BS: Blagojevich names a name

Subject: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: PoppaGator
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 02:00 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081230/ap_on_re_us/illinois_governor

No matter how upright and honest this nominee might be, there are bound to be plenty of questions.

WIll it be necessary to replace the governor before any possible successor to Obama's Senate seat can be considered acceptable?

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 02:35 PM

Poor Mr. Burris! I, for one, wouldn't want Blagojevich to touch me with a ten-foot Pole. Or even a fifteen-foot Lithuanian!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Charley Noble
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 03:55 PM

Dave-

Well said!

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 04:05 PM

It's important to keep the drama going until we uncover all the scum in Chicago. Blago is just doing his civic duty.

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: SINSULL
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 04:14 PM

Burris has to know his name will be tainted by this. Why is he up there grinning?
The arrogance is unbelievable.
Meantime Caroline kennedy wants her privacy and a Senate seat. Very realistic.

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: heric
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 06:06 PM

"Meantime Caroline Kennedy wants her privacy and a Senate seat. Very realistic."

Chuckle. Well, said.


"Why do I want to be a Senator? Who do you think I AM?? Please, uh, you know, stop, you know with the uh, imbecilic questions."

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 08:02 PM

Question: Where has Caroline Kennedy recently said that she "wants her privacy"? I'm serious. I googled it and found only this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 08:47 PM

Quick answer - I can look further later: It's an interpretive description of what she has been (not) saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 08:56 PM

When The New York Daily News asked if President Bush's tax cuts on the wealthy should be repealed immediately, Kennedy replied:

"Well, you know, that's something, obviously, that, you know, in principle and in the campaign, you know, I think that, um, the tax cuts, you know, were expiring and needed to be repealed."

(That's not it - it's more than a failure to have any ideas she can articulate (I think) - I believe there are excerpts showing she deliberately withholds opinions on issues. Sins may have also been referring to the financial nondisclosure, but I think there is more than that. She certainly should be prepared to articulate at least one idea, to dispel the default notion of an unspoken entitlement.)

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: wysiwyg
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 09:34 PM

...until we uncover all the scum in Chicago...

People from Illinois will know that this can not and will not (nor should it be) done.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 09:44 PM

Here's the best I can do on the thread drift subject, from today's Chicago Tribune. Not that I want to pile up on her, but you asked: She doesn't ask for privacy, but she has the nerve to chastise journalists about the quality of questions they should ask her, while at the same time not saying anything of interest or quality:

Caroline Kennedy hard to figure out
December 30, 2008
We were left scratching our heads after the New York Times released a transcript of its recent interview with the would-be New York senator, complete with her snooty swipe at her interrogators—"Have you guys ever thought about writing for, like, a women's magazine or something?"—and her surprisingly graceful recovery.

So we tallied up the arguments on both sides:

Reasons to hate her

•For that women's magazines comment. Um, Princess? A lot of people would kill to work for those magazines.

•For refusing (at least four times!) to answer the very basic question: Would you have run for the office, if that had been the option on the table?

•For boring us.

Reasons to love her

•For admitting she didn't have an interesting story about the exact moment she decided to compete for the Senate seat.

•For not concocting an interesting story.

•For sounding apologetic after the women's magazine comment, which was prompted by repeated requests for an interesting story about her decision to compete: "I wish there was [an interesting story], I'll think about it."

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 09:52 PM

Blagojevich has not been convicted. He has the legal authority to appoint a successor to Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Dec 08 - 10:03 PM

"...until we uncover all the scum in Chicago..."

    "People from Illinois will know that this can not and will not (nor should it be) done."



                     Why shouldn't it be done?

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 10:59 AM

The Dems will likely shoot themselves in the foot multiple times over this non-issue, as is their wont- they have a long tradition of self-mutilation & self-destructive tendencies.

Is Blagojevich a crook? Of course. However, until convicted/removed he has the legal and procedural right to make this appointment & the Dems cannot legally refuse to seat him.

