The Stimulus Bill passed the Senate 60-47 or so. Without Burris, no stimulus passage. That's the ENTIRE story.

They would've pulled Kennedy down to make the vote if they were still short.

I think the bottom line is that Burris needs to go. There's too much baggage there, I don't think any in the Democratic leadership is comfortable with him, and this is just enough reason to get him out of there. Republicans will try to make this a "Democrat problem", but if the Dems act quickly, this can still be about Blagojevich and how everything he touches turns to lead, as it should be.

Should Blago's brother be considered an "Aide" etc? Lots of legal cases turn on the technicality of definitions.

POed lib - You're wrong. If the Illinois seat were unfilled, only 59 seats would have been required to pass. And frankly, if 62 seats were necessary, the Republicans would have assigned a couple more "moderates", because they couldn't afford to block a bill.

In the context of Burris' appointment to the Senate and the Blagojevich impeachment, not recalling the request for a fund raiser is nothing short of a blatant lie. And since a fundraiser would have had to happen before the first of the year, by the time he was picked, that would certainly not have been the new compensation of choice. Burris needs to be investigated.

And so does Judd Gregg. The pattern here is that aides and surrogates do the dirty work, in order to give plausible deniability to the principles.

Interesting the flips and flops of Burris - I, incorrectly, posted the night of the S-Chip passage that Burris had voted against the bill. Had to correct the next day. However, the reason I posted was due to the Clerk reading the name of Burris in the Nay column. Following my posting, Burris changed it to the Yea column. This has happened on at least two other occasions. In the first reading of the Yeas and Nays, Burris has been listed with the Nays. Then, the switch to the Yea. Is he simply confused? Did he first put up a small headstone before changing it to a Mausoleum?

One thing this shows is the wrongness of following "legacy" instincts and pressures. Some said, it just wouldn't be right not to have a black Senator etc. Well, we've got a black President so we didn't have to cover all the bases. Burris looked like a weak pick for various reasons (despite a bone of defense above, I never was impressed much by him) and it would have been better to find someone else. Time to quit being pressured by the legacy mafia.

As an Illinois resident, I suggest that the rest of you just fuck off. If you don't live in Illinois, your opinions are of no importance whatsoever.

As an Illinois resident, I held that Blago had the RIGHT and the RESPONSIBILITY to appoint. Appointing Burriss was the best thing he did as Governor, because Blago exercized his constitutional responsibility.

And, again, if you are not an Illinois resident, kindly shut the fuck up.

Hey POed Lib,

No. Fuck you.

The Senate, by virtue of there being only 100 seats, transcends your little politically fucked up part of the country.

> Should Blago's brother be considered an "Aide" etc?
> Lots of legal cases turn on the technicality of definitions.

True enough. But the intent and context of the question was quite clear, and it appears that Burris was -- at best -- parsing his definitions to evade an entirely truthful answer.

If Burris tries to defend his answer on the distinction between a close relative and an aide, then we're off again down the "depends on what the defintion of 'is' is. . . ." course of defense against lying under oath. Anyone want to go there again?

Anyone?

Bueller?

Bueller?

if you are not an Illinois resident, kindly shut the fuck up. POed Lib

Are you sure you're not a maroon. I detect a large dose of red with that blue.

As an Illinois resident, home of Abraham Lincoln, Paul Simon, and Barack Obama, I defend our political system. Yes, we have corruption. No, we do NOT have concealed carry. We are a proud state filled with good people, and the morons who do not live here don't understand Illinois politics. Many of them, like Quinn, don't really understand much of anything of value.

So, as an Illinois resident, I support Burris and will happily work with him. When he runs in 2010, I will certainly support a reasonable primary challenge.

And for the intellectually challenged morons who do not support Burris, the only alternative that has been proposed is the special election, costing Obama 6 months without a senator, and the people of the State of Illinois an estimated 40 million. Thank you, Rod Blagojevich. You did a good thing by doing your duty and making the appointment.

Since Hon. Sen. Burris was never elected, can the new Governor recall him, or otherwise send a replacement?

POed lib wrote:

> If you don't live in Illinois,
> your opinions are of no importance whatsoever.

As you yourself point out in your initial post, Burris may be a critical vote in moving the administration's legislative initiatives forward. That makes Burris's actions -- or those of any other member of the Senate -- relevant to all of us.

