The Blago/Burris Drama Only Begins

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:00:31 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

UPDATE - Press conference to begin momentarily. Reid and Durbin at the mike. Brings up "the entire Senate will have to act on this." I think he'll make sure everyone goes on the record on this one. Burris won't be seated today. But reading the tea leaves, it is clear that Burris WILL be seated. The question is how bad will the Democrats in the Senate look in the process. They focus on the Illinois Secretary of State signature. Silly stuff. And insuring that Franken will not be seated until the Minnesota Senate contest is finally resolved.

With the reports that the Senate has capitulated to Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, credibly accused of trying to sell the appointment of an Illinois Senate seat, by seating Roland Burris, many are stating the drama is over. I beg to differ. The drama is only beginning.

More . . .

Blagojevich is going to be impeached and removed from office. His appointment of Burris will be tainted by that fact. Blagojevich is going to be indicted and tried. His appointment of Burris will be tainted by that fact.

The drama is only beginning. And it will be unpleasant drama for the Democrats now. It will be about corrupt Democrats and their appointees. Good luck with the end of the drama. The 2010 Illinois race for Senate starts today. The Democrats run a real risk of losing it if Burris is the nominee.

Speaking for me only

< MN-Sen: Is Coleman Asking For A Full Recount In His Contest Petition? | Senate Dems Blunder On Blago/Burris >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Blago/Burris Drama Only Begins | 96 comments (96 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Looks bad for Franken (5.00 / 5) (#18)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:19:26 AM EST

"Norm Coleman will never ever serve [again] in the Senate," Reid told Politico's Manu Raju.

Haha (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Steve M on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:20:39 AM EST

A point to you, sir.


Too true. How long before Reid (none / 0) (#24)
by byteb on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:24:07 AM EST

starts negotiating with Norm over allowing him his seat?
(snark intended)

Reid is pathetic.


: Hey, didn't I worry in print about (none / 0) (#67)
by ruffian on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:55:01 AM EST

that the other day? That is just the kind of deal Reid would strike. "We'll seat Coleman if you don't seat Burris"

Well played, sir (none / 0) (#26)
by abdiel on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:25:50 AM EST

I laughed.


Some day Reid will learn never to say never (none / 0) (#68)
by ruffian on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:56:21 AM EST

in fact, it may be today.


oh ches (none / 0) (#92)
by jedimom on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 04:09:52 PM EST

right on Abdul, I said that very thing in a post yesterday..Reid is an excellent contraindicator at this point...


Oops, AP retracts story of deal (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by Cream City on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:25:00 AM EST

and Reid's office denies it. Burris, like Elvis, has left the building. Reid at mic any minute now.

I apologize (5.00 / 5) (#31)
by Steve M on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:31:08 AM EST

for suggesting the Democrats had played this one as poor as they possibly could. They appear determined to find a way to play it even worse.


: Yep, Reid promises full Senate vote (5.00 / 1) (#65)
by Cream City on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:51:36 AM EST

so that Repubs can go on center stage to deplore this debacle, deplore the Illinois gubernatorial debacle, and generally deplore Dems. Could Reid come up with anything worse? (Yeh, it's Reid.)

But Feingold is now (5.00 / 2) (#38)
by dk on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:34:10 AM EST

Feingoldpublicly calling for the Senate to seat Burris. DiFi's not alone.


: Feingold Endorses (3.00 / 2) (#42)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:36:12 AM EST

Appointment By Governor Charged with Trying To Sell Seat.

Amateur hour (5.00 / 3) (#34)
by andgarden on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:32:17 AM EST

in the presser.

: Oh, man (5.00 / 1) (#77)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:10:56 AM EST

You said it. Embarrassing.

In the grand scheme of what is facing (5.00 / 10) (#46)
by Anne on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:38:33 AM EST

the country and its residents, I actually don't think this is going to matter to 95% of the country, even if the media and the blogs are having a field day with it. When you're one of 13, 000 being laid off by Alcoa, or you ended the year with a pink slip, or your family member is facing another deployment to Iraq or you don't have health insurance and don't know how you are going to pay for some treatment or care that you need, you don't give a flying fig about the junior Senator from Illinois.

