Tweet
Having had a chance to digest all the back-and-forth over the appointment of Burris, I really can’t see any reason why the Senate should not seat him.
The Illinois legislature had their chance to strip Blago of his appointment power and call a special election, but the Democrats got cute and decided they didn’t want to risk losing the seat (Reid sent a letter opposing a special election).
So they made this particular bed.
Now the Senate Democratic Caucus have said they will not let Burris join their exclusive little club. Really? As The Christian Progressive Liberal notes over at Jack & Jill Politics, that’s a rich one:
Harry Reid, as well as the President-Elect, needs to explain why Traitor Joe Lieberman was allowed to keep his Senate seat, his committee assignments and his privileges when the man all but joined the Republican Party by publicly dissing PE Obama, and actively campaigning for Obama’s opponent, Sen. John McCain – thereby signing off on all the race-baiting inherently involved in McCain’s campaign, brought with an assist from the Moose Queen Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin. Reid needs to explain what the difference is in keeping Lieberman the Weasel vs. seating Roland Burris, the near-squeaky clean former AG from Illinois. This is a no-brainer; I think Burris can be more counted on to caucus with the Democrats than a fake Independent like Lieberman. And Lieberman has already shown them his ass to kiss; Reid and most of the Democrats in the Senate, including our PE, willingly applied the ChapStick and got to kissing Lieberman’s ass; thereby affording Lieberman more importance in the Senate than he should have. When Lieberman resorts to shanking them, I don’t want to hear shyt from Reid or Obama except to say “We knew this could happen.”
In the end, it is a question of race, and it is also the DOUBLE STANDARD operating in full effect; but what is more worrisome to me is that our PE is siding with those engaging in the DOUBLE STANDARD through his public statements on the matter. However, PE Obama will be reminded of the fact of his ethnicity soon enough and fast enough, the minute he makes an unfortunate decision, which we’ve already more or less accepted. Yet, it would not be an excuse from calling the bullshyt DOUBLE STANDARD when it is presenting itself front and center, and especially when its coming from a man people worked too damned hard to get elected in the first place.
If Obama was given a pass for not using his considerable influence to kick Joe Lieberman out of the Democratic Caucus, he also needs to be confronted as to why he’s applying said influence to kick out another legit Democratic African-American from the Senate.
Forget about the fact Obama cussed out Lieberman on the Senate Floor or in the Senate Chambers – he didn’t take down Lieberman when he had the chance; Eff needing Lieberman to caucus with the Dems. You guys think Harry Reid isn’t versed in all kinds of parliamentary procedures that would have neutralized Lieberman? I shyt you not; Reid’s a walking enclycopedia when it comes to Senate parliamentary rules and procedures. He even used one to stop Bush from making Presidential appointments to government positions without Senate approval during the last recess. Lieberman has already shown what a weasel he is and they allow him to continue being a weasel by not punishing him for his treachery. Yet, Burris is appointed by a Federally indicted Governor, per the Constitution and any other applicable law, and Obama and Reid now get their knickers in a twist?
Get.The.Hell.Out.Of.Here.With.That.Shyt. Keeping a weasel like Lieberman among them to further undermine and side with the Republicans; not to mention engaging in his own form of extortion when he doesn’t get his way – that’s far, far WORSE than seating Blagojevich’s appointment of Burris to the Senate. For my money, I’m looking forward to Burris writing another book about how racism in the United States Senate kept him from being appointed and possibly implicating our PE, who didn’t need to be involved in this shyt AT ALL. Obama has been remarkably adept at keeping out of controversies he doesn’t need to be in, so somebody needs to ask him why he’s all in this Senate Appointment Kool-Aid now, when he really doesn’t need to be? I mean, Pat Fitzgerald cleared him and his staffers from the very beginning and even looked like one of them dropped dime on Blago to the Feds to further keep him from soiling Obama’s ascendency to the White House.
I think these are very good points, and Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats who lined up to put the Homeland Security gavel back in the hands of the supremely unqualified Joe Lieberman should look forward to answering them.
105 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Yeah! Jane.
