Blagojevich appoints a senator

[ClydeR]

Illinois Governor Blagojevich has appointed Roland Burris (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6549970&page=1) to fill the senate seat vacated by Obama. There is no indicating that Burris did anything unsavory to gain the appointment. Even so, the Illinois legislature, the Untied States Senate and the Illinois Attorney General all vow to block the appointment.

Blagojevich is still the governor. Until he resigns or is removed from office, or unless there was some fraud in the appointment, I think he has the right to make the appointment.

[Methais]

I voted no, but that's only because I'm black.

[Clove]

"It is truly regrettable that despite requests from all 50 Democratic Senators and public officials throughout Illinois, Gov. Blagojevich would take the imprudent step of appointing someone to the United States Senate who would serve under a shadow and be plagued by questions of impropriety," the Senate Democratic leadership said in a statement today.

I think a strong reason not to appoint was clearly expressed.

And since you're a God fearin' personality


Abstain from every appearance of evil

1 Thessalonians 5:22

[ClydeR]

And since you're a God fearin' personality

Very good, Clove, except that you misinterpreted the scripture. That verse implies that the Senate should seat Burris. I would be evil to punish Burris if he has done nothing wrong.

[Daniel]

It would be funny if he did this because he hated the guy.

[Tsa`ah]

It would be funny if he did this because he hated the guy.

Which is why I think the appointment was an intentional attempt to completely fuck his career.

[Parkbandit]

My favorite part is that since Obama is black, that only a black politician should obviously take his seat.

[Stretch]

My favorite part is that since Obama is black, that only a black politician should obviously take his seat.

I have the same sentiment about how every feminist group is up in arms that Hillary's replacement should be a woman, because...otherwise, it wouldn't be fair.

[Parkbandit]

I have the same sentiment about how every feminist group is up in arms that Hillary's replacement should be a woman, because...otherwise, it wouldn't be fair.


I hadn't heard that one.. but it's equally stupid. Imagine if that seat was held by a white man.. and people were saying that the replacement should be a white man. That would be racist.. but this is completely acceptable.

[Daniel]

I hadn't heard that one.. but it's equally stupid. Imagine if that seat was held by a white man.. and people were saying that the replacement should be a white man. That would be racist.. but this is completely acceptable.

You'd have a point if there were only 3 white senators ever.

[Khariz]

You'd have a point if there were only 3 white senators ever.

No, he has a point regardless. This is the same stupid shit, all over again.

Kinda like how it's not "racist" for Rev. Wright's church to promote Black Power, Black Progress, Black this, and Black that, but if you replace all the words in their mission to "White" it suddenly becomes racist.

It's a bunch of stupid bullshit. We aren't living in the 60's.

[Clove]

Very good, Clove, except that you misinterpreted the scripture. That verse implies that the Senate should seat Burris. I would be evil to punish Burris if he has done nothing wrong.The only one punishing Burris is Blagojevich.

[Parkbandit]

Yea, I'm trying to figure out why Blago hates Burris so much...

[Gan]

I hadn't heard that one.. but it's equally stupid. Imagine if that seat was held by a white man.. and people were saying that the replacement should be a white man. That would be racist.. but this is completely acceptable.

The same thing is being said about a Ginsberg replacement on the Supreme Court. Right now a woman presence is -1 from recent history.

[Tsa`ah]

No, he has a point regardless. This is the same stupid shit, all over again.

Kinda like how it's not "racist" for Rev. Wright's church to promote Black Power, Black Progress, Black this, and Black that, but if you replace all the words in their mission to "White" it suddenly becomes racist.

It's a bunch of stupid bullshit. We aren't living in the 60's.

The only people clamoring about race are those with an interest in the seat (Burris) and those with an issue of the seat going to a person of color.

Of the latter, I find it completely laughable that you have an issue with the seat going to a black person and raising the "racist" fuss when a black person mentions a historic black person ... yet in the same breath don't bat an eye when a white person mentions a white historic figure.

One the subject of Burris ... perhaps Blagojevich wants Burris to threepeat an association with a convicted governor.