And of course, if it will make you feel better to trash my senators, Cornyn and Hutchison, please be my guest.

"Since Hon. Sen. Burris was never elected, can the new Governor recall him, or otherwise send a replacement?" jhm

I do not believe that there is any mechanism in the IL constitution for any such thing. Note, very importantly, that it was the CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION of Blagojevich to appoint. It is right there in the Illinois Constitution. At the time of the appointment, Blago was the Governor. The appointment was certified by Jesse White, SoS. The Senator has been sworn in as a Senator by Harry Reid.

We have this guy for 2 years. I see only one way to get him out: Resignation. Burris seems to have a huge ego (both of his children were named after him), and he will never resign. So, now the Illinois Democratic Party needs to do two things:

1) Find, in the long, deep, and extremely competent Democratic bench, a person to run against Burris. There are probably 10 very good Dems whose names have come up.

2) Put restrictions on political contributions. Illinois has none, and this is the main source of corruption. It is now time for the Illinois Democratic Party (which controls Chicago, the House, the Senate, the Gov and just about everything else) to step up and put on limits on political contributions.

And if he's perjured himself, he should be thrown out on his ear, immediately.

Here's my problem with this: Burris wanted this appointment so badly, apparently, that he lied (or at least concealed important relevant information) to get it. How, then, are we to have any confidence that he will put Illinois, let alone the country, ahead of his self-interests? I don't think we can. This bothers me greatly.

Here is what the article said:

"The AP noted that the impeachment panel "specifically asked if he had ever spoken to Robert Blagojevich or other aides to the now-deposed governor about the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama." Burris said he had not. Yesterday, he said Blagojevich's brother asked Burris for fundraising help -- three times -- while Burris was under consideration for a Senate appointment."

1) Burris stated that he never spoke about the Senate seat.

2) Blago brother asked him to assist in fundraising 3 times.

Those two things ARE NOT RELATED. You may WANT a relationship to exist, but DISCUSSING A SENATE SEAT and HELPING IN FUNDRAISING are NOT RELATED.

Sorry, haters. Nothing to see here. In fact, Burris can say that he never spoke about the Senate seat EVEN IF HE HAD 3 CONVERSATIONS ABOUT FUNDRAISING.

People want a scandal to exist SO BADLY that they are just making shit up.

POed lib wrote:

> DISCUSSING A SENATE SEAT and HELPING
> IN FUNDRAISING are NOT RELATED.

And that, my friends, is the sort of rationalization that allows crooked pols like Blagojevich to thrive.

POed Lib - You can argue that Burris may not have known there the fundraiser was a condition for getting the Senate appointment. That's why Blago used aides and surrogates. Blago does make it quite clear in the transcripts that he (Blago) was not giving away the seat for nothing. The problem with Burris is that he withheld information in response to direct questions during Blago's impeachment hearing. If he had said merely, yes, I spoke to these people and the brother asked me to do a fundraiser, that still wouldn't suggest Burris did anything wrong. It might, however, have led to another more uncomfortable question. His dishonesty, combined with Blago's known intentions, raise valid reason to question Burris' integrity.

Well, you guys must not be lawyers. Lawyers answer the question that is asked. They do not answer the unasked implications which are behind the question.

It really does matter "what the meaning of "is" is", as a famous politician said once.

Burris is a lawyer. He answered the question. The question was "Did you speak to the governor about the senate seat." The question was not "Did the governor's brother ask you to help in fundraising, and did he imply or state that this would help your unstated case to become Senator."

You can believe whatever you want. Perjury is a strong and important charge. If you lie about something under oath, that is a problem. If you did not answer a question which was not asked, that is not perjury, that is fiction.

On the one hand, I think it's good for Democrats to be self critical and not always cover for our own no matter what (the way Republicans are more wont to do.) OTOH, presuming Burris will likely stay in at least until the new election, it is good to have talking points to defend him against Republican criticism. Just look at the "meaning of is" arguments in that way, however understandably irritating many of you consider POed Lib.

Ultimately I am still proud of the crew for being quite willing to dump on a Democrat. It tells you something. Can you imagine an analogous conversation at RedState, LGF, Free Republic etc? It would be nothing but excuses unless their man or woman had "betrayed conservatism." (Apparently that's what matters, not betraying American, the voters, our resources, the economy ....)