My opinion is that most of the people who see the media coverage are more inclined to feel sorry for Burris and wonder why, if he is otherwise qualified, it matters who appointed him to the seat.

I get the bigger picture and see the potential problems with the precedent that could be set, but then I remember that this is the same Congress that couldn't be bothered to censure or discipline or take any action against those members under indictment or who had been convicted of crimes while they were serving. The same Congress whose members have way-too-cozy relationships with lobbyists and who have engineered legislation that has directly benefited industries and companies in which their family members are employed - Dianne Feinstein is a perfect example - so this drama over Burris may end up being a case of not realizing an essential truth - that when you point the finger at someone else, there are three fingers pointing back at you.

There are no clean hands here, and all that is happening, from the point of view of the average citizen, is that time and energy are being drained from issues that are in dire need of attention. There may well be a price to be paid for this spectacle, but I doubt it will be one the Democrats will be happy to pay.

: I wish I could rate this comment a 50 (5.00 / 3) (#50)
by jbindc on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:41:30 AM EST

: thank you for saying what i felt (5.00 / 1) (#74)
by Jlvngstn on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:06:07 AM EST

but could never articulate it so well.

: Dems have a problem censuring anyone (none / 0) (#83)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:18:42 AM EST

Republicans not so......this is Republican red meat and they will use it with relish. Even if the only thing to be had from it is spin. They'll spin it and spin it just like how they spin Freddie and Fannie getting us all into this horrible mess, and half the people out there still believe it.

As I wrote earlier... (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by pmj6 on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:48:27 AM EST

...nothing good could have come out of Reid's initial intransigence. It would have been far better to seat Burris (at the very least, he's a reliable Democrat) and quietly mount a primary challenge two years down the road. And now it's looking like they are going to seat him anyway, but only after needlessly making themselves look complete like idiots.

Moreover, thanks to the "secretary of state certification" ploy, Norm Coleman has an opening once again. Because, given that the MN secretary of state is a Republican, what if he simply digs in his heels and flatly refuses to certify Franken?

: I read that Minn. SOS is DFL (none / 0) (#69)
by Cream City on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:56:23 AM EST

i.e., that he's in Franken's party.
But yeh, the SOS Ritchie does not like the way this has gone down, calling the recount problems "heartbreaking" and consistently calling the uncounted ballots "wrongly rejected." So the media do so, too.

Reid demanding certificate signed be Gov & SOS (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by magster on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:51:14 AM EST

pretty much seals the deal on Franken being seated provisionally.

Obama's statement (5.00 / 1) (#73)
by pmj6 on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:06:00 AM EST

"I think he's a fine public servant. If he gets seated then I'm going to work with Roland Burris just like I work with all the other senators to make sure that the people of Illinois and the people of the country are served."

I'd say that's an endorsement of Burris. Excuse me, Senator Burris.

I hope folks have noticed (4.75 / 4) (#2)
by Steve M on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:05:28 AM EST

the radio silence from Republicans over this issue. They have done a great job of refusing to show their hand. And now they get a free shot to demagogue it - both on ethical grounds and "the Democrats don't know what the heck they're doing" grounds.

One of the reasons I thought the Democrats should call for an investigation of the Burris appointment prior to seating him is that it would force the Republicans to take a stand. Either they find something that they can point to and say "look, here's evidence that Burris did something improper and shouldn't be seated," or else they have to go along with the decision. But now they simply have free rein, and I expect they intend to enjoy it.

I'm starting to think Obama may have run for President simply because he couldn't stand to be around this cast of clowns any longer.

Indeed (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:09:12 AM EST

The GOP will strike now.