In all seriousness this is just his departing "fuck you". Burris should have been disbarred over the Cruz prosecution and has been nothing more than a political leech throughout his entire career.

[Clove]

The only people clamoring about race are those with an interest in the seat (Burris) and those with an issue of the seat going to a person of color and Daniel.Fixed.

[Gan]

LOL

[ClydeR]

(CNN) – Outgoing Senate Rules Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein said Tuesday she disagrees with her Democratic leadership blocking Roland Burris from being seated in the Senate.

“The question is really one, in my view, of law,” Feinstein told reporters in a Capitol hallway.

“Does the governor have the power, under law, to make the appointment? And the answer is yes. Is the governor discredited? The answer is yes. Does that affect his appointment power? The answer is no, until certain things happen,” she said.

More... (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/06/feinstein-breaks-with-leadership-on-burris/)

I'm glad some of the Senate leaders are starting to agree with me.

[Daniel]

No, he has a point regardless. This is the same stupid shit, all over again.

Kinda like how it's not "racist" for Rev. Wright's church to promote Black Power, Black Progress, Black this, and Black that, but if you replace all the words in their mission to "White" it suddenly becomes racist.

It's a bunch of stupid bullshit. We aren't living in the 60's.

You were wrong then. You are wrong now. It's not my fault that you lack the ability to look at an issue in any gradient beyond solid black or white.

[Daniel]

Fixed.

Nice troll.

[Mabus]

As long as the Senator was chosen according to the laws of his state, and qualified under the US Constitution (Article I, Section 3, Clause 3), he should be seated.

If the Senate wants to disqualify Burris it must either hold a vote to do so (a simple majority) or expel him (a two thirds majority) (Article I, Section 5) . There is no "we want a safely re-electable Senator" or "the governor is under suspicion" qualification/disqualification to sit in the Senate.

Blagojevich has not been indicted, convicted or impeached. Until such time as he is, he is required by law to carry out his duties as Governor. This was a required duty.

[Parkbandit]

You were wrong then. You are wrong now. It's not my fault that you lack the ability to look at an issue in any gradient beyond solid black or white.


In conclusion: It's only considered racism to Daniel when white people do it.

[Clove]

Nice troll.Actually I had contributed to this thread before you went off with a retarded suggestion. Actually I think the next 5 or so Presidents should be black because we've only had 1.

[Jorddyn]

Disclaimer: I think Burris is an idiot. I heard him in an interview, and he insisted on referring to himself in the third person.

I used to think Burris should be seated. However corrupt Blago is, he has the power to pick him. I heard on NPR that the appointment papers require the signature of the Secretary of State for Illinois, who has refused to sign them. If that is truly the case, then the Senate has cause for not seating him, and I agree with them.

[Daniel]

In conclusion: It's only considered racism to Daniel when white people do it.

No. Not really, but feel free to think that.



Actually I had contributed to this thread before you went off with a retarded suggestion. Actually I think the next 5 or so Presidents should be black because we've only had 1.

That's a nice strawman you got there. You build it all by yourself?

[Clove]

That's a nice strawman you got there. You build it all by yourself?Naw. You helped.

[Daniel]

Naw. You helped.

Nah not really. I never said that the next 5 presidents should be black. You're making an apples to oranges comparison.

Congress is a representative body and I believe that to be an effective representative body it should reflect the diversity of people and ideas within this nation. That means, I wouldn't support a 100% democratic congress or a 100% black congress either.

In the case of a Republican seat being vacated I'd support a Republican taking the seat because it's important to ensure political diversity.

In the case of a seat being vacated by a woman I'd support a woman taking the seat because it's important to ensure political diversity.

In the case of a seat being vacated by a white man I would not automaticly support a white man to take the seat because that does *not* promote racial diversity. White men are already well represented in the Congress and thus their representation is pretty well ensured.

The additional (and significant) qualifier is that the person should be fully qualified and capable of serving in this capacity. That doesn't change because of race\sex\creed or political association.

Burris is making himself to be a tool and I don't want him in the Senate seat. That doesn't mean I wouldn't support a non toolish African American candidate in order to maintain what limited diversity there is.