The question was "Did you speak to the governor about the senate seat. POed

The context was allegations that Blagojevich was seeking compensation for his appointment. If you get solace from your interpretation, you're missing the larger point. Although Burris is a lawyer, he is also a politician, and parsing the question this way is a form of deceiving his constituents and their elected leaders.

Who could have predicted that someone who would accept an appointment from Blago under those circumstances might turn out to be problematic? Huh. I'll be damned.

Without Burris, no stimulus passage. That's the ENTIRE story.

Hardly. Without Burris, 59 votes does the trick. Without Burris, another Dem would have been appointed by Quinn if Blago had just gotten the fuck out of the way instead of shooting at his own party by making the appointment.

As an Illinois resident, I suggest that the rest of you just fuck off. If you don't live in Illinois, your opinions are of no importance whatsoever.

Nonsense. We've heard you opine on other states' representatives and senators many times, if I'm not mistaken. What happens in the Senate affects all our lives. Duh. Meanwhile, you're stuck with me and countless other Illinois residents who don't share your wish to defend Burris and (it's hard to type this without laughing) Blago.

Should Blago's brother be considered an "Aide" etc? Lots of legal cases turn on the technicality of definitions.

Give me a break. Blago's brother has been a major fundraiser for him. This isn't in dispute. Burris was specifically asked whether he'd talked to Robert Blagojevich. He lied.

We have Burris until January 2011. He's getting primaried out. And good fucking riddance.

Rereading the post I can see that "Aide" is not an issue, since Robert Blagojevitch's name was mentioned anyway. But since they asked " ... to Robert Blagojevich or other aides to the now-deposed governor about the Senate seat ..." it seems he could say, not "about the Senate seat."
I still don't like Burris anyway. Those who didn't, for reasons including the Mausoleum stuff, had good instincts. Like I said, time to slough off the legacy/diversity mafia.

> Lawyers answer the question that is asked. They do not answer
> the unasked implications which are behind the question.

I would agree that it was a lawyerly answer. It was not, however, a fully honest one in any sense that we non-lawyers would expect.

POed lib, I'm sure you will agree that there are lots of ways to answer a question that may be true in the strictest sense, but are misleading, incomplete and fundamentally dishonest. That appears to be the case here.

If the questioners in Illinois did not ask exactly the right question, I would argue, under these circumstance Burris had an obligation to volunteer the information. He didn't.

If Senator Burris did not appreciate that, under the circumstances surrounding his appointment, a fully open and honest answer was required -- as opposed to the narrow, carefully-parsed answer that he actually gave -- then he's either not terribly bright, or not terribly honest.

I'll leave it to those from Illinois, who know Senator Burris better than the rest of us, to say which (or both) of those applies. But I don't see any alternatives to those two.

Neil, you need to get over this little idea that this was only a problem because it was a legacy appointment. This was a problem because it was a Blago appointment and thus could not be trusted.

Blago played the race card for his own purposes, period. There are scores of white politicians he could have picked who are dirtier than Burris. Had he named any of them, you'd be correctly focusing on corruption and deceit, not on race.

"> Lawyers answer the question that is asked. They do not answer
> the unasked implications which are behind the question.

I would agree that it was a lawyerly answer. It was not, however, a fully honest one in any sense that we non-lawyers would expect."

Exactly.

The lawyer answer is not the politically bright answer here. It is the infuriating answer.

Look, guys, POedLib is just not correct when he/she claims that Burris made a "lawyerly answer" instead of lying and that "Those two things ARE NOT RELATED. You may WANT a relationship to exist, but DISCUSSING A SENATE SEAT and HELPING IN FUNDRAISING are NOT RELATED."

From the AP story: Burris, a Democrat like the former governor, said he told Robert Blagojevich he would not raise money because it would look like he was trying to win favor from the governor for his appointment. But he said he did ask the governor's brother "what was going on with the selection of a successor" to Obama in the Senate and "he said he had heard my name mentioned in the discussions."

There is no way to spin this to Burris's advantage.

Maybe he didn't consider Blago's brother to be literally an "aide," in which case he wouldn't really have been lying about it.

Maybe he didn't consider Blago's brother to be literally an "aide," in which case he wouldn't really have been lying about it.