Truly, we need a new majority leader in the Senate. More change we can believe in, please.
great post.
Within 6 months,
Joey is going to be investigating the administration.
You
heardread it here first.I don’t think the two are compatible. As mad as we all are over Lieberman, it’s not quite the same to have someone who supported another party in the Senate as it is to have someone appointed by a soon-to-be-felon. One is a political sin, the other is a criminal one. There’s paltry justification for Lieberman keeping his committee chair, but that’s hardly reason to entertain an opportunist like Burris.
calling this racism is just dumb. the Senate and Obama would have responded as they have no matter who Blago appointed. now, are they right? that’s a different question. the comparison to Lieberman is amusing but misses the point. if Burris takes a seat in the Senate, of course he will caucus with the Democrats, and they will welcome him with punch and pie. what they are saying now is that they don’t want him to take that seat at all. i can see both sides to some extent, but i do think they’re making a mistake. Blago is the legal Governor, this is a legal and qualified appointment, the Illinois Senate decided not to impeach and not to hold a special election, so even if the Senate can keep Burris out, who will they accept, and how? is their position that until Blago resigns or is impeached, Illinois just doesn’t get to have a second Senator? that’s clever. Ah, Harry Reid, man of cheeenius.
Yep. Before, during and after the election.
Geez, no one wants Burris or Princess Senator Caroline, you know? Wonder if Harry’s gonna seat Franken?
For example, Joe could investigate this outrage:
As in, Mr. Katie O’Beirne.
[Note to self (and others - Are you listening Short Ride?): Do NOT under ANY circumstances, do ANYTHING that will get Jane Hamsher p*ss’d at me]
And which politician isn’t an opportunist? I won’t even exempt Ted Kennedy.
Change the Question a little given Harry Reid’s lack of Stones just why would Blago feel the slightest hesitation about defying the Senate’s threat not to seat his choice for Senator?
In fact Reid’s weakness encourages this kind of behavior.
Blago needs someone to lean on Fitz Blago thinks the Obama can, Blago can’t reach Obama but the Senate they are vulnerable they are weak Blaggo can jam them up and that he hopes will force Obama’s hand.
I heard that it is part of the appointment process that the IL AG (or other ldr) must sign off on the appointment and is refusing to do so.
478 hrs & 51 min
Strange bedfellows (no toe tapping allowed) at the Mad Hatters tea party, teh Queen Henry, she rule – off with their heads……
Has anybody taken note of the last time rational people ran the government?
For better or worse, Blagojevich is still entitled to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. He hasn’t even been indicted yet.
It’s been 8 long years, but just because he “sounds” guilty is not yet enough to put him in jail.
If the Dems thought he shouldn’t be trusted with the appointment, they had the option to take it out of his hands. They adamantly opposed that.
I can’t see how the Burris appointment isn’t legal, totally outside of Lieberman.
But the issue of this post isn’t the legality of the Burris appointment — it’s whether the Senate Democratic Caucus will accept him. They’ve said they wouldn’t, but even though Lieberman is probably guilty of criminal negligence in his lack of oversight and enabling of corruption and greed as the Chairman of the Homeland Security they accepted him.
What’s the standard here?
Seat Burris now.
Obama has already caused one reliable part of the Democratic coalition to question our allegiance to him when he chose Pastor Rick™ Warren as Inaugural Invoker. We wonder, “Does he understand us?”
Now another reliable patch in our party’s quilt has to wonder, “Will the lily-white Senate Democratic caucus exclude the African-American man because they don’t like who chose him?” By Inuaguration Day, two very solid parts of the Democratic Party may be wondering, “Who is Barack Obama and why has he forsaken me?”
Get this over with. Seat Roland Burris. The people’s real business awaits.
Stop fiddling. Rome is burning.
defeat joe in 2012.
I see Lucy with a football in the future.
Huh. I don’t see Traitor Joe’s situation comparable at all to the Burris fiasco. JoeLo unfortunately has his tentacles spread all around Capitol Hill and obviously can throw all kinds of wrenches into the works. This is because CT voters have been sending him to DeeCee for decades. JoeLo is presents a very difficult dilemma for Dems.