But hey. Keep thinking it's all the same thing. It's like saying that only measure of a recession is two straight quarters of negative economic growth.

[Clove]

And here I thought you didn't support Affirmative Action.

[Daniel]

And here I thought you didn't support Affirmative Action.

I don't.

Nice to see you backing down from any sort of intellectual debate again. Sometimes a little continuity is nice.

[Daniel]

Let me save you the time of some stupid semantic argument: I don't support the set of policies implemented in America under the rubric of Affirmative action because they are counter productive to the cause of achieving racial inequality and do not address the systemic problems and causes of racial inequality in America.

[Clove]

I don't.

Nice to see you backing down from any sort of intellectual debate again. Sometimes a little continuity is nice.You started.

The Senate is represented by the will of its constituents, not some hairbrained concept of political diversity.

If you can somehow prove that Obama was elected to the Senate because he was black then I could concede an argument that his replacement should also be black. Of course, it would still be institutional racism.

[Daniel]

You started.

The Senate is represented by the will of its constituents, not some hairbrained concept of political diversity.

.

Representative Democracy and political pluralism is some hairbrained concept of political diversity?

Right. I think our founding fathers may disagree a tad.

Tell me. Why was it found neccessary to create the Senate with 2 members from each state?

Why wasn't the House of Representives with it's proportional system deemed sufficient?

[Clove]

Why wasn't the House of Representives with it's proportional system deemed sufficient?Too many fifths?

So that women and minorities would have a better chance to get elected to the Senate, IMIRITE?

Why didn't the Founders require race and sex be represented instead of population?

[Daniel]

Too many fifths?

So that women and minorities would have a better chance to get elected to the Senate, IMIRITE?

Why didn't the Founders require race and sex be represented instead of population?

Are you serious?

Or are you at just that much of a loss here?

[Jorddyn]

Tell me. Why was it found neccessary to create the Senate with 2 members from each state?


Because they were Democrats and loved big government???!?!?

[Clove]

Are you serious?

Or are you at just that much of a loss here?What? I thought you were at a loss since you were asking.

The House was to represent the people and the Senate to represent the States (as an entity). The Founders didn't originally intend the Senate to be popularly elected. Prior to the 17th Amendment Senators were chosen by their State legislature. Now we elect them. Senators are no longer selected the same way the Founders originally intended.

I have a High School Civics book if you need it.

[Daniel]

What? I thought you were at a loss since you were asking.

The House was to represent the people and the Senate to represent the States (as an entity). The Founders didn't originally intend the Senate to be popularly elected. Prior to the 17th Amendment Senators were chosen by their State legislature. Now we elect them. Senators are no longer selected the same way the Founders originally intended.

I have a High School Civics book if you need it.

Okay. Let's follow this through. Why was it neccessary to ensure that states were adequately represented as opposed to people?

It couldn't have had anything to do with political pluralism could it? The same thing layed out in the federalist papers that formed the basis for the constitution and advocated the "diversity" that you claim is "Hair brained".

Nah. Couldn't be that.

Tell me. Does your "High School Civics book" have this phrase?


Whoever seriously considers the immense extent of territory comprehended within the limits of the United States, together with the variety of its climates, productions, and commerce, the difference of extent, and number of inhabitants in all; the dissimilitude of interest, morals, and policies, in almost every one, will receive it as an intuitive truth, that a consolidated republican form of government therein, can never form a perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to you and your posterity, for to these objects it must be directed: this unkindred legislature therefore, composed of interests opposite and dissimilar in their nature, will in its exercise, emphatically be, like a house divided against itself.

If so, you might want to re-read it to understand diversity is not some "hairbrained" ideal.

[Clove]

Okay. Let's follow this through. Why was it neccessary to ensure that states were adequately represented as opposed to people?So replacing a black Senator with a black Senator is representing Illinois now (not people).

As I said before, they sure as hell weren't trying to ensure that women and minorities had a presence in the legislature.

Neither does the Federalist papers imply it. What it does imply is that left with only one legislative House where population dicatates power the States would have unequal voices with sharply diverse interests. The bicameral system leaves the two houses accountable to each other. One popularly, one equally represented.