The question SHOULD be "Is the nominee qualified", not who nominated him, and if he is indeed qualified, he should be seated & the Dems can move on to dealing with matters of importance.

The courts can sort out Mr. B.

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: wysiwyg
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 11:10 AM

Why shouldn't it be done?

Because, since it is not actually possible to do it, it would just shut the city down to focus on the attempt. It would be a black hole absorbing everything else, including all the good things going on there. Not to mention the innnocents that will get shot dead (literally) in the crossfire.

Chicago cannot be cleaned up because it is a linchpin in so many other messes; the system itself, without even meaning to do it awarely, will keep most of the mess in place no matter what octopus-arms are severed. ALso Chi is the "public" face of the messes that, elsewhere, are kept very quiet. It's fine to have a big-ole mess in Chi, these other places figger, because it takes the attention away from a lot of other back yards.

Just not a thing to be done. Much better to focus instead on the great things going on there that deserve ardent support. Best hope with the Chi variety of mess is to balance it as much as possible with positive alternatives to attract the next round of people who would otherwise be attracted into the mess. Oh, free will being what it is, there will always be those who choose the mess; but having options can reduce the total number of saps.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 11:19 AM

Well, it certainly wouldn't hurt to "try" to clean it up, it seems to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 11:48 AM

Unless liberalism replaces corruption, in this country a man is presumed innocent, unless proven guilty..Blagojevich, actually still has the right to name who he will, as long as he is still the governor, until he is removed...right? I thought it was a pretty slick political move..though 'slickness' doesn't necessarily equate to integrity, or correctness. I think it was his slick way of saying 'Gotcha'...even though from what I hear, he is a not so 'slick', corrupt Illinois politician.....sorta like, a lot of the backers of...well...never mind!

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: jeffp
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 12:31 PM

Besides, cleaning up Chicago would do little for the state, whose capital is Springfield.

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: wysiwyg
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 12:44 PM

Plus, IL politics are a self-correcting mechanism. B-boy will get his, in true style.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 12:58 PM

Greg F. opined:

he has the legal and procedural right to make this appointment & the Dems cannot legally refuse to seat him.

Are you a lawyer, Greg? And specifically, a Constitutional lawyer?

I read your statement, Greg, to be an expression of what you'd like and think the law should be.   But it is my understanding that the Senate (not "the Dems"--the Senate) is the final judge of its own membership. THAT is legal.

Further, somewhere recently I read (and I don't know on what authority) that an Illinois Governor's appointment to an open Senate seat has to be approved by the Illinois Secretary of State.

So it looks as if there's not one but two legal ways to legally refuse Blagojevich's choice the seat.

What someone such as you, Greg, think ought to be the law doesn't signify.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: PoppaGator
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 01:08 PM

Now, it IS true that Gov. B. is innocent until proven guitly, and legally empowered to continue acting as Governor (which includes the right and duty to name someone to fill a vacant congressinoal seat representing his state).

However, it is ALSO true that the US Cosntitution allows the Senate as a whole (and presumably the House as well) to accept or reject any such appointee, and that the Illinois state constitution specifies that their Sec'y of State must rubber-stamp the Governor's nominee before the nomination becomes official.

This concept is called "checks and balances," and always seems to work out sell when unusual cicumstances (such as these) arise.

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 02:10 PM

It seems kind of stupid that the Senate would try to block Burris anyway. He hasn't done anything wrong that we know of.

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Ebbie
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 02:31 PM

To repeat what I posted on the Obama Administration thread:

From the (beardedbruce) link: "One of Rush's colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-Ill.), told the Associated Press last night that he had been offered the appointment last week but that he turned it down because "I thought the environment had been poisoned."

Wise and moral man. The environment, of course, has been poisoned and no one knows it better than Blago. Chicago's Lieutenant Governor and the US Senate have both said they would not certify or seat anyone that the Governor names; Blago is doing nothing but trying to force the issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 02:41 PM

Did anyone see Chuck Todd's (NBC political director) explanation last night?

