrong with him or his appointment.


The democrats just look like so bad.


In fact, the democrats look like complete scumbags - in fact if you go through the rolls of the democratic officeholders, you will be amazed at what you will find. In fact, the Washington Post today reported that Former Democratic Governor of New York was responsible in part with turning the corporate culture at AIG bad.


Interesting.

The democrats in this country are no good from A to Z - the people on this blog who write may have good motives however they are completely ignorant of the real nature of the democratic party.


.

.

.

.

Posted by: Yes37thandORulesForever | December 30, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Funny, read through all he Republican posts on this blog, they all truly believe the following:

- Blocking the appointment will appear racist
- Dem scandals are both more real and more serious than Bush and Republican scandals
- Ultimately this proves something sinister about Barack Obama (never mind how that contradicts the first point)


Tuly sad really, nothing else to go on other than smear and lies. Par for the course for Republicans, though. Time to get used to that minority status again you guys, you'll be there a while....

Zouk, once more, I'll be headed back to Iraq again this summer, WE HAVE WON NOTHING, not even close (oh, and Surge? two years later, still more troops there now than when we started the "surge"- that's called an escalation, and the fact that that many troops are still necessary to maintain stability shows just how short-term those gains are). This whole nonsense that we've won, it's solely to get an early start on the stab-in-the-back argument Republicans used post-Vietnam- we would have won, if only the Dems hadn't forced us to withdraw when the country does eventually fall apart.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 30, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

One last point: as a democrat, I believe it's time for a change in Senate leadership. Harry doesn't seem to have done so well lately.

DAStubbs,
Minneapolis

Posted by: dastubbs | December 30, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

I already miss the Bush scandels - all those terrorists with no rights, the enemies of the state who were spied upon, the winning of the war without consent, the tax cuts for everyone.

It seems the worm has turned and we are back in a Dem administration, complete with a scandel a week as some Lib tries to line his own pockets. count the silverware, the Libs are back.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | December 30, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Being a Minnesotan and having no stake in the Illinois issue, I guess I don't understand what the problem is with the governor making an appointment.

Blagojevich is still the governor and is constitutionally obligated to fill the seat. That he "might be" a criminal is not enough, in my opinion, to prevent him from fulfilling his obligation.

I do believe it was silly of democrats to jump in and announce that anyone the governor appoints will not be accepted. They should have just kept quiet and let the issue play out. Wait and see who the governor actually appoints before taking sides.

Now they find themselves in the unenviable position of either refusing to seat Burris or letting him be seated with egg on their faces. A minor issue, to be sure, but a preventable one.

Ooops!

DAStubbs,
Minneapolis

Posted by: dastubbs | December 30, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

He is overshadowed in all his behavior by his wife, who, by all accounts, is even worse. She is browbeating him to not lose any of their ill-gained goods. Throw the bums out.

Posted by: MissMay


don't you mean the clintons???

Posted by: king_of_zouk | December 30, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

""WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama says he supports the decision by Senate Democrats to deny his vacated Senate seat to an appointee of embattled Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

Democratic leaders in the Senate are rejecting the appointment, arguing that because of accusations that Blagojevich is a Democrat, any appointment by him would be tainted.""

the messiah speaks, no word yet on war, economy or the dog.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | December 30, 2008 6:09 PM | Report abuse

If you're such a tool that you would actually accept an appointment by Blagojevich, you have no business being in the Senate.

Posted by: Bill64738 | December 30, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Harry Reid and the ALL WHITE Democratic Senate is again tying to keep the black man down.

Posted by: robtr | December 30, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Politics in Illinois reminds me of workings of a South American bannana republic. Blago is the corrupt generalissmo who is drunk with power. This is a perfect example of what happens when one-party has complete control of a state. The Illinois State Legislature should stop doing the two-step and impeach Blago at the fastest possible speed.

Posted by: rogden71 | December 30, 2008 5:41 PM | Report abuse

I always said that if it were in any way self-aware, New Jersey would have died of embarrassment long ago. But I see now that it can't hold a candle to Illinois. Blago, Burris and Rush have double dog dared Senate Democrats. With the race card. Your move, Harry.