[Daniel]

So replacing a black Senator with a black Senator is representing Illinois now (not people).

Is that what I said?



As I said before, they sure as hell weren't trying to ensure that women and minorities had a presence in the legislature.

Neither does the Federalist papers imply it. What it does imply is that left with only one legislative House where population dicatates power the States would have unequal voices with sharply diverse interests. The bicameral system leaves the two houses accountable to each other. One populist, one equally represented.

This is a retarded argument. The point is that our government is founded on the premise that diversity of opinion and interest is essential to the effective governing of the country. You are correct in that this was not originally intended to be extended to women and minorities.

However, to argue that this completely negates the issue of diversity as defined through ethnicity and sex completely ignores the fact that the country as a whole has evolved to a point in which it is believed that these groups should have an equal say in the governance of this country. It is not unreasonable to suggest that the concept of diversity in opinion and interest in the legislative body should be extended from political parties and states to those of ethnicity and sex.

Afterall, you'd be essentially be saying that since the constitution did not originally intend for women and blacks to vote or be full citizens then the concept of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness does not apply to them today.

I'm not saying that a black senator should be automatically replaced by another black senator on the sole basis of his race. I am saying that it is a legitimate consideration as it would contribute to the diversity of our legislative bodies, which in accordance with the philosophical underpinings of our governance system, is a desirable thing. In no means am I suggesting that this is an overriding consideration that should take the place of suitability and ability to perform the functions of the job effectively.

[Parkbandit]

I hadn't realized that 50% of the population of Illinois was now black. I thought it was something like 12-15%.

[Keller]

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/215373/january-05-2009/colbert-and-colmes---roland-burris-appointment

Start at 3:20

[Clove]

I hadn't realized that 50% of the population of Illinois was now black. I thought it was something like 12-15%.Doesn't matter, the population is represented in the House.

[Clove]

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/215373/january-05-2009/colbert-and-colmes---roland-burris-appointment

Start at 3:20This ought to be interesting.

[Clove]

Is that what I said?



This is a retarded argument.No. You invoked the intent of the Founders which:

A) Didn't include women and minorities
B) Isn't germane when contemplating the Senate which wasn't meant to represent populace, but States equally.



Afterall, you'd be essentially be saying that since the constitution did not originally intend for women and blacks to vote or be full citizens then the concept of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness does not apply to them today.I'm not the one that brought up original intent.


I'm not saying that a black senator should be automatically replaced by another black senator on the sole basis of his race. I am saying that it is a legitimate consideration as it would contribute to the diversity of our legislative bodies, which in accordance with the philosophical underpinings of our governance system, is a desirable thing. In no means am I suggesting that this is an overriding consideration that should take the place of suitability and ability to perform the functions of the job effectively.Again, I didn't think you supported affirmative action. I would think the consideration would be how effective a Senator a person would be (since they are representing the State equally amongst the others), not the sex or race of her predecessor.

[Daniel]

No. You invoked the intent of the Founders which:

A) Didn't include women and minorities
B) Isn't germane when contemplating the Senate which wasn't meant to represent populace, but States equally.


I'm not the one that brought up original intent.




In response to A) and B) The original intent I brought up was diversity. That was the point. Not that it included members of certain groups. You said that diversity was some "hairbrained" ideal that had no place in the governance of this nation. You are factually wrong and it is absolutely germane when discussing whether or not "diversity" should be a factor when selecting someone who will be partly responsible for governing this nation.

Once again.

The point is that, as a body, the Congress of the United States, is more effective as a diverse institution.

The senate as a body was intended to provide adequate diversity of representation as a check to the populist model of the house.

The original philosophy of our governing system was that an effective governing body is diverse enough to reflect the ideals and positions of the people of America. At the time this did not include minorities and women because they were not given due consideration under the law. That basic fact has since changed and it makes no sense to say that diversity of representation should not have anything to do with ethnicity or sex.