The impeachment panel specifically asked if he had ever spoken to Robert Blagojevich.

First 'POed' doesn't know shit about the state of Illinois.

Second, the Governor may appoint a replacement Senator but, contrary to the deceptive impression given by 'POed', there is no time constraint. As 'POed' says, "It is right there in the Illinois Constitution"!

Third, actually there are two problems with Burris' testimony:

1. He was asked not once but twice if he had been contacted by specific people in the Governor's office including Blago's brother. His responses were a complete evasion.


2. He was asked if he had been approached with a quid pro quo deal for the Senate seat and said no!

Have a look here for the relevant parts of his testimony...

You can also find the relevant part on YouTube.

In no way was Burris hurried through these questions. At every point he conferred with his attorney.

For that reason, his responses are highly deceptive and as it turns out false -- at a time and in circumstances where you'd expect completely transparency.

Instead what we got was a performance on a par with Alberto Gonzalez. The guy is toast.

P.S. When someone claims they come from a particular state in question, so STFU -- remember, that's the first sign that you're being had.

Have a nice day!

shortstop is right. Burris' response was complete false and deceptive. But again, that's only half of it. The other half was the question about approached with a quid pro quo where he literally lied by saying 'no'.

First 'POed' doesn't know shit about the state of Illinois.

Second, the Governor may appoint a replacement Senator but, contrary to the deceptive impression given by 'POed', there is no time constraint. As 'POed' says, "It is right there in the Illinois Constitution"!

Third, actually there are two problems with Burris' testimony:

1. He was asked not once but twice if he had been contacted by specific people in the Governor's office including Blago's brother. His responses were a complete evasion.


2. He was asked if he had been approached with a quid pro quo deal for the Senate seat and said no!

Have a look here for the relevant parts of his testimony...

[CONTINUED]

You can also find the relevant part on YouTube.

In no way was Burris hurried through these questions. At every point he conferred with his attorney.

For that reason, his responses are highly deceptive and as it turns out false -- at a time and in circumstances where you'd expect completely transparency.

Instead what we got was a performance on a par with Alberto Gonzalez. The guy is toast.

P.S. When someone claims they come from a particular state in question, so STFU -- remember, that's the first sign that you're being had.

Have a nice day!

Sorry for the dups.

leo you dumbfuck bozo:

I live in Belleville, IL, moron. I have lived in Arlington Heights, IL, and in Champaign-Urbana, IL.

Where do you live, dumbfuck?

I noted I got it wrong about the brother being mentioned, but there still seems to be an issue about the question being, did you talk "about the Senate seat" or just other things that could seem related. Now, did Burris specifically deny being approached with a quid pro quo that he really was asked? I don't see so far that's clear, if you know put up or link to some quotes.

So here's a critical point: There is a distinction between whether Burris is a creep who doesn't deserve etc. the Senate seat, and whether he legally committed "perjury." The first matters, I can buy that but it just shouldn't be conflated with the latter. Finally, I will say again: it is a demonstration of the health of the Democratic Party that we are having this type of conversation.

"contrary to the deceptive impression given by 'POed', there is no time constraint."

Of course not, you dumbfuck moron. I never said that. I said it was his CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION to appoint. He fulfilled his obligation, and as such, did the right thing.

Where exactly are you from, moron, anyway?

Leo wrote:

> P.S. When someone claims they come from a particular state in question, so STFU
> -- remember, that's the first sign that you're being had.

Indeed.

It's one thing for someone from a politician's home state to offer a contrary view or clarification on the pol's actions. That can be valuable, because often the folks "back home" have a better understanding of that individual and his or her motives or intent than the rest of us do. That's all to the good when it comes to public discourse.

But when someone uses "you're not from here" as an argument to silence a dissenting view, then that's just evidence that they have no real argument to make in the first place.

OPed, read for content for a change and people might take you more seriously.

I didn't say you didn't come from Illinois; I just said you didn't know shit about the state.

I have no idea whether what you say about your residence is true or false. But it's easy enough to judge your knowledge.

Have a nice day.

There are two situations with the Senate.

1) The matter of selection to the Senate: Only the people of the state have any say in the matter. Only those who are represented should express an opinion, because only those are represented by that politician. All others are simply irrelevant, and should shut the fuck up.