Posted by: SukieTawdry | December 30, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

You better run along now. Your mother said that your dinner is getting cold. Oh, and she finished doing your laundry.

Posted by: jasperanselm | December 30, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, king_of_puke.

Here's the biggest oxymoron of all:

"Republican Intelligence"

Posted by: jasperanselm | December 30, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, Mr. Fix, for being on watch when news happens. Not so much for lead broadcast and cable anchors. A perfect day for understudies to make their name. A perfect day for viewers to feel abandoned.
Except for Mr. Fix!

Posted by: Rivery | December 30, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

It would appear that Mr. Blagojevich is trying to save his own skin. He does not listen to anybody. He is arrogant. He is like a bulldozer plowing through, with no regard for anybody else really. He is overshadowed in all his behavior by his wife, who, by all accounts, is even worse. She is browbeating him to not lose any of their ill-gained goods. Throw the bums out.

Posted by: MissMay | December 30, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

surprise - all of BHO's associates and friends are crooks. I wonder why I never heard this before????

another surprise - we won the war!! this is probably the first you heard this. same reason as above.

see also - Lib intelligence, non-existent

Posted by: king_of_zouk | December 30, 2008 5:24 PM | Report abuse

The stench of corruption hangs low over the Obama transition as Richardson and Clinton and Emmanuel are pulled into the vortex. Soon trillions of federal dollars will be splooged into the nimble old hands of these appointed kleptocrats.

Posted by: georgejones5 | December 30, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

intelligence level of this blog.

Posted by: jasperanselm


funny, are you practicing oxymorons now?

Like:
Dem ethics
liberal blogs intelligence
Reid's leadership
Obama's decisions
Liberal frugality
Frank's honesty (that should count twice)
dodd's integrity
Pelosi's brilliance
Kennedy's sobriety
large shrimp

Posted by: king_of_zouk | December 30, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Regarding the Secretary of State thing, it's questionable whether the Secretary can withhold certification if it meets all the rules; Blago can sue in the courts to force him to execute his order, as established by Marbury vs. Madison.

Posted by: scurley1 | December 30, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Hopefully, one day Chris will prevent the two or three uni-bomber type, jobless losers living in their mom's basement, who have nothing better to do than cause strife and sabotage his blog from posting on here.
Until then, maybe everyone will wise up to the fact that the best thing you can do to these idiots is refrain from acknowledging their existence.
I imagine they only contribute to less commenting on the posts and less readership of the Fix in general.
Here's hoping Chris will one day soon do the right thing and heighten the level of discourse by permanently removing them from posting on his blog.

Posted by: jdunph1 | December 30, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

"As to the second question, do you really doubt that?"

I don't doubt it, per say, but I do question it. They can claim a moral argument about expelling someone on the grounds of guilt by association (helping them against a charge they have often been faced with themselves), merely withhold the votes, and stick the Dems with Blago's appointee in the seat in hopes that it would tie the Dem caucus closer to it. They'd run the risk of being an accessory after-the-fact, as it were, to Blago's deeds, and they'd run the risk of tying themselves rather than the Dem caucus o the scandal, which is why I don't see it really happening, but it's hard to see their exact calculations here.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 30, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

There should be a limit on how many times 37thandclueless and king_of_puke can post. Their posts degrade the intelligence level of this blog.

Posted by: jasperanselm | December 30, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

"Can they expel a member immediately aftyer seating him with a 2/3 vote without cause, or does it need to be linked to the member's behavior? And if the former was the case, would the Dems be able to get enough Republicans to vote to expel?"

There are no limits on the power of expulsion, so long as two-thirds consent.

As to the second question, do you really doubt that?

I'll give Blago one thing: he's got balls.

Ideally, the Illinois legislature should nominate someone for the governor to appoint, but Blago's obviously not going to go for that.

My guess is: the Senate refuses seating, a legal challenge is mounted, and, based on the Powell decision, Burris' appointment is upheld. After that, it's a question of voting to expel, which is more problematic, I think.

Posted by: scurley1 | December 30, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

"Chris, you missed a step. Before it goes to the Senate, the selection has to be certified by the IL Sec. of State, and Secretary Jesse White has said he won't certify Burris. And White is African-American, so that should dispel any charges of racism."

