home

The Blago Farce

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 04:59:46 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via TPM:

The President-Elect said:

"Roland Burris is a good man and a fine public servant, but the Senate Democrats made it clear weeks ago that they cannot accept an appointment made by a governor who is accused of selling this very Senate seat. I agree with their decision, and it is extremely disappointing that Governor Blagojevich has chosen to ignore it. I believe the best resolution would be for the Governor to resign his office and allow a lawful and appropriate process of succession to take place. While Governor Blagojevich is entitled to his day in court, the people of Illinois are entitled to a functioning government and major decisions free of taint and controversy," said President-elect Obama.

(Emphasis supplied.)

< Blago To Annouce His Choice For New Illinois Senator Today | Tuesday Evening Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Blago Farce | 102 comments (102 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I think (5.00 / 9) (#18)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 06:11:12 PM EST
    a good man and a fine public servant

    is a good man and a fine public servant no matter who appoints him. I really don't agree that he necessarily has to be tainted because of the Blago situation.  I understand why the Senate Dems took the stand they did, but maybe they should have left themselves some leeway and considered the possiblity that Blago would not go quietly (I guess his family is not that much fun to spend time with).

    If Blago were appointing any of the numbered candidates from the wiretaps or someone otherwise tainted, I would agree it is a farce, but at this point I don't.

    Bingo (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Makarov on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 07:47:51 PM EST
    The IL state legislature has had the time to impeach him, if the evidence is so overwhelming. The people of IL deserve to have someone in that Senate seat next week.

    Parent
    Should've been a "no comment" moment. (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by fafnir on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 06:11:28 PM EST
    I would have expected Obama, of all people, to understand that the Governor of Illinois -- regardless of what he thinks about the allegations against him -- is not obliged to respect the delicate political sensitivities of Senate Democrats; rather, his obligation is to abide by the US Constitution and the constitution of his state.

    So Senate Democrats discover they have a backbone and now want to rear up on their hind legs and feign outrage about Blago performing his legitimate duty and obligation to appoint someone to the Senate? Please.

    Obama would've been better off not displaying his ignorance in that statement by remaining on his "no comment" Hawaiian tour.

    that's funny (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by ruffian on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 06:17:05 PM EST
    of all the things at which to take umbrage - Senate Dems are going to pick this. <Insert very slow applause here>

    I think Obama is immaterial to this issue - but I suppose he had to make a comment.

    Parent

    Correct. That comment could come back (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Cream City on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 08:29:31 PM EST
    at him, once we see what the Repubs do when they get at him.  And they will; it's what they do.

    Obama will be allowed to be innocent unless and until proven otherwise, under our laws -- the ones that a future president ought to be upholding.

    Maybe he needs to confer with a constitutional law prof next time.  He knows one, so I hear. . . .

    Parent

    Agree (none / 0) (#80)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 10:50:13 PM EST
    Obama should stay out of this.  It can't do anything but hurt him.  

    Parent
    Not clear to me what Burris should do (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by barryluda on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 07:28:16 PM EST
    It somehow seems that just accepting the appointment, and pretending like there's nothing odd about it (since Blago is innocent until proven guilty) isn't going to fly.

    On the other hand, if he doesn't accept the appointment, then Blago likely just appoints someone else since, until he's removed from office, he has the constitutional right (obligation even) to make the appointment.

    I suppose it's not practical and there's no way he'd do it, but it would be nice if Burris would somehow come up with a way to legitimize the selection, maybe by suggesting an interim election or something similar.

    I'm from Illinois and have voted for Burris in the past.  His just accepting the appointment without any reservation has made me think less of him.  I guess time will tell if I'd ever vote for him again, but unless he changes his stance, I doubt it.

    He clearly should not have cooperated (none / 0) (#41)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 07:29:40 PM EST
    with Blago in the first place.

