Roland Burris is....?

The guy is kind of wacked, one has to admit no matter how they feel about Blago appointing him. I saw him on CNN earlier today and he is a few sandwiches short a picnic.

The Senate Dems should take a flying fuck, the stupid posturing assholes.

sw

Nobody really seems to be questioning Burris' qualifications or ethics. People mainly have an issue with the fact that a corrupt governor appointed him. Of course, it's not ideal to have the governor appoint someone but he did. Unless there is some reason that they feel Burris is unqualified, I don't see how anyone can block him from being a Senator.

then acts shocked that anyone would question his appointment should, in and of itself, disqualify him.

Burris is former Illinois Attorney General, so anyone in Illinois politics would most likely know who he is. Does that mean that everyone that knows who Burris is is an "associate"?

How, exactly, are you defining "associates"?

And may I remind you that Blago is innocent until proven guilty?

sw

that Blago is not corrupt?

He took the job, knowing full well that anyone the governor appointed would be tainted, yet he took it anyway and is crying about how it's "legal" so they should just accept him.

well, I for one would like to know what Burris offered Blago for this position, since it seems fairly obvious the seat was being shopped around town.

NOBODY in Illinois, if they wanted to maintain their reputation, should have accepted an offer from him. He's going to end up being impeached, and that taint will stick to Burris no matter how well he does as a senator (if he stays).

Seems like just a pure power-grab to me by a mid-level state politician whose time was running out. He's run for higher office before and lost, so the voters have spoken, now he wants to parachute into the senate thanks to help from a guy under federal indictment.

that's just about the only way a democrat could lose a senate seat in Illinois. But cheer it on if it makes you feel better.

Blago has not been convicted of anything, and he's still the sitting governor. Therefore, there's nothing illegal about him appointing a Senator.

Burris is qualified and legally appointed according to the Constitution, there are no legal grounds for refusing to seat him.

It's just nonsense to refuse to seat him, and it does no one any good.

sw

Burris took the job because he knew that no one else would take it. That doesn't mean that there was any sort of deal made. Blagojevich wanted to appoint someone to piss off the Democrats, and Burris accepted, probably as a feather in his cap. It is a little slimy, but until Blagojevich is impeached, completely legal. The Democrats can oust him in the primary in 2010. The only way they will lose the Senate Seat is if they keep dragging this out. If they can't find a candidate to beat him in the primary in 2010, then they wouldn't have a prayer anyway.

I don't question his qualifications. I despise "guilt by association" and really, Blago should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

When I first heard about the appointment, my first thought was sympathy for Senate appointee Burris. Although Blago has not been convicted, he is under a cloud of suspicion for trying to sell this very Senate seat. I mean, if he were under suspicion for prostitution or drugs, I wouldn't give a crap if he intended to remain governor from prison. But, he's under suspicion for trying to sell the Senate seat. I think it's only natural to be a little skeptical of an appointment he makes. I mean, if a guy you barely knew was arrested for robbery and had not yet gone to trial, you might believe innocent until proven guilty, but you wouldn't ask him to replace your locks and make a new key to your house either.

And there are enough people who believe guilty until proven innocent.

So, I felt sorry for Burris. Because he couldn't enter the Senate without this cloud over him. Then, I saw and heard him speak.

Burris had to know his appointment would be greeted with skepticism and suspicion. Given the accusations against Blago, he couldn't really believe there wouldn't be questions.

All he talked about was how Blago had the legal right to appoint him. Duh. Then, when he was asked about contributions he and associates had made to Blago ($14,000) he sort of dodged it with, "Well, I'll have to check my records. I don't think I have that much to give." I swear, it made me think of the way Dubya plays dumb to evade tough questions. Like, you dork - didn't you think the media would bring up the subject of how much money you contributed to Blago?

I wish he would have addressed our concerns about how this looks, you know, acknowledge them. Admit you gave money to Blago because you believed he'd be a good governor, and these allegations against him upset you as much as anyone else. Anyway, it's perfectly normal when you move in political circles to make contributions because you want your team members in office. Remind us of innocent until proven guilty, the dangers of guilt by association and the need to reserve judgment. Tell us that the people from Illinois need two senators, and you hope to prove yourself and earn their trust and appreciation.

And yes, maybe even find a way to get the word out that if Blago is convicted or forced out, let this appointment be the last good thing he did - the silver lining to the dark cloud of suspicion. Maybe we could all just calm down and think that if the investigation shows Burris was involved, he could be kicked out of the Senate - but for now, let the people have their Senator.

Burris said none of that. He acted like he didn't give a crap about our ethical concerns, only whether his appointment was Constitutionally valid.

yeah, I don't know if he's foolish or slimy, but I don't like his appointment.

It's not like the Senate is a shining bastion of deeply-held principles and ethics. Who do they think are they to deny entry to another craven asshole just like the rest of them?

sw

but this thread isn't about Patrick Leahy or Jim DeMint or any of the other 98 Senators

The OP asked about Roland Burris.

Hey, at least most of the other 98 had to face the voters of their respective states.

Sorry, I just think this whole thing is stupid. Seat the guy, what the fuck difference does it make anyway? At least its a guaranteed Dem vote. They'll all go merrily along propping up the financial elite and supporting Israel together.

sw

.... politics is all about how you deal with people. Anyone with a brain wouldn't touch a Blago appointment with a 10 foot pole.

While I'm not sure Reid et al's approach is correct either. The whole matter makes me question Burris' common sense.

Don't forget who voted to keep funding the Iraq occupation, who voted to let Bushco skate on domestic spying, who voted to confirm Roberts and Alito, who voted on all kinds of stupid shit that fucks over the rest of us.

Yeah, they're too damn elite to let Burris in because Blago is too overt an asshole. They're a higher class of asshole, more subtle and sophisticated.

Bah.

sw

Nah..... I cant agree with that.

He'd have no seniority, no committee chairmanships, no say on what comes on the floor. He'd just have his one vote, and he'd no doubt vote with the Dems -- he'd pretty much be obligated to.

with the fact he has always been losing when trying to get elected the normal way a fair number of times now(unless I've read wrongly), as such i can see why he'd leap on the chance to become a Senator(even if handed to him by a corrupt manipulator)

I think Burris is a little confused. It was actually Blago's will that he become senator and he accepted the appointment after saying a few days earlier that Blago should resign. This is a tainted appointment which Burris is a fool for accepting but at this point they need to seat him and get it done.

Refers to himself a Senator Burris. No one is a Senator until they are sworn in. He's the Senator designate.

Just like Obama is presently the President elect, not the President.

Which means that he will fit in just fine in the Senate. But his being arrogant is not a good enough reason for him not to be seated.

And, we are going to need his vote to get Franken seated.

I don't particularly care for him, but the law is the law - he's legally the senator from Illinois, so he needs to be seated.

If the Dems can accept Lieberman, they can accept Burris.

He let it get the better of him.

He's fast pounding the crap out of any opportunity for it to end well for him.

and it's obvious the guys a delusional egomaniac who's in it for himself.



If Reid wants to guarantee that Obama's seat should astonishingly end up in GOP hands, Burris is the guy to get us there

solely to further his own career.

(along with being a Blagogevich tool).

Harry Reid has no right to dictate who will or will not run in 2010. I don't think it's really about who can get elected, it's about who they can control.

Go Burris. At least he's not another puppet.

Wrapped up in a fresh whole wheat flour tortilla.

If we had a majority leader with bigger balls than my fixed cat, Burris would be seated.