With Burris, it seems reasonable to me to try and keep out a highly tainted candidate if they can. I know nothing about Burris, but he was a joke at the press conference yesterday, and gave a particularly ridiculous answer to the question about all the money he has given Blago. This whole Burris thing reeks of corruption.
For the linked author above to claim this is a racial thing and raise a false “DOUBLE STANDARD” flag is rather lame. This line is especially bad:
How insulting. With his melanin-enhanced skin color, Obama is well aware of “his ethnicity” and what that means in America. Believe me.
Thanks Jane. Bullseye, as per usual.
Blago played this situation well. You got to hand it to the allegedly corrupt sonofabith.
Given the chance to make his appointment illegitimate, the IL AG failed to make an argument to the IL Supreme Court, and the IL legislature failed to deprive Blago of the power.
Roland is happy to have the opportunity and who would not be? Blago’s choice of a black appointee puts the racism question in play when the Senate pushes back. Well played, reason #2.
Obama can be against the appointment of a replacement when the appointee is under investigation for selling appointments but he’d do better explaining that is his only concern. Legitimacy is a valid issue and hard to verify.
Reid is the guy who must respond to Blago’s well-played hand.
What should the senate do?
Bingo!
Blaggo is ot looking to appoint someone now who will pay him. Baggo’s card to play is getting the best qualified African American he can find for the seat. Blago wants the Dems to risk throwing stones and pissing off Illinois African Americans.
Blago is playing Go and he just changed some Black Obama pieces to Black Blago pieces.
There should have been a special election. The Dems should have talked to Blago instead of letting him sit in the wind. Harry should not have established a Rep for weakness.
Blaggo is playing to weakness.
They are both political sins. Governor Rod hasn’t been indicted, least of all convicted. He’s still the governor; Illinois deserves representation. Burris is a fine statesman who was the first African American elected statewide in Illinois — thirty years ago! He’s proven his integrity and his ethic of service. His appointment has nothing to do with the possible indictment of the governor.
Move along. Actual work to be done, Harry.
And why does Harry Reid actual find his testicular fortitude only when it comes to Democrats? See Chris Dodd’s disrespected hold on FISA amendments for starters.
I agree. While I understand Obama not wanting to have anything to do with Blago, I cannot see how barring Burriss is legal.
Is this where the circular firing squad forms up?
478 hrs & 41 min
I believe it is the SofS Jesse White.
I agree the Democrats are being hypocritical here but I still don’t want Burris seated. I think the best avenue is to make the Burris appointment part of the impeachment indictment. I would point out too that as long as we are talking about double standards what Blagojevich did was chump change compared to the corrupt K Street machine that Tom Delay ran. But again just because Democrats acted badly re Lieberman, they should not repeat their mistake with Burris. And what the hey, what does this say about Burris that he would accept this position under such tainted conditions.
60 Grit will be all over the sunday morning shows soon.
this is one time i say let it go. we got a dem. not worth the fight, imo. defeat joe in 2012.
It is pathetic to watch Harry Reid and the other spineless Democrats get all outraged over this. The more they posture, by pretending their hands are clean, the more attention they call to it all. When does Reid get removed, including for all his crooked past land deals doing favors for friends in Nevada using public lands as currency?
It’s not a tainted appointment, he’s not a tainted appointee.
Frankly, I wish Blago had been on Capitol Hill for all of the last eight years. His kind of balls-upitude is exactly what we needed, not the capitulation and collaboration with BushCheneyCo that Pelosi, Reid, and Emanuel provided.
No, on the other side of the square. I’m tryin’ to make a sand painting over here fer cryin’ out loud.
Burris should secure AIPAC support, then there won’t be a problem. ;)
If this guy has been holding up funding for a childrens hospital for a payoff he has no business being in any position of authority.
478 hrs & 35 min
ThingsComeUndone @ 22
”Blago is playing Go and he just changed some Black Obama pieces to Black Blago pieces.”
beautiful.
Rome is burning.