But Illinois law requires the SoS to certify it:

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=197&ChapAct=15%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B305%2F&ChapterID=4&ChapterName=EXECUTIVE+OFFICERS&ActName=Secretary+of+State+Act

Marbury v. Madison may actually come into play here....

the next interesting question, what happens if the Blago admin initiates the legal action, hen he is impeached and removed before the legal action is resolved, then we have a standing issue...

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 30, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

The Dems should appoint an amoeba. It would bring the average intelligence of Democrat Senators up by a mile.

and it would have more spine than dirty harry of course. but so does a marshmallow.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | December 30, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

I think this is hardly a problem, let alone a political nightmare. This guy is clean with no close ties to Blago. If there was ever a selection Blago could have appointed that wouldn't have caused much of a stir this would have been it.
Has there been any evidence lately that the second party can win statewide here?
The only formidable candidate who could run a decent race would be Rep. Mark Kirk. After that, they're short on money and candidates here. Hardly a nightmare. This will most likely not be a difficult hold for the Party.

Posted by: jdunph1 | December 30, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

"and you wonder why the economy turned down the minute BHO was in."

Funny, the emerging Republican mantra has been 'Obama was only elected because of the economic downturn.' Now, the economic downturn didn't happen until after he was elected? I guess we were just a bunch of whiners in a mental recession up until 4 Nov, right?

Still waiting on the current President to do something presidential...

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 30, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Chris, you missed a step. Before it goes to the Senate, the selection has to be certified by the IL Sec. of State, and Secretary Jesse White has said he won't certify Burris. And White is African-American, so that should dispel any charges of racism.

Posted by: HoosierBorn | December 30, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

I don't really understand how this is politically explosive or any of the inflated language. No one wants anything to do with this Blago guy. Its only a matter of time before he is thrown out one way or another. His appointee won't be seated. Another will be picked by the lieutenant gov. the end.

Posted by: brandonesque | December 30, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

the Libs have not even officially taken over power and already they are proving themselves to be utter bunglers, only interested in lining their own pockets and screwing everyone else. If the rules don't fit, ignore them.

you have to be a total ignorant moonbat to not find this a fullfillment of all expectations.

the leadership style of the messiah - "I'll be in HI playing golf, call me if you need me." Same as his fiscal crisis approach. and you wonder why the economy turned down the minute BHO was in.

there is one difference now - his vote:

NOT PRESENT

Posted by: king_of_zouk | December 30, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Rod's sentencing judge will take this into account, too. I mean, the guv's groveling won't mean very much WHEN it comes.

Hope he likes spending more time in the pen-- he's so earning it.

Posted by: falasifa | December 30, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Wow-
I don't know how to feel about this. On the one hand as a political geek, this is unbelievable theater- we may never see one like this again- on the other there is the corruption behind it- how can we know that this guy is entirely legit? Then there is the loyalty to the Dems- as a lifelong progressive I have been very loyal to the party- although they have been a mess and rarely have been loyal to their supporters- I particularly disliked Dean's handling of this past nomination cycle. So should I support a political position making it easier for the Dems? I don't know...
It seems to me that for all the gamesmanship involved in the pick, this was probably one of the best picks possible- and he accepted- knowing that it puts him in a bad position-wow.

I just feel bad for the people of IL. We have a really crappy Senate candidate here if they want a Kennedy, we can trade and everyone will be happy.

Leon

Posted by: nycLeon | December 30, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

This is not a controversy for the Democrats. Rather, it is a pain in their collective hindquarters. The fact of the matter is that Blagojevich was never a loyal Dem to begin with. Prior to the mid 90's he was a lifelong Republican who was President of his chapter of the College Republicans. If anything, this is what we get for trusting a Repugnantcan in our ranks. He's just pulling a Lieberman now.

Posted by: hiberniantears | December 30, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

And Blago would win, mikeinmidland, see my post a the bottom.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 30, 2008 4:19 PM | Report abuse

"do you NOW know why so many people can not stand the democrats?"

many, many, many more people cannot stand the republicans. so who cares?

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | December 30, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

No, Harry Reid is NOT in charge of Illinois law--he is in charge of the US Senate! Blago is still the gov, and has the right to appoint a senator in this case. And the Senate has the right to refuse to seat him. And Blago can take it to the Supreme Court if he wants.