He said (paraphrased) 'well, whether or not you think it's legal, the Dems (meaning Harry Reid)) can delay seating Burris until there ARE other 'legal' objections...in a few days there likely be an indictment, is a few weeks, Blago will likely not BE governor....giving them 'grounds'..)

He also made the point that Blago picked to one person likely to cause the Dems the greatest possible awkwardness....an honest, untainted, but weak candidate who is widely considered a 'loser'.

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 03:17 PM

Uncle DaveO, your legal training?? And are you citing Art. 1, Sec. 5? Like many sections, it has Court interpretations riding on its back.

It is not clear that the Senate has the legal authority to block a fully qualified appointee.
In 1969, the Supreme Court rebuked the House for refusing to seat Rep. Adam Clayton Powell of New York, who was re-elected despite being accused of ethical lapses.
Story in Chicago Tribune, Dec. 31; Mike Dorning and David G. Savage, Washington Bureau.

"I think the best reading of the text of the Constitution and the Powell case together is that the Senate has to seat Burris," said Abner Greene, the Leonard Manning Professor of Law at Fordham University School of Law.
The International Herald Tribune (New York Times), "Democrats Seek to Block Appointee," Carl Hulse article, Dec. 31, 2008.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/12/31/america/31congress.php

In the Powell case, the Court found that the House could not bar Powell...if he met the constitutionally determined qualifications for age, citizenship and residency.

Should I paraphrase your post re Gref F, Uncle Dave?
Or is it understood that your pronouncements, like others, including mine, start with the unstated clause, "It is my personal opinion that, ....."

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: PoppaGator
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 03:22 PM

If I were a politician, I would not have accepted Blago's nomination. To do so certainly could be interpreted as an admission that one was the winning bidder in his "pay to play" auction.

At this point, we all probably figure that now that the plot has been exposed, Burris (or whoever might have been chosen) is very likely to be entirely innocent. Nevertheless, he pretty much has to be rejected, just because Blago's choice, whomever that might be, cannot be accepted.

Technically, it is not up to the "Senate Democrats" to decide on this issue ~ it is the Senate's prerogative. Of course, the Dems are the majority party of the incoming body, and while Congress is not in session, the party caucus can meet and decide how to vote as a bloc, determining the outcome of a majority vote when the Senate eventually does convene.

The happiest outcome would be for Blago to be quickly impeached and ousted, whereupon his successor (the current Lt Gov) could nominate the selfsame Mr. Burris...

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 04:02 PM

"Senate's prerogative" - now just where does the legal authority for this statement hang out?

Quickly impeached- The Illinois corn will be tall by the time there is any resolution. The government case will be presented to a grand jury- sometime. Impeachment committee decisions- perhaps a few months from reaching the Illinois legislative floor.

His successor could nominate- Blagojevich is governor with his powers until he is convicted or ousted. His appointment of Burris is legal, "in my opinion."

So far, the Illinois 'Code of Conduct' has been breached only in that Blagojevich talked too much.

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 04:22 PM

"If I were a politician, I would not have accepted Blago's nomination. "

Seems at least one other did refuse it....a Democratic congressman says he was offered it the other day, but couldn't see how he could accept.

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: pdq
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 04:28 PM

Q...I believe Uncle_DaveO spent his career as an attorney.

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 04:45 PM

If *I* remember correctly, he was a court reporter...which still makes him familiar with many details.

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 05:01 PM

"The environment, of course, has been poisoned and no one knows it better than Blago.... Blago is doing nothing but trying to force the issue."


                Of course, and Blago agreed to abide by the results of a short term election, but the Democrats didn't want to do that. Because the environment has been poisoned they were afraid a Republican would win the election. They can't have it both ways. Either they should abide with an election, or go with whoever Blago appoints.
                It's funny how Democrats just don't seem to like Democrats. Of course, the entertainment value goes up the longer this goes on.