2) The matter of the actions of the politician in question: This is a point at which all persons have some say.

I say that only Illinois residents have any thing to say about Blago's actions, and Burris. I will continue to hold that position.

leo:

You have still not replied to my question of where you are from. Since you have not, it is clear that you are not an Illinois resident. So, I cheerfully and pleasantly repeat: Shut the fuck up about Illinois matters.

All others are simply irrelevant, and should shut the fuck up.

POed Lib - Did you know someone with the opposite point of view is using your handle in the Minnesota post above this one?

BTW it is indeed true, pace shortstop, that "legacy" pressure helped midwife the Burris mess. First, I didn't say that was the only issue. Here's what happened: Blago appointed Burris (yes, his legal right/responsibility to do, but that isn't the only issue to think about, OK POed Lib?) First, Reid et al put up resistance (and BTW, they have a Constitutional right to do that, re the functioning of the Senate.) But then the "legacy crowd" pressured Reid and crew (and presumably the IL process as well) by whining about it wouldn't be fair not to replace a black man with same, etc. Reid caved in to their bullying (no surprise there, what a worm) and so now we are stuck with a turkey like Burris for awhile. If not for that pressure, maybe an alternative appointment would have been made - alternatives were indeed in the works and the IL SoS was playing along.

Look, we don't have to always genuflect to everything involving racial "justice" issues just because the proponents say we should have to. Some are worth supporting and some are not.

Finally, POed Lib, we have a right both informally and formally to critique what goes on with Burris. He is part of the US Government, OK? What happens with him matters to the votes in the Senate, etc. Righteous turf protectionism is whack.

POed lib wrote:

> Only the people of the state have any say in the matter. Only those who are
> represented should express an opinion, because only those are represented by
> that politician. All others are simply irrelevant, and should shut the fuck up.

This is exactly the sort of defensive provincialism that allows political corruption to thrive.

> 2) The matter of the actions of the politician in question: This is a
> point at which all persons have some say.

And I say that Senator Burris' actions in testifying before the Illinois legislature were dishonest, if not outright lying.

> I say that only Illinois residents have any thing to say about Blago's actions,
> and Burris.

This seems to contradict your second point, immediately above. Can't you at least be consistent within the same post? Which is it: "all persons have some say" or "only Illinois residents have any thing to say?"

I'm so confused.

Andy:

Political experts like you are always welcome to run for Senator in Texas. Why spend your time worrying about Illinois, when you have a bunch of clowns like Tom Craddock, John Cornyn, and Tom Delay to run against?

If you run for Senator, Andy, let me know. I'll send you $50.

POed lib wrote:

> If you run for Senator, Andy, let me know. I'll send you $50.

Fair enough. Yes, we have [more than] our share of bad pols, too.

For the record, I don't think "Big John" Cornyn is dishonest; to be successfully crooked at that level requires both intelligence and ingenuity; John Cornyn has neither.

Kay Bailey Hutchison is planning to challenge Rick Perry for governor next year; it's been an open secret for many years that governor is the job she really wants. God knows why; the Texas governor's office is very weak in terms of holding real power beyond the "bully pulpit" thing. Maybe, just maybe, there can be an opening for a Dem to replace her. Rick Noriega ran a good campaign against Cornyn last year.

And a recent update: Tom Craddick is gone from the speaker's chair in the Texas House. Joe Strauss, a Republican, led a rebellion against Craddick that ousted him with support of all the House Dems and a few Republicans besides. (The Republicans hold a very small majority in the Texas House this session.) My own representative, Craig Eiland (a Dem) is the new Speaker Pro Tem. Initial signs are very good now for something approaching bipartisanship in the Texas House. Here's hoping. . . .

It's just OBVIOUS that the people of Illinois aren't fit to choose their own representatives in Congress and the Governor's mansion.

Hell, if it weren't for the fact that Obama's popularity struck nationwide after his 2004 keynote, they probably would've gone with Keyes!

:D

The way it works with Illinois politicians is, when asked a question, they reflexively lie. Then they take some time to review the lie, consider how they can improve on it, and submit a new and better lie. Wash, rinse, repeat. They're all so compromised by their knowledge of--and involvement in--Illinois' pervasive pay-for-play government that telling the truth just isn't a viable first option. If they're not grafting, people they work with every day ARE.