There are no standards.
That’s why Rome is burning.
Perhaps, but the Democrats forfeited the moral high ground when they opposed a special election for political purposes. They can’t get it back now by refusing to seat Burris in the caucus when technically everything was done according to the letter of the law.
Ooooh! For realz?
Pooooor babeeeee. He didn’t get the chance to write up the FAUX News spin for his sweetie!
correct!
I’m gonna go watch Soutern Dragon make a sand painting.
Another BIG bingo!, Jane.
Reid will never answer any of our questions. He thinks we’re beneath him.
There are plenty of “ideas” and “plans” in relationship to the Blago appointment. It’s best to follow the law, because we know how well it works when politicians do not (hint: torture, FISA). If one wants to clutch pearls at the horrors of alleged wrongdoing and seek parliamentary patches in protest expends energy and political capital that could be used elsewhere.
The Dems appear to have learned the Rethug mindset quite well. Never do something because it’s the right thing to do, do it because it benefits us politically.
Where the ‘ell did the haitch go?
(Qwerty, is you messin’ wif me, again?)
I know a lot of Illinoisians who opposed a special election because their state, like most others, is drowning in debt. But then again, they weren’t in the Illinois legislature, which probably wasn’t thinking in terms of frugality.
Maybe Blago can vanquish Reid just in time for Blago to be indicted.
I say seat Burris and let’s get on with it.
Joe’s got him some investigatin’ to do, now.
Yes, it makes for absolutely fabulous kabuki.
A “promise, not a threat”, time, perhaps, SD?
If I were Burris I wouldn’t have touched this appointment no matter how badly I wanted to be a Senator. Even if it’s legal, he will be tainted by all this.
Not if we all just started to don black arm bands with the word “Law” written on it. Or Law-RIP. No energy; just sentiment.
Careful what you wish for. Blago has been under investigation for years about a number of issues. You can be a bulldog without being corrupt, and the last thing we need in DeeCee and the Dem Party is more ethics problems. Unless you think Fitz is lying, it seems clear that Blago was trying to sell a Senate seat, and he wasn’t able to complete the sale because Fitz pulled the trigger quickly.
Burris was laughable yesterday. He had no answer to the question about all his ties to Blago and the significant amount of money he has given to Blago. Knowing we know about Blago, isn’t it reasonable to assume that there could be some shady stuff happening between these two? Seems tainted to me.
And if the standard is conviction in a court of law, then I assume you defend Tom Delay with the vigor you’re defending Blago?
Absolutely. Tom DeLay is innocent until proven guilty too.
And I imagine Blago is probably guilty as shit, that’s not the point.
er… is that even a werd?
Congressman Bobby Rush standing next to Blaggo and Burris suggests African American support. Is Bobby on the outs with Mayor Daley?
If not da Mayor is also behind this Obama and Harry are in for a fight either way they both want something beyond Burris as Senator but what?
Burris is the catspaw.
Yeah. I can agree with objecting to booting Burris and keeping Short Ride, but claiming that booting Burris make Obama a racist? That’s somebody who’s letting their biases run away with their brain.
Yeah. What our government needs is more crooks./s
I wish we could just get rid of the “leadership” that has been enabling stupidity for the last 8 years.
With this sorry ass bunch in Congress, and the new one doesn’t really look a whole lot better, I’m beginning to think these fools think their invincible. A couple squeakers this last 4 Nov but the true Kool-Aid drinkers like McConnell think they have a neocon mandate. I think the first 3 months of the 111th are gonna be “very interesting.” Wish I could type it like Arte Johnson said it.
Unless Dear Leader classifies them as “enemy combatants.” Welcome to America 2.0 where even “innocent until proven guilty*” has a Yoo, Gonzo, Addington asterisk.
Yup. Google it.
No one is ‘defending’ Blago, simply standing for the rule of law, however unfashionable that might be at the moment …
The rule of law must stand, supreme, at all times, even if it were ‘convenient’, ’satisfying’ or ‘expedient’, for us to pick and choose otherwise…
Perhaps, there is some disagreement about this?
edit – fools think
theirthey’re invincibleEven with preview I missed this one.