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 05:09 PM

"Senate's prerogative" - now just where does the legal authority for this statement hang out?

Like most things having to do with the actual operation of the Senate, it's a rule, not a law. It's the same rule that would have got Ted Stevens tossed if he had won his election. Basically, if they can garner enough votes to do so, they can unseat anyone for even the merest appearance of impropriety, no hard evidence needed.

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 05:11 PM

Q asked:

Uncle DaveO, your legal training??
* * * *
Should I paraphrase your post re Gref F, Uncle Dave?
Or is it understood that your pronouncements, like others, including mine, start with the unstated clause, "It is my personal opinion that, ....."

Q, if you read my post, I provided the stated clause you wanted, "It is my understanding that. . ." That means, to me at least, that "It is my personal opinion", as you suggested. No, I am not a lawyer, but that is what I have understood for many years, rubbing shoulders with lawyers and federal judges.   Whereas Greg F. stated flatly, the Dems cannot legally refuse to seat him. To which flat assertion of law he added no basis of knowledge, and as far as I've seen, has not done so to this time.

I also took Greg F. to task by pointing out that it is not "the Dems" but the Senate as a whole that (in my understanding, since I'm sure you would want me to say that again) is the final judge of its own membership. As a non-lawyer, but interested in constitutional matters for many years, I doubt that even the Supreme Court may overrule the Senate in the exercise of that function.

Q, it would be better if you took the time to read posts before you criticize them without basis, as you did here.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: heric
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 05:26 PM

I don't know jack shit about the subject.

I just read this, though, on MSNBC:

"Few moderns know that less than a century ago members of the United States Senate were chosen not by the electorate, but by the legislature in each state. You think the seats weren't sold back then? Perhaps that's why the founding fathers' methodology was altered and the electorate chooses senators as well as the House representatives."

Fascinating Constitutional problem. US Senate "rules" versus the Constitution of the State of Illinois.

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 05:36 PM

Dear me. "My understanding.....THAT is legal."
I return to the opinion of Professor Greene of Fordham, partly quoted in the press (above). The Supreme Court overruled the House in the Powell seating, why not overrule the Senate in this one? That is an opinion as well, but Greene has some background in the law.

It will be played out during the next year, in my opinion with much smoke and little fire. We will see.

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 05:49 PM

It seems to me that Blago, knowing he was in too deep and that he would probably be 'out' soon, is exacting his notion of revenge by making the whole issue just as complicated as possible. Do I read minds? Nope...but I sure have fun reading faces and making educated guesses.

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: GUEST,pattyClink
Date: 31 Dec 08 - 10:16 PM

Blago is slime and shoulda resigned. But, he hasn't. Now, Illinois happens to need a senator very soon or it will go half-unrepresented. So, somebody needs to go. So, the schmuck nominated an apparently okay guy, while said schmuck waits for an American thing we like to call Due Process to occur. Seems to me we're stuck with this situation and need to get over it. On to either the financial collapse of the universe as we know it, or Bristol Palin's big news.

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 01:04 AM

That's what make sense to me. The guy is at least as qualified as most of the contenders, so why not just let him serve out the term and put an end to all the shit slinging?

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 04:57 AM

So this is what spawned the man who has the idealism and humanity to change us all for the better?

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 09:40 AM

I think that Gov-B, perhaps with a little advice from his legal team, has made a genious move in appointing Roland Burris to fill Obama's Senate seat...

I also think that the Dems, including Obama, are cowerin' to a sozen or so Southern GOP Senators who have certainly been looking for a fight...

"Shame on you, Barack Obama... Shame on you" is about all I have to say...

Roland Burris has all the qualities to make a fine Senator and I hope the Illinois Supreme Court upholds his appointment and I'm sure that there are many chicken-sh*t Dems that hope that, as well, so they won't have to take fire from the handfull of GOP'ers who would turn this into all-out war...

