Senate Dems need to back off this and just seat Burris.

This isn't a fight worth having. The people of IL will have a chance to vote in '10 as to whether they want to keep him. The 'race war' over whether to seat him isn't worth it.

filled with a Democrat.

and yet they don't want to deal with a legally appointed Democratic senator.

You don't suppose it really is nothing more than an old boys club?

Also from what I understand, Blagojovich is well within his job description and duty to appoint Burris as long as he's still in office. :shrug:

...a Governor's appointment.

The Senate Dems can pass a resolution stating that they think this appointment stinks, just for the record, but they can't stop it.

This doesn't have to be one of them. Seat Burris and get the stimulus package passed. Fighting over seating Burris is exactly what the GOP wants--then they can obstruct and delay important legislation because the Dems are distracted. (Would Reid be so callus as to make a deal with GOP senators so Burris isn't seated?)

IMO, the appointment is legit and the guy is qualified. So let's just move on.

Especially considering the fact that Fitzgerald wants way more time.

Burris was in complete agreement with Dems in mid December, even supporting Blagojevich's removal from office.

Roland Burris changes his tune on Blago

Burris won't be seated for now, it'll go to court, and the Senate will dump the problem on a subcommittee, giving them 90 days to figure something out. But that subcommittee and court case will be moot. Blago will be impeached and removed from office, his replacement will either appoint someone else to the Senate, or re-appoint Burris, which would guarantee he gets seated.

it's worth the fight or not. Burris will do nothing but hopefully vote the right way and then collect his paycheck. Then he can have someone inscribe some more shit on his tombstone. sonavogun...ick!

But it really stinks bad!!! Blago is an ass hole!

They have no actual legal grounds on which to reject the appointment -- Blago hasn't been indicted, the state of Illinois has not removed him from his duly elected office, and Burris meets all Constitutional qualifications.

They need to fucking get over themselves and seat Burris. What a bunch of stupid tools!

Yeah, I'm pissed off by this bullshit.

sw

Seat and move on. And work towards electing another DEM in 2010.

Especially after how they let off Lieberman for what he did (which IMO is alot worse). The more the go after burns the more they make Ill a prime canadate for Repug take over. Let him in and let the people decide to keep him or not in '10.

Enough already. Move on.

I lost a lot of respect Burris when he accepted the appointment.

This is just more political theater from Blago, try to turn it into something about race and deflect attention from his own shameless corruption.

The people of Illinois deserve better than Blago or anyone chosen by him.

considering that we knew where things were headed by that second election. But those who voted for him deserve him. Next time, maybe Dems will actually think during the primary process. Until then, Blago is governor. There's an important lesson here. Let he who has ears hear.

The Senate makes the final determination of its own membership.

If there is no way around seating him (which I doubt), they should expel him.

I doubt that the Senate can keep from seating him. The Senate is going to suffer from our mistake, I fear. Maybe people will think about what an important choice we make when voting for any public official. And will reject machine politics.

elected person. Please tell me how this is not a total invalidation of representative government.

If a Senate becomes completely unruly, the states could demand a constitutional convention to correct the problem to their liking.

in the Senate.

The Supreme Court has said twice it can only judge qualifications that are in the Constitution -- age, residency, and citizenship.

elections and returns?

That has yet to be seen.

This was a straight out appointment by a governor who has the statutory authority to do it. The provision o the Constitution you refer to was placed there in order for the Senate to be able to act in the case of fraudulent elections.

They were selected mainly by legislative appointment.

In that context an appointment by a governor is essentially an election or return, and the Senate alone has the authority to judge whether or not the appointment was made fraudulently.

walk on water so much that you've already "tried and convicted" Blago in your own mind?

When they finally take a hard stand, people want them to back off. You can't make this up.

The Governor has not been removed from office and Roland Burris meets the requirements. Seat him or expect in the future that the Republicans will say they are only following this precedent when they deny any future Democratic Governor's or legislative choice for the Senate to take his/her seat.

so how can the Senate accept an appointment not certified?

standing in refusing to certify him, other than political.

these so-called dems have to fight for and against, this is ludicrous. They should have kept their mouths shut to start with and let the courts decide about Blago. It is his perogative and even obligation to name the senator; he is not tried and found guilty yet. Also they need to seat Franken. They need to work quickly to confirm Hillary and any other members going over to the executive branch so that important business of the country can be done by a full Congress, with strong Democratic majorities. It seems our Democratic reps all too often concentrate on and screw up the most incidental and inconsequential elements of government, while failing to even address the really important aspects of governance with any substanative analysis or attention. They make me sick. They had better straighten up now that they have a big majority and no longer need to use winning elections as an excuse for sycophancy to the Bushistas or they need to be replaced by a whole series of Al Frankens.

but why is he supposedly such a problem?

As would any other appointee from a Governor accused of trying to sell a Senate seat.