: GOP doesn't have to strike (5.00 / 2) (#28)
by abdiel on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:29:06 AM EST

The Democrats are doing a very good job of picking which foot they'd like to shoot first. The GOP should just shut up and enjoy the show.

Yup (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by andgarden on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:18:45 AM EST

Pulleeezzzeeee! (5.00 / 4) (#87)
by Upstart Crow on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:30:55 AM EST

Obama moved to Chicago so he could work with these clowns. These are his cronies. In any case, last time I checked, there are no armed guards at the borders of Illinois.

It's late in the game for anyone to get back their virginity.


Republicans (none / 0) (#7)
by SOS on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:10:18 AM EST

are hyper obsessed with looting every last penny from the National Treasury and devouring peoples hard earned money and assets before the party ends in a few weeks.


: And when the Blago trial starts (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:11:33 AM EST

they will shift gears quite ably.

: And because if this ... (none / 0) (#35)
by Robot Porter on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:33:26 AM EST

they're quite happy to let Dems blather on about Blago and Burris.
Brings a new meaning to the phrase "laughing all the way to the bank."

Rome wasn't built (none / 0) (#1)
by SOS on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:03:47 AM EST

overnight.

Hopefully the drama is ... (none / 0) (#3)
by santarita on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:08:12 AM EST

over on the national stage. You may be right about 2010 but the Illinois Dems have an opportunity to find an electable candidate to primary against Burris if he chooses to run.

This whole sad affair was handled poorly by just about everyone.

With or without Burris, it would be (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Cream City on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:13:37 AM EST

a national story; it's about Chicago, it's about Obama's Senate seat, etc. Senate Dems made it worse, but no way they could have made it go away.


: I Don't Know Which is Worse... (5.00 / 1) (#81)
by santarita on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:16:36 AM EST

the national media for making so much of this or the Senate Dems for feeding the media's desire for celebrity gossip stories.
Of course it's a story of popular interest because of the Obama and Blagoyevic connections. But is it a story of national importance?

You predict the Blagojevich story (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:08:49 AM EST

will not be a national story?


Well, in the end, how (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by dk on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:13:17 AM EST

national the story will be will probably depend more on what Rahm said on those tapes than anything else.


Excuse me (none / 0) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:14:05 AM EST

Seating Burris makes sure it is a national story.


If the Ill. legislature (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by dk on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:16:01 AM EST

had called a special election, it wouldn't have been much of a national story. Any other outcome made it a national story.


Blago (5.00 / 0) (#23)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:23:29 AM EST

Blago called for a special, but it died reportedly at Reid's urging. Reid has really made a hash of this from start to finish.


Careful of what you wish for (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by mmc9431 on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:45:14 AM EST

If the Dem's in Illinois had called for a special election, we would more than likely be seating a Republican. Too many forget that Obama won his seat largely because of a Republican sex scandal and Alan Keyes. With the bitterness towards Blago throughout the state, the Republican's could easily take the seat back.


Well, I'm sure everyone on this (5.00 / 2) (#61)
by dk on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:49:11 AM EST

blog would rather have a Democrat than a Republican take the seat, but ultimately isn't that for the voters of Illinois to decide? We live in a democracy, right?

And as for political ramifications, the Democrats have a pretty huge majority in the senate this term; it's not really like power hangs in the balance.


: I'm selfish, I admit it (none / 0) (#76)
by mmc9431 on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:10:45 AM EST

As an Illinois resident, it does make a difference to me. I had to live through 6 yrs of Fitzgerald. And the prospect of that right wing whacko Oberweis finally buying himself an elected office scares me! And with the political climate as poisoned as it is right now that scenario isn't impossible.

That's true (none / 0) (#20)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:20:24 AM EST

As did refusing to seat him (none / 0) (#22)
by ricosuave on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:22:15 AM EST

Either way it became a national story.

But don't be surprised. The lunch menu at Sidwell Friends became a national story as well. Anything that you can work the word "Obama" into is going to be a national story, like it or not.