37, you need to read the Constitution once in a while.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | December 30, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

This puts Democrats in the same difficult situation they were in when Clarence Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court. They didn't want to look racist so they approved his appointment and this turned out to be the wrong thing to have done -- but it did help start the organization of female political power.
Burris -- obviously has more experience than Thomas did. Not being from Illinois, I wonder if he isn't a pretty good candidate. But if he isn't a good candidate, why did Blagojevitch win instead of him?
I say, if he doesn't seem like the right man, then he probably isn't and the legislature should reject him. It is just as insulting to let some one in because he is black as it is to keep him out because he is black.

Posted by: bghgh | December 30, 2008 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Blogojevich has clearly learned the art flipping off the US Senate from Dick Cheney and his puppet.

Posted by: nicekid | December 30, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Oh, come on. Reid is holding to the position he (and all 50 D Senators) announced weeks ago. If he reversed himself because the appointee was black, you right-wingers would be all over him for that.

Blago is indeed very crafty, and picked the person guaranteed to cause the most grief for the Dems. If they seat him, they are conferring legitimacy to the gov.

Like he said on the tapes, he's looking out for himself first.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | December 30, 2008 4:09 PM | Report abuse

.

.

.

.


OH SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO EXPLAIN HOW OPPOSITION TO A BLACK MAN IS "NOT A RACIAL THING."


After Obama got up last summer and CLEARLY STATED THAT THE REPUBLICANS HAD NOT BEEN RACIST YET, BUT THEY WERE GOING TO BE.

WHAT A BUNCH OF COMPLETE AND TOTAL HYPOCRITES.

.


.


.

.

Posted by: Yes37thandORulesForever | December 30, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

You'd think a guy dumb enough to get caught as red-handed as Rod Blagojevich got caught would be, well, dumber.

But this is a clever move on his part. Right now, Blagojevich is being seen pretty much universally as the bad guy, and as long as his Senate pick remains hypothetical, it's easy to villify it. But now that he's chosen someone, he's put a face on that which is being villified. It's easier to condemn the Senate choice as "Rod Blagojevich's pick" than it is to condemn him by name, unless Blagojevich had chosen someone a little more politically poisonous like Jesse Jackson Jr.

Blagojevich has no defenders; Roland Burris does. And if Senate Democrats try to fight the appointment, those defenders will come out and claim Burris is being treated unfairly, crying that he should not be punished for Blagojevich's actions. Of course, if Democrats don't fight the appointment, the cry from another group entirely will be that they are irresponsible for NOT punishing Burris for Blagojevich's actions. And naturally, the heroes of right-wing talk radio and Web sites will attack the Democrats' decision, no matter which way they go. We shan't expect any less.

I'm guessing the Democrats will try to tempt Burris out of the seat by throwing another opportunity his way, but I don't know enough about the man to figure out whether he would accept.

Posted by: GJonahJameson | December 30, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

"do you NOW know why so many people can not stand the democrats?"

who are these people and why didn't they vote last month?

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 30, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Blago sure is a nightmare of a politician, eh?

But, by GOP standards he is a shining star.

Speaking of the GOP, the fact that many now applaud a candidate for the RNC chair's distribution of an offensive, racist Obama parody, means only one thing.

It is no longer a question of when the GOP will sink into irrelevance, but just how quickly it will happen.

As I blogged today, continuing this mean-spirited approach will make the GOP go the way of the Betamax and the Whig party.

http://scootmandubious.blogspot.com/2008/12/will-offensive-barack-parody-help.html

Posted by: scootmandubious | December 30, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

allowing him to enter the Senate as a Democrat might taint their image.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Posted by: king_of_zouk | December 30, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

.

.

.

.


Harry Reid and Dick Durbin are RACISTS - wasn't that the basic theme of the Obama campaign - if you did not support Obama you are a RACIST???


What is good for the goose is good for the gander.


Works the same for Roland Burris.


.

.

.

.

Posted by: Yes37thandORulesForever | December 30, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse

"Who wants to be the person who explains why this man is not seated?"

Obama, for one. This is not a racial thing.

Posted by: simpleton1 | December 30, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

.