…”this sorry ass bunch” … no truer words were ever bespokelated, SD.
So?
(Referring to my suggestion for the new motto on our coinage) “It’s Up to Us.”
Pathetic as this whole affair is, I don’t see how the Dems, posturing aside, can prevent Burris from being seated as a Senator. And, in the end, they’ll probably even let him play in their caucus. All hypocrisy aside, this will likely end exactly where the HoJo affair did – much fire, no action.
You can channel Bush?
Missed that. Which comment? Regardless, it works for me. DeeCee seems to have been transported to a different place in the space time continuum. In his early writings Chomsky talks about the anarchistic communities that sprang up during the Spanish Civil War and put their communities back in working order. It really is up to us. We’ve seen how willing government has been to work for the American people.
He’s pretty damn good at it, too.
If I remember correctly, the Repubs forced Delay out with him ever going to trial. He was tainted. At least on the PR front, Repubs have been rebuilding their image since then as a “clean” Party, even though we all know that’s false.
The relevance to now is that I think the Senate Dems should do the same, otherwise the Dem Party will be quickly branded as the corrupt Party, since BigMedia will do everything in their power to make sure that happens. We have to stay extra squeaky clean IMO. Perhaps not fair to Burris (or perhaps it is), an appointment by Blago will taint him and the Dem Party.
If a low level administrator or cop on the beat is accused of malfeasance they are put on administrative leave. The elite however get to keep going until they are found guilty. Hardly seems right. I think it is time to re-examine the statutes locally and nationally.
478 hrs & 10 min
Blaggo’s strength in pulling this card is that Burris is the most qualified African American for the job and he is old enough to have no other shot at the job unless he accepts Baggo’s offer which he did.
Other younger men would worry that this would mean political death.
Burris is as clean as anybody can be in Illinois politics it would be hard to smear him as connected to Blaggo criminally.
Unless Fitz has more tape we don’t know about yet.
Why would Bobby Rush and possibly da Mayor want a Blaggo prosecution to go away? I think thats the question Fitzs is asking right now.
T’was one of yer own, SD, from the recent past, having to do with our reasonable expectations, as citizens, and the fate (being ‘turned out’, come election-time we should visit upon those who betray us.
;~DW
i disagree.
not about this specific case, i don’t know enough to have an opinion. but about the claim in general that the law is always supreme. that said, i don’t think violations of the law should be easily acceptable and i do think that one has to think very carefully before rejecting the wisdom of others that we hope is contained in the law. but i am responsible for my own choices and actions – not the law. as comforting as it might be to have some external law (whether religious or secular) to fall back on and absolve me from the duty to wrestle with my own conscience, i don’t buy it.
if the law says to turn in my neighbors for the concentration camps, i reject that law. if the law says i may not help my young friend get an abortion, i reject that law.
now i don’t think in general it’s ok to reject a law and then forget about it. there are different ways people have found to deal with the competing claims of the law and conscience. one i especially like is what was done in response to the vietnam war by some protesters (for example the berrigan brothers) – they would break into a draft office, burn the draft cards (illegal acts) and then wait for the police to show up so they could turn themselves in (putting themselves under the law).
anyway, i just think it’s not so simple….
Not that, I thought you were asking what I thought of the coinage logo. I never came up with that. I remember the “promise, not a threat” post. I do think a promise carries more weight than a threat.
If the Democrats can give Joe Lieberman the chair of a committee for which he has not held even one hearing on anything of substance, and after he openly campaigned for John McCain, I say there is no good reason not to seat Burris. Keeping this going only benefits the GOP in the long run. Seat him and let’s move on. Odds are he won’t win the election in 2010 anyway. The Senate cannot constitutionally refuse to seat him, without invoking the “we decide who gets in and who doesn’t” clause. The people of Illinois elected Blagojevich, the 17th amendment gives him the right, and Illinois law gives him the duty, to appoint a replacement, so until he is out of office there is no legal way to stop this, other than have the US Senate substitute their judgment for the judgment of the people of Illinois. Is that really a road the Democrats want to go down?