: Refusing to seat him (none / 0) (#27)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:25:51 AM EST

put them on the RIGHT side of the story - standing against corruption.

Blagoyevich is a ... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
by santarita on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:07:50 AM EST

national story and rightly so. The question is how much time and space does he merit compared to say horrible unemployment numbers or the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Gaza and many other underreported and underanalyzed stories. Unfortunately for Obama that sideshow will be a distraction for a long time.

Burris' seating as a Senator is another matter. It merits footnote in terms of national importance. His electability in 2010 is not a national story. The Senate Democrats made much more out of the issue than necessary. It should have been handled much more circumspectly. Even if it later turns out that Burris' seat was bought, the Senate Ethics Committee could have dumped the guy.


It's no problem (none / 0) (#12)
by Steve M on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:13:56 AM EST

the Illinois Democrats will just pick someone from their long, long roster of clean politicians.

Sadly, they really have no one to blame but themselves for letting Blagojevich serve as flag-carrier after the state GOP imploded. Anyone who followed Operation Board Games (i.e. Rezko) knew that administration was rotten to the core.


: Heh (none / 0) (#40)
by Robot Porter on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:35:28 AM EST

Illinois Democrats will just pick someone from their long, long roster of clean politicians.

Feinstein has been striking out lately (none / 0) (#6)
by lilburro on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:09:38 AM EST

Reports also indicate that she requested Kappes remain in his job as CIA no.2. I guess if his @ss is covered, hers will be too.

Of course our (none / 0) (#9)
by SOS on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:11:44 AM EST

Lame Ass media loves nothing more then a "Step Right Up To The Greatest Show in Town!" scenario like this.

Burris has LOST (none / 0) (#14)
by TimNCGuy on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:14:10 AM EST

the last five statewide dem primaries he has run in. I doubt that he will win the primary to run for re-election.

Even that (none / 0) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:19:51 AM EST

is not a blessing. African American voters will say what?


That depends (none / 0) (#29)
by Steve M on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:30:10 AM EST

I'd expect Jesse Jackson, Jr. to be one of the leading candidates for the 2010 primary, wouldn't you?


No (none / 0) (#30)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:30:51 AM EST

Not if Burris is running.


I dunno (none / 0) (#33)
by Steve M on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:31:58 AM EST

JJJ really, really wants that Senate seat.


JJJ is the ONE candidate (5.00 / 2) (#66)
by TimNCGuy on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:51:46 AM EST

that I didn't want to see get this senate seat. After his "performance" in the dem presidential primaries of threatening black super delegates if they didn't support Obama. that proved to me that he has no class at all.


I assume Obama gets to (none / 0) (#70)
by dk on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:57:06 AM EST

decide who the Democratic machine will support in the 2010 primaries. I guess we'll find out then once and for all what he really thinks of JJJ Jr.


: Nope, Obama is a polished pol (none / 0) (#71)
by Cream City on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:03:17 AM EST

and doesn't say what he thinks -- except for the flukes when he had to apologize to Nancy Reagan, et al. Obama will say what is expedient for himself and his party. That's politics.
However, I expect that JJJr. has shot off his mouth once or several times too often, and on tape, and will not be as prominent by then. Oh, wait -- the Chicago Way means he will be rewarded for corruption!

: I think we already know (none / 0) (#96)
by andrys on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 04:37:28 AM EST

Of the names Rahm listed as 'acceptable' for a replacement, JJJ's name was not among them, though he'd been a co-chairman of Obama's campaign.
That has to rankle.

Madigan would love to have him (none / 0) (#36)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:33:54 AM EST

run if Burris is running.


Watch Neely, Chicago city treasurer (none / 0) (#72)
by Cream City on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:04:42 AM EST

who is a comer -- and a comely African American and a woman who could run by then for what was, after all, the first Senate seat ever won by an African American woman.


Well, there was Carol Mosely Braun (none / 0) (#91)
by ruffian on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 02:31:31 PM EST

she did not cover herself with glory, but she was elected!