.

.

.


Harry Reid has got to be kidding - he is not in charge of Illinois law. What is going on? Harry Reid should be held accountable for his actions - he is attempting to prevent Roland Burris from taking the Senate seat he is legally entitled to.

This is what the democratic party is all about folks.

To the democrats who write on this blog - All you have seen from your party since the election is ugly behavior - for those of us who have seen the democrats in action - do you NOW know why so many people can not stand the democrats?

.

.

.

.

Posted by: Yes37thandORulesForever | December 30, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

I agree with lrb100 -- given all that has happened, this appears to be a crafty move on Gov. Blago's part. Who wants to be the person who explains why this man is not seated? The first African-Am elected in Illinois, with previous support from new Pres. Obama, an attorney with expertise in the banking industry, with no rumors of his involvement in pay-to-play, and someone who has said he will only serve two years until the next general election can wipe the slate clean. Brilliant, Blago!

Posted by: newtodc1 | December 30, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

In typical fashion, harry Spineless Reid overplays his hand. Just like his famous quip about the war already being lost, a few months before it was won, he has overstepped his perogotive again. It is not his senate seat, it belongs to the people of Illinois and the orderly assignment by its representatives.

the rules just don't apply when Dems power mongering is at stake. the simpering fool Reid has got to go. his reelection is the easiest take over for Rs in two years.

this is what one describes as Lib leadership, actual meaning, just the opposite, effeminate hysterical emotionalism. next up - feet stomping and temper tantrums. aka- the usual.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | December 30, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Dude's acting as if nothing happened; "Slick Willie"-style.

Watch, it'll probably go through. Are you telling me that they won't seat this man like the racists in Congress did to Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. in the 1940's? The only hurdle is the Illinois Sec. state.

This is the type of democracy, good governance and transparency we can teach the rest of the world.

Posted by: faithfulservant3 | December 30, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Burress is a moron. He should not have accepted this. But seeing how he was a three time loser for Governor, I guess he figured he'd never be able to win an election for senator.

Posted by: smmd2007 | December 30, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

What you guys are seeing is Illinois politics in action. These are small men behaving poorly. None of these people are thinking big picture. They see politics as a local means to a profitable end, and they are out purely for themselves.

Why didn't Burris decline? Because he wants to be Senator. Why did Bobby Rush support it? Because he hopes Senator Burris will throw some pork his way. These guys are like those caretakers who took over the Soviet bloc states right as the Berlin Wall was crumbling, thinking that they could cut a couple deals here and there and stay in power. They were totally, utterly divorced from reality.

This debacle does not reflect poorly on the national Democratic party, unless you're already a GOP partisan (and therefore clinically insane). In fact, they look principled and honorable. They will not seat Burris. Good for them - at least somebody's doing the right thing.

Posted by: simpleton1 | December 30, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

.

.

.

.

Harry Reid and Dick Durbin should actually be arrested for ATTEMPTED CONSPIRACY TO PREVENT ROLAND BURRIS FROM TAKING THE US SENATE SEAT HE IS LEGALLY ENTITLED TO.


It is pretty simple.

Roland Burris is now legally entitled to the Senate Seat. Period. We have Harry Reid and Dick Durbin trying to stop him from getting the job he is entitled to for the next two years.


Thank you


Goodbye.


.

.

.

.

Posted by: Yes37thandORulesForever | December 30, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

.

.

.

.

Harry Reid and Durbin have said that they would like to act to PREVENT AN AFRICAN AMERICAN FROM HOLDING A JOB WHICH HE IS LEGALLY ENTITLED TO.


This is completely RACIST.

The people of Illinois have a RIGHT to the fair and equal application of their laws to the Senate seat.

Let us not forget that that prior to 1913 the US Senate was "elected" mainly by corrupt bargaining in the Senates of the various States - it was never pretty.

Give Roland a break.


Roland for US Senate - the best Senate Campaign this Century !!!


.

.

.

.

Posted by: Yes37thandORulesForever | December 30, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Why wouldn't Burris just have declined the Governor's appointment?

Posted by: seanbredbenner | December 30, 2008 3:30 PM | Report abuse

Harry, what should we do, our party has been revealed as crooked?