Maybe he's pure as the driven snow, but that doesn't matter.

jeez, anything else.

so far it seems like this is the only one where Senate Dems have drawn a line in the sand and are picking a fight. There's something incredibly wrong with that.

Funding for the war went on without this kind of fight. Ted Stevens was allowed to stay without a fight while under indictment.

Murkowski appointed his own daughter as his replacement in the Senate. Fight? Not a chance.

:rant:

processes of selecting their next senator.

I think that if the Illinois legislators are not going to have a special election, the next senator will be a Republican.

And Harry Reid has no business "expressing" his support for Caroline Kennedy.

If the Democrats will express objections to Burris, the Republicans are already saying they will express their objections to Franken.

After the past 8 years of letting Bush inc. get away with so much criminal, treasonous activity it just looks weird that this is the fight they decide to pick. I mean, wtf?

someone who is no under investigation?

The second Blago announced he had made the ,ove to fill the Senate seat, Fitzgerald expanded his investigation. He'll be examining the Burris/Blago connection, which is why he asked for the 90 day extension. Fitz is obligated to do this in light of the fact that one of the charges against Blago is that he tried to sell that very Senate seat. Anyone accepting Blago's offer would be under investigation.

which sounds like gibberish. It's late, dark, cold, and I'm dead dog tired, but can't sleep. I'm coming down with something, and am to uncomfortable to sleep. Posting while sick, is as bad as posting while drinking.

Anyhow, the first sentence should read: "Why would the Dems want to seat someone who is no under investigation?"

There should be no "no". Duh!

-- Also: ,ove = move

This just looks like horrendous judgment. What's so bad about this guy that he has to be opposed?

If there's something horrible about Burris himself, they should say so and make that the point.

They're facing allegations of backroom political shenanigans, and they're doing something that reeks of political vengeance. It also looks like usurping the power and rights of a state government, which is a bit of a pompous no-no.

How would it have hurt the Obama team for Blagojevich to have seated Burris without a dispute? It seemingly makes no sense except for something nefarious or just some kind of high-handed, petty megalomania, and something just smells fishy here.

It's not too late to just shut the fuck up and let it play out, but digging in their heels not only wastes precious time, but reflects badly and keeps us short another friendly vote in the Senate.

Does anyone have ANY idea why they're opposing it? So Blagojevich is a skunk and a muscling two-bit machine politician. So what? It makes people think that Obama is trying to do something sneaky with the appointment, and lest we forget: it's not his to dispense with, it's the Governor's. Obama's a Constitutional scholar, too, so ignorance can't really be claimed.

What the fuck is going on? Why such supremely ill-placed intransigence? What's the reason? Hell, what's the EXCUSE; I don't even hear that.

Theories, anyone?

(edited for spllling)

This seems like some sort of "inside Illinois and Chicago politics" type thing, like "inside baseball."

What the problem is exactly, I don't think we'll ever know, except that it is clear that Bobby Rush doesn't like Barack Obama and doesn't care who knows it.

If this slows down the stimulus package or results in an important piece of legislation delayed for lack of a Dem vote, it simply isn't worth it, IMHO.

I'm reminded of Tip O'Neil's first rule: "All politics is local."

Perhaps even Presidential politics.

Remember Tom DeLay, Ted Stevens, Don Young, Duke Cunningham, Mark Foley? These guys all contributed greatly to the Democratic victories in 2006 and 2008. Yet if the GOP had just had the foresight to toss these guys out on their asses sooner, they might still control congress at least.

The LAST thing we want is the appearance that we are just as corrupt as they are. Shunning Blagojevich and anything associated with him sends a message to the nation that unlike the Republicans, Democrats don't tolerate corruption within our own party.

This is a very tricky situation, and although that's a coherent and quite valid reason for the approach, the turns it's taken along the way are pretty nasty.

The whole thing first came to light when a federal prosecutor brought revealed the phone calls about Gouverneur Blague (that's french for "joke", folks...) trying to personally profit from the appointment. It also brought up the intimations of contacts between the Obama team and Blagojevich, thus entangling Obama in the mess.

At that point, the team should have said "we had nothing to do with this, other than wanting to have our wishes heard" and walked away. The moment they stamped their little feeties and said "we're not gonna seat anyone that so-and-so sends up", they showed themselves to be petty control freaks tampering with a state government and aching for some kind of revenge. The INTENT may have been to show that they were pristine and wouldn't sully their world with ANYONE this no-account would do business with, but that could only be done if they weren't implicated in trying to "fix" it themselves.

It's a constitutional thing. They should have said that they would look with great scrutiny at anyone he would have as a political ally rather than pronounce guilt on ANY of his political allies. After all, if ANYONE associated with Blagojevich is too filthy to be a senator, then Obama should IMMEDIATELY remove himself as a contender for president; he's been an ally of Blagojevich and has benefited from his aid, and the presidency's a MUCH more important job.