Yeah, having the man who gave out
bribescontribution checks from the tobacco lobby as the House Minority Leader was really cleaning up their act.Just like letting Craig, Vitter, and Stevens remain in their caucus in the Senate was as well.
I should have mentioned that perspective, selise, for, as Allen Ginsburg said, “Bad laws beget disrespect for all law”.
I was, of course referring to the ‘good’ ‘law’, some of which are codified in the Constitution.
But your point is well taken.
Thank you for reminding me.
A conumdrum (sp) I’ve had to think about many times. Where do I draw the line? Am I willing to pay the consequences of my actions? From bein’ a head to being civilly disobedient.
Back to the quarry.
Namaste
it’s gets tricky because not everyone agrees on what are the “good laws” – that’s one reason i think it matters to not ignore the law, even in the case of what i think are “bad laws.” in some way, it seems to me that would break the social contract that we have with each other.
oh well, really don’t have any clear cut answers. sorry for going off on a tangent (again)…
But why would Burris accept an appointment he knew would tie him to a corrupt governor? If Burris was clean, we would never have accepted the appointment. Accepting it tells us what he is.
That should read “he would never have accepted”
Namaste.
Jane, what little I know of Burris’ rep so far is that he has a record of working for civil rights, he’s regarded as ethical (to the point of being boring), and he’s pro-choice and pro-gay rights. I don’t buy it that he would be forever “tainted” because of who nominated him. What bs.
As I said, we know the Repub Party for the most part is a cesspool, but in the PR wars, which are critical in winning elections of course, they’re getting away with re-branding themselves so far from what I’ve been seeing in the BigMedia.
The Blago thing is only going to help Repubs more in this regard, and a Burris appointment, or any other Blago appointment for that matter, will give this theme legs for the next year or two.
Speaking of which, if Blago was really a Dem and cared about the Dem Party and “serving the people of Illinois, why doesn’t he step down? Blago’s approval ratings were in the single digits I believe because of all the other potential scandals, and this was before any of this recent Senate seat stuff came out! This is all about him and protecting his mafioso buddies.
I can’t believe I’m seeing people defend Blago around here.
There is nothing wrong with accepting an appointment unless there was some corrupt trade-off, which no one is suggesting. Blogo’s motivation for this choice is really irrelevant to whether Burris is qualified for the Senate.
Burris is old this is his only chance. It takes ambition to run for Mayor of Chicago against Daley or to run against Blaggo. Ambition can blind people.
DeanOR, anyone Blago nominates is tainted. Jean’s point about Lieberman aside, the Democrats are hurt if anyone Blago nominates is passed through. We could have an inter-party fight over it, but the only ones who’ll win from that are Republicans. Even if Reid backed down and accepted Burris, there would still be damage to the party.
In accepting the nomination, Burris is just taking power for himself. Because he can. He’s willing to damage the party for his own agenda. That right there is a good reason to reject him. An ethical man wouldn’t take the nomination.
Part of the Dem problem has been that they allow fear of Repub PR smears to dictate their behavior. Throwing a good nominee under the bus because Repubs or the media invent an imaginary “tie” to Blogo would be just more of the same.
I agree with this in the context of voting on legislation and general messaging. Corruption and conflicts-of-interest are completely different matters. The Blago/Burris tie is not “imaginary” at all. Burris was on Blago’s transition team and has donated substantial amounts to Blago, for which Burris had no answer (literally) when this was brought up at yesterday’s press conference, and he got all fidgety then also. Not exactly inspiring confidence.
Whether Burris is a “good nominee” is very much in question.
It’s a Catch 22. If Burris was a good nominee, he would have the ethics not to accept such a tainted offer from Blago. That he did says all you need to know about his ethics.
You mean like Rep. Danny Davis, who was offered the position first but turned it down because of the taint?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politi…..tico/27652
Nobody’s defending Blago, they’re defending the law.