    Parent
    While that was my initial reaction (none / 0) (#45)
    by barryluda on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 07:40:26 PM EST
    the more I thought about it, the more I thought that Blago just might hold onto his Governorship.  And, if he does, he will be appointing our Senator.

    We can't go without a Senator in Illinois.  So, what do you do?

    Wait  until someone less qualified (and with less scruples) accepts?  

    Or, as Burris is doing, do you "play it by the books" and somehow make a clear distinction between the appointer and the appointee?

    I don't like either choice, which is why I wish Burris would use the opportunity of being Blago's choice to lobby for a special election or something that would lend it credibility.

    I guess it's not obvious to me why it's clear that Burris should not have accepted.

    Parent

    If the best reason you can give (none / 0) (#47)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 07:43:53 PM EST
    for taking the job is that Blago might have picked someone worse, I'd say that's a pretty good sign that you shouldn't take the job.

    The answer to all of this is that Blago is a menace to the state, and he needs to be removed from office YESTERDAY. Impeachment and removal can probably be done over the course of a day, and should be IMO.

    Parent

    What right (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by progressiveinvolvement on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 08:06:04 PM EST
    do the Senate Democrats have to reject a legal appointment?  Blago is still the Governor.  He has been charged, but not yet convicted of a crime.  He has a duty to appointment someone to that seat, which he has now done.  

    To the north, the House refused to seat (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by Cream City on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 08:38:43 PM EST
    our Congressman in my city, the first Socialist in Congress, for years -- calling for special elections, so the city just re-elected him, so the House refused again to seat him, and on it went . . . all under the same rules stated by Reid today.

    Legal precedent might just interest some here.  And, y'know, history.  There have been several such cases, but apparently that history of our country and Congress is not taught much elsewhere.  

    Parent

    No one today knows any history (5.00 / 6) (#84)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 11:04:44 PM EST
    That's one of the many reasons that I enjoy your posts.  It's shameful how little of our own history people know.  

    Parent
    Maybe nothing (none / 0) (#52)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 08:07:55 PM EST
    which is why the Sec of State is buying them time.

    Parent
    17th Amendment (none / 0) (#99)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:24:13 PM EST
    to U.S. Constitution provides:

    "When vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the Senate, the executive authority of such state shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct."

    I'm going to read the Powell case, but absent something special in there, I don't see how the appointment can be challenged effectively by the Senate.  I also think the more the Dems make a fuss about the appointment, the more attention they bring to it, and the attention will not serve any of them well.  

    Parent

    See (none / 0) (#100)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:38:17 PM EST
    Balkin and Tushnet.

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#104)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jan 01, 2009 at 10:27:23 AM EST
    for the links; read the posts there.  I still think there's nothing definitive to go after -- at least nothing's surfaced.

    Parent
    I just saw Mr. Burris (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by eric on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 08:19:53 PM EST
    on Rachel Maddow.  He did a really good job of explaining the situation and separating this appointment from Blago's legal problems.  I was very impressed.

    I now would say that I support him and think that there shouldn't be any attempts to block him.

    I saw the same appearance (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 08:42:43 PM EST
    and found it pathetic and embarrassing.

    At this point,. I think he should be opposed on the merits.

    Parent

    I guess that we (none / 0) (#73)
    by eric on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 09:18:12 PM EST
    had some very different reactions.  What was pathetic and embarrassing?  He is older than I thought and perhaps could be smoother in his speaking, but overall I got a positive impression.

    Parent
    What merits? (none / 0) (#79)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 10:40:37 PM EST
    What did Burris do wrong?  

    Parent
    Video (none / 0) (#65)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 08:48:39 PM EST
    here.

    I have not watched the whole thing.

    Parent

    heard comment on the radio today (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 08:22:59 PM EST
    that the Supreme Court has ruled on this in the past and the senate has only three criteria for which they can choose to NOT seat an elected or appointed rep.  Age, citizenship and residence.  PERIOD

    So, why is Obama (the constitutional professor) not aware of this?