Making a fatuous, imperious pronouncement that ANYONE he sent (in the course of doing his job as a public servant, trying to secure adequate federal representation for his constituents) would be refused makes them look like arrogant, would-be dictators who don't give a rat's ass about the law. It also makes them look like they're uncompromising hotheads, when they've said OVER AND OVER that they're reasonable sorts who want to take all the old ugliness out of politics. It also makes them look guilty as sin and trying to distance themselves from it by dropping a cargo container of concrete on this guy's head. The huffing and straight-lace rectitude of outrage smacks of hypocrisy and sheer silliness with the backdrop of Chicago politics behind them.

There's something about these guys that they think they can do whatever they please. Yet, still, in the same breath, they seem to feel that they have to suck up to the reactionaries because they're so vulnerable. I don't believe in a supreme being, so I'm a captive of causal reality and like to see some logical consistency rather than emotional breast-beating.

It's all just a bit hard to watch.

This whole mess makes everyone look bad - and rightly so.

Or, maybe that's not who you mean by "they".

I especially don't want to see him restrained from entering the building. Too, too ugly and unnecessary.

Heave a big sigh of relief that we got someone good and welcome him.

Refusing to seat Burris only gives the story more legs than it needs.

He knew it but did it anyway.

They will have to capitulate sooner or later, so why literally make a federal case out of it.

I do agree that a case could be made for the legality of Blagoyevich's appointment, and that was further promoted by Fitzgerald asking for a 90-day extension to indict. That tells me he may have pulled the trigger too soon.

What a mess. :(

This is the kind of high-handed imperial thinking more worthy of a Tom Delay than a proper pluralist. Are laws and customs to be respected only when they concern people with whom one isn't involved in a backdoor hissy-fit of influence muscling?

Most unseemly.

Up until now, the Obama team at least demonstrated a good sense of decorum; perhaps they're heady with victory and think the onlookers will be flushed with love by witnessing their champions being swaggering tough guys enforcing unblinking obedience. The whole thing just smells bad.

Our leaders should be held to the same standards of decency and legality as their's are, otherwise we're just hypocritical partisans ourselves.

I think the Dems intended to impart what they felt was the responsible shunning of Blagoyevich, but it came off as high hat and they ended up stepping in it but good when Blago called their bluff. Burris initially condemned Blago, so his 180-degree turn also contributed to the chaos.

What a mess. :(

It will be viewed - correctly - as looking the other way in the face of corruption. Senate Dems can do something about it and so they should...

deleted for obviousness

if the man is qualified he should be seated. The ole boys club in the Senate should have been this upset with the Bush administration!!!! what total BS.

For the first time in the last thirty years, they choose to fight for something (other than a bush proposal) and THIS is it?

Ferfucksake.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/reid-punkd-by-blago-over_b_154810.html

Harry Reid, the ballless wonder strikes again. We need to get that son-of-a-bitch out of any leadership position. He is a disgrace to the Senate and the United States.

It's just a temporary appointment. He has to run for reelection in 2010. Ditto Kennedy and any other appointments.

But I think this is Blago playing nasty and Burris should have stayed away.

It stains him. Blago should have no say in a new pick.

:wtf:

When asked about seating Burris

Are we giving Senate seats to people who undermine the Democratic Party's reputation for no reason but petty personal gain? Burris is just an opportunistic scumbag in my book. Seating him lowers Democratic Party standards. He should have waited like the people with character did.

They shouldn't have made a stink about this.

critical actions that would have made a true difference in improving our Country. This sickens me. After all, Burris is QUALIFIED and Blago has not been indicted yet ... HELL! Saint Fitz is asking for an extension until April before he even indicts Blago.

IMO, let this appointment stand. If Reid/Pelosi blocks this and then turn around to EMBRACE Caroline Kennedy (power, privilege and dynasty appointment), I'm going to be seriously pissed off ... I won't be alone either. :thumbsdown:

He and Schumer should have fought harder to support the filibuster, but Reid voted no on cloture (for the filibuster).

Here are the Democrats who voted yes on cloture (against the filibuster): yes.

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)


As for not seating anyone appointed by Blagojevich, all the Democrats, including Obama, support this position.

:eyes:

If we've learned anything from them it is that you should address your own party's corruption and distance yourself from those corrupt members.

We are still a government of laws, not of men (and women). This guy has been legally chosen by a governor legally empowered to act. Those who could have interceded before the appointment to stop it failed to do so.

There is obviously NO evidence this person picked has committed any crime to get the appointment. He should be seated unless he is clearly, by overwhelming evidence, independently unfit to serve. He can't be any worse than 1/3 of the senators already in the senate.

If they seat him, they are throwing partisan support to a Democratic governor who is under investigation for corruption.
That taints them.