I don’t see any double standard or any hypocrisy in the appointment. Wouldn’t it be hypocritical if the senate dems were trying to keep Burris out because they believed he wouldn’t vote with Democrats on important issues? Obama isn’t going to lose any black support because Burris is not appointed. Maybe you are going to have some elites complaining but I just don’t see how this resonates in the larger community.
oops, I mean no double standard or hypocrisy in what the Senate Dems are doing.
Jane, you’re missing Teddy Partridge’s actual defense of the man. And there are more people who’re pretending he’s innocent in other threads. This has the potential to spawn another P.U.M.A. movement.
I was referring to this sentiment which I saw at #30 and other comments:
More bulldog attitudes would be good, but lack of ethics would be terrible. He’ll get his time in court and I certainly don’t diminish the rule of law, but Blago knows how much this is hurting the Dem Party nationally and the start of Obama’s Presidency, yet he’s chosing to remain a circus sideshow and hurt the Dems chances in passing legislation and winning future elections.
Whether it’s fair or not to him it’s reality right now, so Blago should step down and prepare for court, for the good of the people of Illinois, America, and the world for that matter since this is a distraction Obama doesn’t need right now.
That’s exactly what everyone wants evidence to confirm. That it is not a corrupted appointment due to illegal quid pro quo… we all have reason to doubt it’s clean, the findings of the jury notwithstanding. Because of the way IL government – all three branches – have handled this, we are deprived of any reassurance.
Funny but wouldn’t you rather see him get J Street pac money?
Teddy did not express any admiration for Blago’s “ethics,” a belief that he’s innocent, or the opinion that he shouldn’t step down.
We’d all prefer he step down. He’s not going to. The question is what can legally be done in light of that. The fact that most of the people in Illinois who are in a position to do anything about it are implicated in the situation has compromised things at many stages, and remedies that could/should have been taken weren’t.
It’s a mess, but short-circuiting the law for political expediency is a big contributing factor to the problem, it isn’t a solution.
How about a pool guessing when the Millionaire Club’s Capitulation Crew helps the Gooper’s poll numbers rise? Easter?
“Governor Rod hasn’t been indicted, least of all convicted.” I read that as a claim of potential innocence. YMMV. Apologies to Teddy if I’m reading him wrong.
Are we all 100% certain there’s no legal way whatsoever to prevent anyone Blago appoints from being seated?
Too bad Blago wasn’t a fan of Jello:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=983DwAOCXRI
No, there is certainly discussion on that front.
Jack Balkin thinks they may be able to prevent Burris from being seated:
http://balkin.blogspot.com/200…..urris.html
Scott Lemieux thinks they can’t:
http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/…..edent.html
Their remedy, if they are forced to seat him, seems to be to expel him after he is seated by a 2/3 vote.
I don’t know enough about Burris but playing the guilt by association thang is counter productive. To claim he’s tainted because a governor who hasn’t been proven to be guilty of anything is pulling a William Ayers.
I suspect that Obama doesn’t want any connection to Blago scandal following him to DC and that’s just not good reason to stop this.
Lots of folks on this thread and others keep writing about the “indicted” Governor.
My point was simply that he hasn’t been indicted and we do him, and the situation, a disservice when we write about an “indictment.” Blago and his chief of staff (since resigned) have been arrested, not indicted. There have not been indictments, and now Fitz wants 90 more days.
I don’t need to provide a “claim of potential innocence” for anyone in this mess; everyone involved is innocent, as there have been no convictions.
I’ll tell you why the Dem party elite would seat Lieberman but not Burris:
Seating Lieberman only inflames their base, and only abandons their (supposed) principles. But they don’t have their own principles – except going along with the GOP and thus “real America’s” principles – so that’s okay. Furthermore, everybody hates the left and their interests, so it’s double okay.
Seating Burris inflames the Republicans and the MSM. Now that’s just plain unacceptable to the Dem elite, and dangerous to the media Kumbaya image they’re trying to promote. And besides, it’s so “partisan” and “pre-change”.
God damn right, I love that standard Innocent UNTIL proven guilty. We have enough time to determine guilt or innocence outside the judgement of the court of public opinion.