Brillient move, Governor...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 10:25 AM

On the subject of what the Senate may do (as opposed to what may be right and proper, and as opposed to what I may or may not advocate), I heard an interview of someone on NPR this morning (and I didn't get who it was), who said that a possibility was to assign the issue of Burris's membership to the Senate Rules Committee, who might hold up the question long enough to let the appropriate people in Illinois deal with the problem.


I don't know enough about Burris to have an opinion on his suitability.    I do tend to think that the Illinois legislature or the Illinois Supreme Court need to deal with it in the end.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 10:37 AM

To which flat assertion of law he added no basis of knowledge, and as far as I've seen, has not done so to this time.

"Flat assertion of law"? Jesus. Take a deep breath before you get your knickers all in a twist, Dave.

I'll be sure to keep an eye out for extensive footnotes, references & bibliographical eessays for each of your posted statements in future Dave, and will be calling you to task if they are lacking. Perhaps others here can help me with this as well.

I also took Greg F. to task by pointing out that it is not "the Dems" but the Senate as a whole....

uhh, yes Dave, you did. But if you've been following the news, then you know it has been Dems in the Senate who are raising a holy stink and threatening not to seat him.

What you may choose to read into others' postings is your own affair, but what's that old saying about when you ASSume, you make an ASS...., well, never mind.

Are you a lawyer? And specifically, a Constitutional lawyer? What someone such as you think[s] ought to be the law doesn't signify.

Right back atcha, Uncle.

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 10:41 AM

But, Dave, the People of Illinois, the Illinois Legislature, and the Illinois Supreme Court have bugger-all to do with who the United States Senate does or does not seat.

Your complete freferences, please

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 12:01 PM

I said:

I do tend to think that the Illinois legislature or the Illinois Supreme Court need to deal with it in the end.

I tend to think so because the Constitution places the naming of Senators with the respective states, but makes no rules about how the state is to do that. Historically (putting the open-seat situation to one side for the moment) this has been in various states by appointment by the Governor, by election in the state legislature, and by popular election. Possibly some other means have been used; I don't know.

There is currently controversy in Illinois over this appointment to the open seat. Yes, we are told that the Illinois constitution places that question with the Governor, and prima facie (and certainly under ordinary conditions) that would be the end of it, I suppose. Under the present regrettable conditions with Gov.B, there are maneuverings intended to get around that result. If such is done, whether by action of the Legislature, the Illinois Supreme Court, and/or another election, I think it a rock-solid likelihood that there will be litigation to overturn it, certainly in the Illinois Supreme Court and likely in the US Supreme Court. The upshot is in the laps of the gods.

For those state maneuverings to bear fruit, there would have to be at least a delay (possibly a long one) in the Senate's swearing Burris in. From what I've heard on NPR, that delay just might come about by burying the issue in the Rules Committee. I believe that, if he gets sworn in promptly, the state goings-on become moot.

I've seen (I think in this thread, but perhaps elsewhere), a statement that the Illinois Secretary of State is involved in some way with a governor's choice. Whether it is actually to approve or sign off on the selection, or merely to certify to the world that the governor did make the choice, I don't know. I suspect it is merely the magisterial act of certifying that the duly elected, sitting governor made the appointment.

As to "the Dems" versus "the Senate", while the Democrats have the majority in the Senate, I understand (yes, it's hearsay) that there are a number of Democrats who would not support an effort to prevent Burris's swearing in, and it wouldn't take too many of them to destroy the majority on the issue, so that it would take at least some Republican Senators to help make up a majority vote on the subject. I don't know on what basis such an issue might be referred to the Rules Committee, and whether a majority of the Senate would be required. And then, if it gets referred to that Committee, I haven't heard what the outlook of the committee Chairman might be as to slowing things down.

In any case, if indeed Burris gets seated, I hope it is under circumstances which leave his position and reputation untainted by the Blagojevich connection.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 12:24 PM

Seems to me that should the Illinois Supreme Court okay the appointment that there would be little the legislature could do without some kind of ammending of the Illinois constitution...