In the case where an minority is vacating a position and the responsibility to appoint their replacement lies within one person, a consideration should be given to maintaining the diversity of opinion the person, whose position is being vacated, has brought to the table.



Again, I didn't think you supported affirmative action. I would think the consideration would be how effective a Senator a person would be (since they are representing the State equally amongst the others), not the sex or race of her predecessor.

I'm not saying otherwise. I've said plenty of times that that is the consideration. Why you choose to ignore that is beyond me.

[DeV]

Disclaimer: I think Burris is an idiot. I heard him in an interview, and he insisted on referring to himself in the third person.

I used to think Burris should be seated. However corrupt Blago is, he has the power to pick him. I heard on NPR that the appointment papers require the signature of the Secretary of State for Illinois, who has refused to sign them. If that is truly the case, then the Senate has cause for not seating him, and I agree with them.
I completely agree with this.

I would like to see a person of non-white ancestry confirmed to the senate seat, but I don't feel that replacement should automatically be black just because it was a post previously held by the only black Senator in congress. With that said, I would like to see a continuing trend of diversity in the legislature as far as Illinois representatives are concerned. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill, someone I admired as a youth, would have been a much better pick in my opinion, but her outspoken past was apparently too much for Blago who has nothing to gain by appointing an outspoken independent.

The fact of the matter is most states have never voted for a black person to represent them in the Senate, but the majority that have served come from two distinct states, Massachusetts and Illinois. Ultimately, we want the best person for the job and the best person to represent our interests regardless of race, sex, religion, etc. Illinois should not be counted on to produce the most black senators and the fact that this subject is garnering so much attention is a lingering testament to the fact that racial diversity is extremely necessary in our state, and that especially goes for Latinos and Asian groups who've heavily aided in fostering the diversity and growth that we need in the city of Chicago, suburbs and the entire state.

The House of Representatives is boiling over with diversity because the districts break down by neighborhoods or sections instead of statewide, therefore voters get to pick someone who grew up in the neighborhood or who is familiar with the neighborhood in which they'll represent.

[Clove]

That basic fact has since changed and it makes no sense to say that diversity of representation should not have anything to do with ethnicity or sex.Why? How does a black, white, asian, gay, straight, Catholic, Jew or any other class you'd like to include represent their State's interest better than any other? I wasn't challenging the Framers' concept of diversity (that each State have equal representation so that the most populated didn't run the show). I was challenging your interpretation.


In the case where an minority is vacating a position and the responsibility to appoint their replacement lies within one person, a consideration should be given to maintaining the diversity of opinion the person, whose position is being vacated, has brought to the table.Why? A Senate seat isn't some inheritance and personally I think Obama would disagree that he has a "black" political perspective (whatever that is).





I'm not saying otherwise. I've said plenty of times that that is the consideration. Why you choose to ignore that is beyond me.You've put forth that race be a consideration in this thread far more times than any other.

[ClydeR]

The fact of the matter is most states have never voted for a black person to represent them in the Senate, but the majority that have served come from two distinct states, Massachusetts and Illinois. Ultimately, we want the best person for the job and the best person to represent our interests regardless of race, sex, religion, etc. Illinois should not be counted on to produce the most black senators and the fact that this subject is garnering so much attention is a lingering testament to the fact that racial diversity is extremely necessary in our state, and that especially goes for Latinos and Asian groups who've heavily aided in fostering the diversity and growth that we need in the city of Chicago, suburbs and the entire state.

The House of Representatives is boiling over with diversity because the districts break down by neighborhoods or sections instead of statewide, therefore voters get to pick someone who grew up in the neighborhood or who is familiar with the neighborhood in which they'll represent.

You need a 25% black population to have a chance of electing a black representative. Once you cross the 25% threshold, each 1 percentage point increase in the black population increases the probability of electing a black representative by more than 1 percentage point. Once you reach a 50% black population, the probability of electing a black representative is a whopping 80%. That's my summary of this excellent article (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/01/why-are-there-no-black-senators.html).