    Comment was wrong; see precedents. (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Cream City on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 08:39:21 PM EST


    Parent
    volokh (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by jedimom on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 11:25:08 PM EST
    is citing SCOTUS ruling on House refusal to appoint..see comment above....

    Parent
    The comment is not wrong (none / 0) (#62)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 08:41:46 PM EST
    it just might not apply to U.S. Senate appointments. The Senate hasn't refused to seat a properly credentialed person since 1947. (Bilbo of Mississippi.)

    Parent
    It's wrong; those are the qualifications (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Cream City on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 08:56:22 PM EST
    for being seated by the Senate -- the minimums to be met (30 years old, etc.).

    The Senate is not bound by those minimums in determining why not to seat someone.

    Parent

    If (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 08:59:57 PM EST
    Powell v McCormack is binding on the Senate (and it might not be), then it seems like it would be so bound. I think, and apparently so do Reid's lawyers, that the case is distinguishable.

    Parent
    Link is for a fundraising appeal (none / 0) (#76)
    by Cream City on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 09:49:02 PM EST
    and the Senate is bound by Senate rules, which the Senate decides.  Nice, how that works for them.

    Parent
    Sorry CC, but you're misstating the situation (1.00 / 1) (#77)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 10:08:23 PM EST
    and if you click past the fundraising appeal, you can read the case. You'll learn that a) the Supreme Court is willing to wade into questions like this, and b) that Powell v. McCormack is relevant, even if not directly applicable.

    Parent
    Doesn't the US Constitution (none / 0) (#86)
    by cal1942 on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 11:15:05 PM EST
    in Article 1, Section 5, clauses 1 and 2 allow the Senate (or House) to expel any member?

    Parent
    Expelling is different from not seating (none / 0) (#90)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 11:23:37 PM EST
    Take a few minutes to read Powell v. McCormack

    Parent
    In a battle between the Constitution (none / 0) (#94)
    by Cream City on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:39:17 AM EST
    and parliamentary rules vs. andgarden, my money is on the Constitution -- and parliamentary rules.

    As the Senate parliamentarian said today, "The Senate has the absolute right to decide who is a member.  That is in the Constitution."

    Parent

    You need to read the Supreme Court case (none / 0) (#97)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 09:07:44 AM EST


    Parent
    I read it -- and you're arguing (none / 0) (#101)
    by Cream City on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 01:09:49 PM EST
    otherwise elsewhere, so you're just being argumentative.

    Parent
    Read comment #71 (none / 0) (#102)
    by andgarden on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 01:15:58 PM EST
    here. I think what I'm saying is pretty straightforward.

    Parent
    Not so, ... (none / 0) (#103)
    by cymro on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 01:50:14 PM EST
    ... according to the Supreme Court ruling in Powell v. McCormack, which clearly reads:

    CONCLUSION

    ... in judging the qualifications of its members, Congress is limited to the standing qualifications prescribed in the Constitution.

    They can expel a member by a two thirds majority vote, but they cannot expel someone who is not yet a member, because "exclusion and expulsion are not fungible proceedings" -- meaning that they can't simply substitute a vote to exclude someone from membership for a vote to expel a sitting member.

    The supreme court ruling discusses the historical basis for this important distinction, which dates back to the Constitutional Convention:

    The qualifications of electors and elected were fundamental articles in a Republican Govt., and ought to be fixed by the Constitution. If the Legislature [p534] could regulate those of either, it can by degrees subvert the Constitution. A Republic may be converted into an aristocracy or oligarchy as well by limiting the number capable of being elected as the number authorised to elect. . . . It was a power also which might be made subservient to the views of one faction agst. another. Qualifications founded on artificial distinctions may be devised by the stronger in order to keep out partizans of [a weaker] faction.

    Interesting stuff, and it certainly seems to apply to the present discussion.