I think the Dems in Congress would be okay with Buress if he came with the blessings of the court because the court, in essence, would be cover for them from the righteous indignation of the Southern Repub Senators... That's what they are running from now... Not Buress...

Jus' MO...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 12:40 PM

I said above that I like to read 'faces' and make guesses about what politicians do.....

seems like Blagojevich has made it easier

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: pdq
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 12:47 PM

Blagojevich looks like George Stepenopolous with a more convincing wig.

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 03:23 PM

The prosecutor has asked to have the investigation extended. There's no way to know when Blago will be dealt with in court. And Blago might even be granted an extension or two. In the meantime Illinois will only have one senator, and the majority will be minus a Democrat.
                  It seems like it's the Democrats who are holding things up, it doesn't make sense that they would want to do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 04:45 PM

Rig, just for the moment we have achieved a great breakthrough!

You and I agree on something!

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 04:55 PM

I've come to the conclusion that it's more important to seat Burris than to spit in Blagojevich's eye (as richly as that may be deserved). What little I've gathered about Burris doesn't suggest to me that he bribed Gov-B, and he seems as qualified for the seat as many elected Senators, so why not?

Of course we'll have to see what the Senate and the Legislature and Illinois Supreme Court do.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 06:15 PM

I've come to the conclusion that it's more important to seat Burris than to spit in Blagojevich's eye (as richly as that may be deserved). What little I've gathered about Burris doesn't suggest to me that he bribed Gov-B, and he seems as qualified for the seat as many elected Senators, so why not?

Thanks for coming round to my point of view. Would have saved a lot of typing if you'd done it earlier.

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 07:57 PM

Somebody will have to conince Harry Reid.

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 10:36 PM

There you go again...re-affirming laws that you like and making up new ones, that are up to whim.

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Jan 09 - 11:01 PM

I want movie rights!

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Jan 09 - 09:41 PM

Apparently, Reid had been talking to Blagojevich about the appointment. It will surely come out in the proceedings who Reid wanted. All they'll say at this point is, it wasn't Burris.

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jan 09 - 09:06 PM

And now Democrats are trying to install Al Franken as a senator from Minnesota, so it becomes more critical than ever, at least for Democrats.

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Jan 09 - 12:35 PM

They turned him back--the drama grows!

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 06 Jan 09 - 12:41 PM

I heard a snippit on the news just now--he went outside in the freezing rain and made some kind of public statement. You could find it in your heart to feel sorry for the guy, but by saying "yes" he did insert himself into this crevice between the rock and the hard spot.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: PoppaGator
Date: 06 Jan 09 - 12:51 PM

On the NPR news this morning, I heard that the Senate Democrats are not anxious to fight for Al Franken to be seated just yet. The (currently) "final" tally has Franken winning by a preposterously small margin, and the GOP incumbent is definitely mounting a challenge.

Regarding Burris, the resistance to seating him has to do with the fact that he's Blago's appointee, not anything personal about him. If another process (probably post-impeachment, and definitely including certification by the Illinois Secretary of State) were to conclude with Burris being appointed, he'd be accepted.

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Jan 09 - 01:02 PM

The reality of the situation remains; he's a prefectly legal appointee.

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: pdq
Date: 06 Jan 09 - 01:14 PM

"Senate Democrats are not anxious to fight for Al Franken to be seated just yet.

This "margin of victory" was achieved by Democrat-appointed judges demanding that provisional (=corrupted, rejected) ballots from Democrat strongholds be counted and that ones from Republican-friendly areas (mostly suburban and rural) be rejected. This is criminal election fraud and people should go to prison for it.

This is the time to fight. The "will of the people" is being spit upon by a tiny number of crooked judges.

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jan 09 - 10:56 AM

Oh, please PeeDee- same tired old BuShite crap

Subject: RE: BS: Blagojevich names a name
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jan 09 - 10:59 AM

Yeah! I think there are a whole lot of crooked judges!