I think you can draw two conclusions, neither of which is flattering to voters. First, white voters are less likely to vote for a black person than for a white person, which explains why black people cannot be elected if their population is less than 25%. Second, black voters are more likely--and by a greater magnitude than my first conclusion--to vote for a black person than for a white person, which explains the high probability of electing a black person where there is a significant, but minority, black population.

There are exceptions, of course, and we will see one of those on January 20.

So says Clyde.

[Clove]

The House of Representatives is boiling over with diversity because the districts break down by neighborhoods or sections instead of statewide, therefore voters get to pick someone who grew up in the neighborhood or who is familiar with the neighborhood in which they'll represent.And that's exactly how the House is intended to represent the nation; it is population based.

[Daniel]

Why? How does a black, white, asian, gay, straight, Catholic, Jew or any other class you'd like to include represent their State's interest better than any other? I wasn't challenging the Framers' concept of diversity (that each State have equal representation so that the most populated didn't run the show). I was challenging your interpretation.


You are aware that certain regions of the US and the states within them have different demographical make ups, right? That one is easy, but do you realize that at the time the constitution was written it was also a concern, between white people?

Where do you think the antagonism between the North and the South comes from?

I mean, how does a Republican or Democrat represent their state better than the other? Since all people are the same I'm sure you wouldn't mind if all 100 Senators were democrats? Amirite?

Of course, all of what you have said completely ignores the essence of the argument made for diversity in the federalist papers.

You attempted to ignore this entirely by saying that "Well they obviously didn't intend that for blacks and women", but as has been shown that's a preposterous position.

You also completely ignore the fact that this isn't an issue specific to the Senate but a philosophical tenant of the governance of the United States as a whole.

I'll try and keep you on track.

I'm saying that political pluralism is a neccessary component of an effective representative government. That is the basic essence of my position. You seem to think this is "hairbrained".

Can you come up with an effective argument against that statement that doesn't involve "Well, they didn't intend blacks to be a part of government at the time so it doesn't apply to blacks today"?

I got 10 bucks on no.

[Daniel]

And that's exactly how the House is intended to represent the nation; it is population based.

Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

[DeV]

I think you can draw two conclusions, neither of which is flattering to voters. First, white voters are less likely to vote for a black person than for a white person, which explains why black people cannot be elected if their population is less than 25%. Second, black voters are more likely--and by a greater magnitude than my first conclusion--to vote for a black person than for a white person, which explains the high probability of electing a black person where there is a significant, but minority, black population.

So says Clyde.Common sense dictates that this is only part and parcel of the dynamics involved.

[DeV]

And that's exactly how the House is intended to represent the nation; it is population based.Diversity is a good thing and the House is a prime example of that.

[Mabus]

AP Story:

Roland Burris sworn in as senator to replace Obama

9 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Roland Burris is now officially a U.S. senator. The Illinois Democrat was sworn-in by Vice President Dick Cheney Thursday at a Capitol Hill ceremony. His new colleagues in the Senate chamber responded with applause.

He takes his Senate seat alongside fellow Democrats who initially turned him away, and who had vowed not to seat anyone appointed by embattled Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

The governor, who's been impeached by state lawmakers, is accused of trying to sell the Senate seat that had been held by President-elect Barack Obama.

Burris is now being given a polite welcome by Democrats, who say they never had anything against him personally.

Burris becomes the only black member of the Senate.

Looks like after all the bluster and words from Reed, Obama and Durbin (as well as others) they finally had to shut up and accept the constitutionality of the appointment.

[Parkbandit]

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (Feb. 17) – U.S. Sen. Roland Burris now acknowledges attempting to raise money for ousted Gov. Rod Blagojevich — an explosive twist in his evolving story on how he landed a coveted Senate appointment from the man accused of trying to sell the seat.
Burris made the admission to reporters late Monday, after releasing an affidavit over the weekend saying he had more contact with Blagojevich advisers about the Senate seat than he had described under oath to the state House panel that recommended Blagojevich's impeachment. The Democrat also said in the affidavit, but not before the panel, that the governor's brother asked him for fundraising help.