    Parent

    As long as Blagojevich is the Governor... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by pmj6 on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 08:29:24 PM EST
    ...by Illinois law, he has the authority to fill vacant Senate seats. If IL legislature does not like it, they can impeach him, change the law, do whatever else they need to do. But if they don't (and, in fact, they didn't...), Burris is the lawfully appointed successor to Obama.

    What about the Sec. of State (none / 0) (#92)
    by Amiss on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:25:51 AM EST
    refusing to certify any appointment made by Blago?

    Did anyone see Roland Martin in the round table discussion tonite? I kinda felt like he was almost threatening the US Senate if they refused to seat an African American. Kinda reminded me of the Primaries a bit with some of the remarks he made.

    Parent

    Is this guilt by association on Burris? (4.25 / 4) (#30)
    by Saul on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 06:40:12 PM EST
    While Governor Blagojevich is entitled to his day in court, the people of Illinois are entitled to a functioning government and major decisions free of taint and controversy,"
    said President-elect Obama.

    Did not Obama hate when they were associating guilt against  him with his Weather Underground friend. To me Obama should have made no comment.  

    Guilt by association? (none / 0) (#78)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 10:39:29 PM EST
    This, in tomorrow's Washington Post, can't be good for Obama.  

    Parent
    I dunno if this video (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 05:04:57 PM EST
    has Bobby Rush's comments at the end, but what he said was despicable.

    He told the press not to "lynch" Burris (none / 0) (#8)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 05:31:04 PM EST


    Parent
    Considering the trak record of (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Radix on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 05:34:46 PM EST
    our MSM, where do you feel Rush stepped over the line?


    Parent
    You're joking, right? (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 05:35:29 PM EST


    Parent
    How many murder's may the (none / 0) (#13)
    by Radix on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 05:44:43 PM EST
    Clinton's have committed again? So, to answer your question, no I'm not the least bit kidding. I can find more uses for used toilet paper than I can for the crap the media spews forth.

    Parent
    Um, I think the use of "lynch" (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 05:46:56 PM EST
    in this context is egregious. Do you need for me to explain for you, slowly, why?

    Parent
    Was the insult really (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by Radix on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 05:54:54 PM EST
    necessary? You can find his word choice egregious all you like, doesn't make it so. Now would you like for me to explain that to you slowly? Again, considering the way of our news corps promoted the Iraq war, their complete lack of honesty, involving anything Clinton and Whitewater, I have no issue at all with Rush's word choice.

    Parent
    "lynch" has a specific and unavoidable (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 06:00:38 PM EST
    historical meaning that Rush was trying to capture in order to incite racial conflict. The media's past behavior is essentially irrelevant.

    Parent
    The Ramsey's, Jon Benet's parents, (none / 0) (#17)
    by Radix on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 06:10:03 PM EST
    Wen Ho Lee, the Clinton's, the poor security guard, forget his name, that found the bomb during the Olympics, these people weren't lynched in the press?

    Parent
    "Lynch" is absolutely not a word (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 06:13:10 PM EST
    I would use in that context. It is unquestionably a loaded word.

    Parent
    Yes it is a loaded word. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Radix on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 06:23:12 PM EST
    None the less, our press has quiet the little history of modern day lynchings to their shabby credit. I listed a few examples above, I bet you can think of a few yourself, now can't you?  

    Parent
    I think by using the word that way (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 06:30:35 PM EST
    you are demeaning the memory of the many thousands of African Americans who were actually lynched in the United States, right into the 20 century.

    It's rather disgusting.

    Parent

    I think you need to know Illinois lynching (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Cream City on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 08:33:12 PM EST
    history -- a state where lynchings have been so ecumenical that the victims included a German American in World War I, a white abolitionist editor (whose killing inspired Lincoln's first famous speech), and many others of many an ethnicity as well as African Americans.

    Illinois never has been a nice place.  Period.  

    Parent

    There are well known cases (none / 0) (#64)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 08:43:29 PM EST
    of white lynching (Leo Frank, for example), but practice is most identified with the systematic suppression of blacks, especially in the south.