Let's hold a special election.

We will probably lose.

Let's refuse to allow an appointment.

That is not in line with any rules.

PRESENT

You rascist!

Posted by: king_of_zouk | December 30, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

If Democrats in the Senate expect to keep any semblance of respect from the voting pubplic, they must distance themselves as far, as quickly, and as unequivocally as possible from the stench of any action taken by this criminal dressed as a governor.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Mr. Burris, and it is in fact unfortunate that he may actually be worthy of serving (I know nothing about him, and therefore give him the benefit of the doubt). However, NOTHING can ever erase the blot of this scandal, and Mr. Burris' every move would be suspect for the duration of his service. We simply cannot afford another such distraction.

Posted by: Orsalia | December 30, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

I concur with the poster on the constitution as it does not appear to allow any latitude for the Senate when it comes to not seating a person unless that person has displayed behavior that is unbecoming of the Senate body. Hence, I think that this appointment is likely to stick.

Posted by: vobiscum36 | December 30, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Zouk and 37thand0 continue to make so much sense....

Continuing to hold a position held before the nominee was named must be racist... (the rest of those non sequitors, I have no clue waht point you were even trying to make)

Accepting a candidate that would make their majority larger would go against their "clinging" to power (they have an 18-seat majority, how exactly are they "clinging" to power?)....

It's all so amazing

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 30, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

what's the big deal? another crooked politician, appointed by a crooked politician from the heart of crooked politics to the national party of crooked politicians. I wonder if the crooks in charge aren't getting enough graft to go along?

Posted by: king_of_zouk | December 30, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Burris will be seated because there is no legal reason not to and they need the vote.

The Senate Democratic Leadership needs to get a grip and move on.

After all, Al Franken is coming up next . . .

Posted by: duanelaw1 | December 30, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

This is mainly entertainment for the GOP. Remember, Chip Saltsman is still the odds-on favorite to win the RNC post -- not despite his obviously racist joke, but because of it.

The GOP has always been much more comfortable being the party out of power than in it -- their weaknesses are less obvious when they're the opposition.

Posted by: Samson151 | December 30, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

.

.

.

.


It is totally RACIST for Reid and Durbin to refuse to seat Roland Burris who has a long history of service to the people of Illinois.


Seriously folks.


We need more blacks in the Senate - and for Reid and Dick Durbin to care about how Roland Burris got there is COMPLETELY WRONG HEADED AND RACIST.


I guess Obama should be required to produce his birth certificate.


AND evidence as to whether he ever was a CITIZEN OF INDONESIA. However if we are ignoring that provision of the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, WE MIGHT AS WELL IGNORE THE OTHER PROVISIONS AND ALLOW THE DEMOCRATS TO MAKE IT UP AS THEY GO.


Reid has some nerve.

After all, Bush lied, right? So that justifies throwing the Constitution out the window, right? Also Bush's brother may have cheated, so that justifies every other nasty thing the democrats have done over the past 8 years, right???

This is beginning to make so much sense now.


.

.

.

.

Posted by: Yes37thandORulesForever | December 30, 2008 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Oh, no. He will indeed be seated. Trust me. It is a very crafy move from a man who has the chutzpah -- and moxie -- (said with utter disgust for this vile man) to tie everyone up in knots: refusing to resign, and with this appointment.

Posted by: lrb100 | December 30, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

such a dilemma, should the Libs in congress ignore the rules or cling to power. take a guess?

Can't we all just go back to ignoring anything and everything about BHO's background, history and associates. there is no good there.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | December 30, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

The problem for Reid and Durbin, per Art 1, Sec 5 and SCOTUS precedent (Powell v. McCormack, 1969), the Senate MUST accept him as it only has the power to judge elections and qualifications (as in age, citizenship, etc). There are no constituional grounds to block his taking the seat, Blago is entitled to make the appointment whether they like it or not and no one has legally changed that, and it can't be changed after the fact. The next paragraph is where it may get interesting:

"Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member."

Can they expel a member immediately aftyer seating him with a 2/3 vote without cause, or does it need to be linked to the member's behavior? And if the former was the case, would the Dems be able to get enough Republicans to vote to expel?

Posted by: kreuz_missile | December 30, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company