Though Burris insists he never raised money for Blagojevich while the governor was considering whom to appoint to the seat President Barack Obama vacated, the revelation that he had attempted to do so is likely to increase calls for Burris' resignation and an investigation into whether he committed perjury before the panel.
Illinois Democrats have sent documents related to Burris' testimony to a county prosecutor for review. In Washington, a good-government group recommended Burris' expulsion from the Senate if an ethics committee investigation shows he lied to Senate leaders.
Burris, in the middle of a previously scheduled tour of northern and central Illinois cities, would not discuss his attempts to raise funds for Blagojevich, but said he didn't do anything wrong and encouraged officials to look into the matter.
"I welcome the opportunity to go before any and all investigative bodies ... to answer any questions they have," he told reporters in Peoria, before declining to answer questions.
Burris, who declined to address reporters again during a later stop in Bloomington, also said he planned to release later this week "a concise document" related to his testimony, but he would not elaborate.
After an event Monday night in Peoria, Burris told reporters that he had reached out to friends after Blagojevich's brother, Robert, called him before President Barack Obama's election asking him to raise $10,000 or $15,000 for the governor.
"So sometime shortly after Obama was elected, the brother called (again) and I had talked to some people about trying to see if we could put a fundraiser on," Burris said, according to an audio clip provided by the Peoria Journal-Star.

http://news.aol.com/article/roland-burris-blagojevich/347802

[Daniel]

Holy fuck this guy is a clown.

[Tsa`ah]

His ego enters a room 20 minutes before he does and will live on long after he's dead.

I hope he damages himself enough in the next year, if he does manage to keep his appointed position, that he won't survive the primaries.

[Parkbandit]

I hope there's another black guy in Illinois ready to take his spot.. he won't make it this time.

[sst]

I hope there's another black guy in Illinois ready to take his spot.. he won't make it this time.

jessie or al

[DeV]

^ Rofl, nice list except Sharpton isn't from Illinois.

To add, I'm not surprised by Burris in the least, but what will surprise me is whether or not the Senate decideds to act. My bet is they won't as they don't exactly have a history of punishing their own, plus Burris can play the semantics game all day with regard to the wording of questions and how he answered as it pertains to contributions, donations, raising funds, etc.

[Parkbandit]

^ Rofl, nice list except Sharpton isn't from Illinois.

To add, I'm not surprised by Burris in the least, but what will surprise me is whether or not the Senate decideds to act. My bet is they won't as they don't exactly have a history of punishing their own, plus Burris can play the semantics game all day with regard to the wording of questions and how he answered as it pertains to contributions, donations, raising funds, etc.


All Burris has to do is once again play the race card and the Senate leadership will cower down and let him stay.

[DeV]

All Burris has to do is once again play the race card and the Senate leadership will cower down and let him stay.That's awesome.

Maybe it'll work for Blago too? One can hope!

[ClydeR]

I heard Charles Krauthamer, who is almost never wrong, say on Fox News that this Burris controversy is likely to redound to the benefit of the Democrats. His reasoning was that, if this latest controversy had not happened, then Burris would likely have run for reelection in 2010 when his term ends. But now he has almost no change of winning the Democrat nomination, let alone the election. That means the Democrats can run a stronger candidate in 2010 without having to contend with an unpopular incumbent seeking reelection.

Smart Republicans would do well to support Burris, instead of indulging in piling on, which will only lead to their ultimate failure. Republicans should heed Screwtape's advice to Wormwood.


For the first time in your career you have tasted that wine which is the reward of all our labours—the anguish and bewilderment of a human soul—and it has gone to your head. I can hardly blame you. I do not expect old heads on young shoulders. Did the patient respond to some of your terror-pictures of the future? Did you work in some good self-pitying glances at the happy past?—some fine thrills in the pit of his stomach, were there? You played your violin prettily did you? Well, well, it's all very natural. But do remember, Wormwood, that duty comes before pleasure. If any present self-indulgence on your part leads to the ultimate loss of the prey, you will be left eternally thirsting for that draught of which you are now so much enjoying your first sip.

[Parkbandit]

That's awesome.

Maybe it'll work for Blago too? One can hope!

Blago used the race card when he appointed Burris. That's a dry well for him now :)