    Parent
    This is a misconception (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Cream City on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 08:53:02 PM EST
    quite common in the demonization of the South so as to relieve the North of the horrors of its own history of demonizing a diverse group of victims.

    I've seen data on lynchings nationwide that tell a startling story of the actual numbers by ethnicity and race in this country.  I'll try to find that again and post it.

    Parent

    CC is so very right (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Amiss on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 12:32:37 AM EST
    in this matter.

    Parent
    I would be very much interested to see that (none / 0) (#68)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 08:57:08 PM EST
    but even if the majority of lynchings were done to non-blacks, the reason the word is loaded still has everything to do with black lynchings.

    Parent
    Earlier Lynchings in US (none / 0) (#98)
    by daring grace on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 10:58:08 AM EST
    victimized whites more than African Americans, if this account is to be believed. But from the late nineteenth century to today AAs have been the likelier targets:

    "During the antebellum period, lynch mobs across the country preyed upon individuals and groups deemed dangerous because they were political, religious, or racial "others." Abolitionists, Catholics, Mormons, Asian, Mexican, and European immigrants and African Americans all were targets. The pattern of mob violence and lynching changed after the Civil War. During the five decades between the end of Reconstruction and the New Deal, there were three specific transformations in the character of American lynching: increased numbers over all; increased likelihood that African Americans would fall victim to lynch mobs; and a concentration of lynchings in the South, particularly after 1886. The Tuskegee Institute started recording statistics on lynchings in 1882 (later, the Chicago Tribune and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People [NAACP] also collected statistics). The first decade of those statistical findings best illustrates the transformation of lynching patterns. In 1882, 113 people were lynched, sixty-four whites and forty-nine African Americans. The year 1885 was the last during which more whites than African Americans were lynched, and 1892 witnessed the largest number of lynchings in U.S. history (230). From 1882 to 1903, there were approximately one to two hundred lynchings annually. Between 1882 and 1968, there were 4,742 recorded lynchings (3,445 of the victims were African American, or approximately seventy-five percent)."

    Parent

    still (none / 0) (#69)
    by lilburro on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 08:58:02 PM EST
    how frequently are nooses attached to the doorknobs of german-american students?  

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#72)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 09:03:44 PM EST
    It's a case of historical memory and meaning being more important than historical fact (though there is no question that many blacks were targeted for lynching).

    Parent
    You might want to take a look (none / 0) (#29)
    by Radix on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 06:36:32 PM EST
    at what the word really means by definition then.

    Parent
    Pure sophistry (none / 0) (#31)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 06:40:14 PM EST
    You have already conceded that it is a loaded word. You should consider what that means.

    Parent
    That's pretty amusing. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Radix on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 06:50:06 PM EST
    Since you choose to take umbrage at Rush's choice of verbiage, everybody else must also. Otherwise, we are demeaning people who have been lynched, and you accuse me of sophistry.

    Parent
    My understanding of the word is historically (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 06:54:02 PM EST
    accurate.

    I make the same objection when people use "holocaust" in an inappropriate way.

    Parent

    Historically accurate? (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Radix on Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 01:29:48 AM EST
    Since the phrase was coined during the Revolutionary War, I would ask were you get your historical references from?

    Parent
    I have to agree with you, Andgarden. (none / 0) (#19)
    by ChiTownDenny on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 06:11:22 PM EST
    Bobby Rush utilized typical Chicago politics when he endorsed Roland Burris.  Gov. Blago utilized typical Chicago politics by appointing Burris (or attempting to appoint), who in my estimation, is a squeaky clean, comptetent politico, by Chicago standards.

    Parent
    2 rating for the snotty tone--unnecessary (n/t) (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Spamlet on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 06:59:18 PM EST


    Parent
    The civility brigade returns (none / 0) (#36)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 07:02:40 PM EST


    Parent
    Excuse me, but (4.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Spamlet on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 07:18:49 PM EST
    I'm  not part of any "civility brigade," so there's no way for me to "return." I was hoping you could make your points without recourse to snottiness. Evidently not. Good evening to you.