: That is the seat to which I refer (none / 0) (#93)
by Cream City on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 04:35:54 PM EST

as Braun held it before Obama.

Ahhh here we go (none / 0) (#16)
by SOS on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:16:33 AM EST

Opposition to seating Burris in Senate weakening
1 hr 26 mins ago

Yes indeed our indecisive and spineless Dems show again, (and again and again) what kind of stuff they are made of.

Reid on TV (none / 0) (#32)
by Saul on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:31:18 AM EST

No completely giving in and saying they will wait to see what Il court will say on White signature but this looks just like damage control so they don't look like complete idiots as of yesterday. I think they know in their back of their mind they have decided to seat Burris. The White signature is not needed, the constitution overrides all Senate rules.

Except (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by jbindc on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:37:53 AM EST

Jesse White said his signature wasn't needed. He told WGN radio this morning:

"My signature is mostly ceremonial rather than being a point of law."

White believes the Senate is portraying him as the fall guy. "It's ugly. Ugly."

WGN


Heh (none / 0) (#48)
by Steve M on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:39:54 AM EST

I understand he wants to CYA, but if his signature is such a nonevent, why did he decline to give it? He can't just act like he's being dragged into this for no reason.


: Good point. Who has been (5.00 / 1) (#89)
by oculus on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 12:15:42 PM EST

calling, visiting, e mailing White?

Yes, that signature thing was a flimsy (none / 0) (#53)
by ruffian on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:43:13 AM EST

excuse they should not have used yesterday. Their argument should have been the one that they put forth in their letter a month ago - that the selection process in Illinois was corrupt, and that the Senate has a right to reject it. Let them argue that in court and see what happens. Seems to be a good chance they would win, but even if they lost it would be a worthwhile argument.


Is it because (none / 0) (#39)
by abdiel on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:34:58 AM EST

they don't want to see Burris go to court and win?

This feels like playground rules to me. Burris is about to tell the teacher that Reid's being mean, so now they have to let him play.


: Losing in court (none / 0) (#44)
by ruffian on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:37:42 AM EST

while attempting to uphold the highest ethical standards would not be as bad as a capitulation, to me anyway. But I guess that's why I'm not a senator.

: After Blago is impeached and tossed out (none / 0) (#95)
by thereyougo on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:55:17 PM EST

it won't matter how Burris got the seat.
There won't be any influence peddling accusations then, since Blago would be out of office and Burris won't even have to make any future donations now,that is, if he made any deals that didn't get on tape.
Blago will safely be kicked out and possibly never see the light of freedom to take office ever more.
Burris was smart to take the seat,despite all the drama, since he can't get elected. It was a win win for him.

Senate Dems holding the high ethical ground (none / 0) (#37)
by ruffian on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:33:58 AM EST

was the only way to make it work in the public relations aspect, given the end run by Blago/Burris. They seemed to understand that this weekend. It's sad that they could not hold the high ethical ground even when it was the only way to get what they wanted. It odes not make me optimistic about the rest of this year.

Well, true ethical highground (5.00 / 3) (#41)
by dk on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:35:48 AM EST

would have been for Reid et al. not to have put pressure on the Ill. legislature not to call a special election for the seat. I fail to see how anyone can claim much ethical highground in this circus.


: True (none / 0) (#47)
by ruffian on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:39:13 AM EST

they would have had to refrain from doing that too. I guess it was too much to ask.

The Senate Dems did what they do best (5.00 / 3) (#64)
by Democratic Cat on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:51:28 AM EST

(a) They staked out a position. (b) They relied on someone who owes them nothing not to call them on it. (c) They buckled.

Lather, rinse, repeat.


And there's going to be a vote (none / 0) (#43)
by andgarden on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:37:25 AM EST

by the full Senate? Yeah right.

Does Reid know (none / 0) (#49)
by Steve M on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:40:52 AM EST

how the Republicans intend to vote?