    Parent
    2 rating for the snotty tone -- unnecessary (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Steve M on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 08:34:16 PM EST


    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#61)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 08:39:29 PM EST


    Parent
    meh (none / 0) (#70)
    by Spamlet on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 08:58:34 PM EST


    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#26)
    by befuddledvoter on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 06:32:14 PM EST
    And Bobby Rush is just the person to be able to use "lynch."   He meant it figuratively, of course, but many will be trying to do just that.   Looks like a good appointment to me.  Looks much better than CK.

    Parent
    As a native Detroiter (none / 0) (#24)
    by Steve M on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 06:30:33 PM EST
    I respect this particular play of the race card, just because it's so old school.  No beating around the bush, just totally shameless.  I didn't think they made 'em like that any more!

    That said, it might be difficult to get anyone to believe that the old boys' club is conspiring to keep a black man out of the Senate when Barack Obama has the same position as the old boys' club.  Not to mention the African-American Secretary of State who is refusing to certify the appointment.

    But hey, can't blame a guy for trying.  Personally I think the folks on the street are not that dumb.

    Parent

    Oh, I don't believe it will work (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 06:32:21 PM EST
    but I'm still disgusted that he'd try.

    Parent
    It will work in the Senate (none / 0) (#81)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 10:57:01 PM EST
    I'd bet money on it.  Has the Secretary of State said he will refuse cert on THIS appointment?  On what grounds?  Legally, I don't see that happening.  Nor do I think he will do that to Burris.  He will sign it.  Harry Reid will fuss, but nothing more than that.  The MSM will continue to write about Chicago politics.  Obama will still be on the periphery, but mentioned in the articles.  Burris will become the next Senator from IL, and run for re election in 2010.  

    Just my two cents.............

    Parent

    video here (none / 0) (#87)
    by jedimom on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 11:16:32 PM EST
    here it is, agree with your assessment of the commentary...

    Parent
    Good for Obama (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 05:07:08 PM EST


    But it's a done deal. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 05:26:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Not Until The Fat Lady Sings (none / 0) (#5)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 05:27:39 PM EST


    Parent
    What would her name be? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Radiowalla on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 07:01:41 PM EST


    Parent
    Brünnhilde (none / 0) (#74)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 09:37:43 PM EST
    The Ring cycle is a set of four separate operas (lasting about 15 hours), in which the final scene includes Brünnhilde singing, and then riding onto Siegfried's funeral pyre. The set collapses and the entire cycle ends up in the Rhine river, where it started. The "fat lady" is often illustrated with a horned helmet, a spear, possibly a shield, and possibly blond braids.

    Wiki

    Parent

    Ah, Bwünnhilde... (none / 0) (#75)
    by EL seattle on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 09:44:51 PM EST
    ... she was so wuv-wey.  (And she knew it, she couldn't help it.)

    Parent
    Yep, unless the appointee declines (none / 0) (#6)
    by Radix on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 05:28:15 PM EST
    of course.

    Parent
    Too late (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 10:58:09 PM EST
    If Burris had any intentions of declining, he wouldn't have been appointed today.  

    Parent
    Leadership (none / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 05:17:11 PM EST
    Lets see if Blagojevich or Burris takes heed.

    They won't (none / 0) (#11)
    by scribe on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 05:36:44 PM EST
    Blago out of cussed stupidity, and Burris out of previously-thwarted ambition suddenly being fulfilled.

    Blago's behavior brings to mind a line from Jeremy Schaap's book about Jim Braddock, the heavyweight boxing champion profiled in "Cinderalla Man".  When he was injured and working the docks of Hoboken, he was subject to the same "Rule" as all the other men working in that brutal place:

    "It was not uncommon for those who made waves to disappear beneath them."