I sure don't (none / 0) (#51)
by andgarden on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:42:22 AM EST

Frankly, I'm not even sure how I want them to vote. (NO, probably. I don't want this guy in the Senate.)


: Well, it's either going to (none / 0) (#54)
by dk on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:44:05 AM EST

be Burris or Obama/Reid's handpicked appointee through Quinn. Will Republicans want to roll the dice?

Maybe this is his way of making them (none / 0) (#55)
by ruffian on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:44:53 AM EST

take a stand, as you suggested above. I wonder also if he knows what they intend to do.


If that's the ploy... (none / 0) (#62)
by pmj6 on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:50:29 AM EST

...then I wonder what Reid is offering the GOP in return for their help in stopping Burris?


: Reid Doesn't Want to Stop... (none / 0) (#86)
by santarita on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:27:46 AM EST

Burris, he only wants to looking like he is taking an ethical stand.
Is taking an appointment from an allegedly corrupt governor the only corrupt act that Burris is accused of ? Or is he corrupt apart from that? If the answer to the last question is "no", then the ethical stand of Reid is to deny an otherwise qualified and perhaps, exemplary, citizen a Senate seat because of who appointed him.
Burris then become just "collateral damage".

Burris only 2 years (none / 0) (#52)
by Rashomon66 on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:42:53 AM EST

In 2010 won't there be a primary for the senate seat? In that case a more favorable Democrat could take on Burris and win.
That said Blago is within his legal rights and I do not think it would look good for the Democrats either if they chose not to seat Burris.
Also I don't think this will taint the entire Democratic party. It would be odd if the GOP could spin this in their favor to gain a whole mass of votes two or four years from now.
A lot more real scandals would have to happen before that takes place. [Hopefully there will be no scandals].

: Primary discussed already (none / 0) (#58)
by Rashomon66 on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:45:24 AM EST

Okay, I see you have gone over this earlier.

Dems are trying to look tough (none / 0) (#57)
by SOS on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:45:18 AM EST

again. They need to show the WSJ editroial scribes they have balls.

: It is a good idea to bring your brains (5.00 / 1) (#79)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:14:06 AM EST

with you when you bring your glands. An ovary is just as tough as a testicle.

Question? (none / 0) (#59)
by Saul on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 10:46:13 AM EST

If the IL SC decides that's White signature is not needed does that set a precedent on future appointees from other states on the Senate rules which currently say that the signature of the SOS is needed in order to be officially seated?

: I'd Say No Precedent... (none / 0) (#88)
by santarita on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:31:01 AM EST

or not a very good one. This is probably a case that will be decided on the basis of Illinois statutory and constitutional interpretation. Other state statutes and constitutions may or may not have similar language.

At first reading I thought you to be way off (none / 0) (#78)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:11:46 AM EST

base on this. Was about to tell you so and then different scenarios began playing in my head, like where Burris is going to begin coming into play as one of Blagos possible picks, what conversations Burris has ever had with Blago and when and where. Cripes, okay, you're right, who knows if this will EVER be over?

Over/Under ... (none / 0) (#80)
by wystler on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:14:39 AM EST

... on BTD stating publicly "I was wrong about Roland Burris"? I've got it at 63 days.

Wrong on what about Burris? (none / 0) (#82)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:17:28 AM EST

I'll let you decide (none / 0) (#84)
by wystler on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:19:10 AM EST

Um (none / 0) (#85)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 11:20:06 AM EST

Ok.

I can decide now then.

I was right about everything on Blago/burris.


: Been pondering: who does BTD (none / 0) (#90)
by oculus on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 12:21:03 PM EST

remind me of? Answer: Elliot Ness. Tireless fighter against corruption.
New subject: maybe Reid did all this to assure Burris has great name recognition in IL for 2010 Senate seat election?

: sure, you've decided now (none / 0) (#94)
by wystler on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 04:59:28 PM EST

it's just that i expect you'll be whistlin' a new tune in a couple months