    Parent

    legalities (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by jedimom on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 11:18:54 PM EST
    Volokh and Rove tonight both assessed the SCOTUS ruling in 66 as resulting in Burris taking the seat...Powell v McCormack...

    Parent
    Los Angeles Times: (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 05:41:06 PM EST
    link

    Just for "good" measure, Rush sd. "hang or lynch."

    Ever notice how (none / 0) (#28)
    by SOS on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 06:33:50 PM EST
    a Law Degree in the politicians world is considered an "immunity shot" from ones own corruption?

    Oh he has a Law Degree he must have integrity!!!

    If Blago is going to fight till the finish (none / 0) (#37)
    by Saul on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 07:03:43 PM EST
    and wins an impeachment or an indictment against him  then you got to honor his appointment.  So Reid should say,

    We will not seat the appointment until,
    1. Blago Resigns and the successor picks a senator or
    2. Blago is proven innocent of his charges.

    If innocent then Reid should pick Burris if he is clean.

    To bad Harry doesn't get to fill the seat (none / 0) (#83)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 11:00:07 PM EST
    He has no say.  He can keep Burris out of the democrat caucus, their little private meetings, but that will only make Harry look petty and silly, imo.

    Parent
    The link to Obama's statement (none / 0) (#39)
    by shoephone on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 07:26:47 PM EST
    doesn't seem to be working (at least not for me). Here is the NYT story on Obama saying "Fuggedaboudit, Blago."

    Excuse my naivete (none / 0) (#42)
    by shoephone on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 07:31:41 PM EST
    but is there a rule in this kind of case that allows for the Lt. Governor to make the appointment? Is the Lt. Governor of Illinois Dem or Repub?

    As long as Blago is in office it's his appointment (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by barryluda on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 07:47:07 PM EST
    An Illinois Governor can be impeached or he can be temporarily removed by the Supreme Court if he's incapable of serving.  The impeachment process has started, but the temporary removal was attempted by our Attorney General but failed.

    Parent
    the plan (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by jedimom on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 11:22:56 PM EST
    I think once the state Dems got together that became their plan, to have Lt Gov Quinn appoint PEBO replacement once Blago was out of the way, thus they scuttled the attempts at a special election

    Quinn today certainly seemed ready to get Blago out of there to do the appointment, and notice PEBOs comments says SUCCESSION, not election....their plan is just that, and that is why it wont work

    they cant block Burris under that SCOTUS case in my comment above, and then have Quinn appoint instead, it would look purely awful after Rush comments esp, and if they say politics is perception, well then Durbin will fold for the 1.2 million votes he needs in Chicago if Rush is backing Burris

    the only way around Burris I see is a special election, which they should have already done, maybe they can back Burris down if there is a winner of a special election to contest him for the appt, but NOT if it is just a different appointor, Blago has not even been indicted yet....

    Parent

    I dunno what the law is in IL (none / 0) (#43)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 07:33:06 PM EST
    but mebbe if Blago leaves the state for a little while. Otherwise, I don't think so.

    Parent
    Maybe you are too young (none / 0) (#46)
    by Steve M on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 07:41:46 PM EST
    But on "The A-Team," whenever they wanted to get Mr. T onto a plane, they had to distract him and knock him unconscious so he would cooperate.  Perhaps a similar ploy is called for here.  "Oh, governor, while you were passed out I took care of that Senate vacancy for you..."

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#48)
    by andgarden on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 07:44:50 PM EST
    When I was about 10, my summer days consisted mostly of watching A-Team reruns. So yeah, I know exactly what you're talking about.

    Parent
    Wouldn't Blago be (none / 0) (#85)
    by samtaylor2 on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 11:12:46 PM EST
    Lieutenant Templeton "the faceman"

    Parent
    Ok, thanks. (none / 0) (#44)
    by shoephone on Tue Dec 30, 2008 at 07:37:44 PM EST


    The Blago Farce | 102 comments (102 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment