There's something very ugly about the name "Rush."

"He hasn't done anything that's indictable,"

I think we have the new Burris campaign slogan right there!

I am not a Bobby Rush fan but the truth is he has a point. He would have been better off pointing to people like Ted Stevens who got a standing ovation just a couple of months ago after being convicted of graft but still Roland Burris has plenty of company in Congress when it comes to moral failings and still being allowed to stay. David Vitter anyone? Where is the Senate effort to get Vitter kicked out?

sgwhiteinfla - I think the better analogy is Bush v Gore. It's not so much about the man's alleged crimes, but the selection process itself.

Race card? How right-wing. Since Reid said "No blacks please" race WAS an issue. You think Blago didn't tell Burris and Rush that Reid said that? Of course he did.

Not to mention all the White Congresscritters are are lauded as heroes and leaders even though they've actually committed crimes.

sgwhiteinfla, I see your point-- quite a few senators have committed acts far worse than what Burris did. However, when you compare Burris to Stevens and Vitter, you're forgetting one key point: Stevens and Vitter are both Republicans. If they want to have crooks and johns filling their party ranks, let 'em-- it makes us look better. We, on the other hand, need to keep our ranks as corruption- and scandal-free as possible, especially because of the old "IOKIYAR" media double standard. Anything Republicans do can easily be swept under the rug by the mainstream media. Anything we do, even if it's as silly as, I dunno, belching loudly in public, will be magnified and scrutinized by every talking head on every news channel, ad nauseum. So, the call by many Democratic leaders for Burris to leave is motivated by the fact that his loose-cannon statements and ties to Blagojevich only serve to undermine the party's image and distract from Obama's agenda.

And someone needs to remind Bobby Rush that the root of this problem is not Burris, but Blagojevich. And, uhh, he's white.

sgwhiteinfla, never discount the power of the Pampers lobby.

By the way, Steve, the name of the Alabama safety commissioner who unleashed the brutality on Civil Rights demonstrators was Bull Connor, not Connors.

I know nothing about Illinois politics, other than its reputation for corruption, and I'm guessing Bobby Rush is in a 100% safe seat.

Be that as it may, is there any point in running a primary challenger against the guy? Of course it would probably fail, but it might scare Rush a bit, and I think responsible Democrats have a responsibility to try to drive idiots out of the party.

Easy for me to say, of course, sitting here in Minnesota. It's not like I would have to do any of the work to run a primary against Rush.

When people feel personal loyalties, of whatever origin, they tend to go off the rail much more easily.

This clearly appears to be Rep Rush's problem. Alluding to Chappaquiddick in this context suggests that he has lost all judgement.

He would do not only Burris, but also his own reputation some good if he would just shut up for a while.

Rush is in a totally safe seat. He's going nowhere until total senility joins his total fucking idiocy, and probably not even then.

Fun fact: Obama ran against the incumbent Rush for his seat in 2000 and got shellacked. Obama talks about how much he learned from that disastrous campaign; he certainly hasn't repeated those mistakes. Rush maintains something of a grudge against Obama to this day.

Bobby Rush is in a 100% safe seat, representing the South Side of Chicago. His last notable primary challenger was in 2000, one B.H. Obama. Rush won that one by 2:1, giving him the distinction of being the only person to have beaten Obama in an election. He's basically untouchable, short of a scandal at the "live boy/dead girl" level.

-dms

He would have been better off pointing to people like Ted Stevens who got a standing ovation just a couple of months ago after being convicted of graft...

Where was it I read that the only Senator who did not get a standing ovation, or at least fawning praise, when returning to the Senate was.... Senator Larry Craig. You can embezzle hundreds of thousands of dollars, accept bribes and even be involved with major corruption. However, male sex in a restroom is just really bad!

I do like the new campaign ad however: Vote for Burris! He hasn't done anything that's indictable!

Rush may be safe for staying in Congress, but I wouldn't expect him to have many friends, any decent assignments, or any committees.

Rush is more craven than his drug-addled shock-jock name-sharer in bashing the Democrats with an incident that is now nearly 40 years in the past, slandering everything Kennedy has done for the country and progressive interests since. And what class, taking such a cheap shot while Kennedy fights brain cancer.

There really is no fate sufficiently painful for that stupid SOB. Maybe we should let Burris stay in and just kick Rush out.

Always classy, that Bobby.

In case you were wondering when the Mad Roland might be going away, I see he's got his Burris in 2010 website up & running.

The Constant Weader at www.RealityChex.com

FOREVER BURRIS

There are many calls for the resignation of Roland Burris, the Illinois Senator appointed by Governor Rod Blagojevich, after his arrest but before his impeachment.

But such a resignation is doubtful. Remember how persistent Burris was when practically everyone opposed his taking the seat in the Senate? He persisted and no one could find a legal way to stop him. So now the Democrats sorely need his vote in the coming months and would do well to keep him there until the 2010 election, which he will probably either skip or lose in the primary.

A new appointment now by the current Illinois Governor would be problematic. I won't comment on opinions that the next Senator there should be black, since when it comes to discussing race I am a coward.

homer www.altara.blogspot.com

Dick Durbin is the corrupt senator from Illinois with all his vote fraud schemes to get Mexicans on the Dem voting rolls with Dream Act, etc. What part of "ILLEGAL alien" don't you understand, senator? His latest amendment to ban an effective radio talk opposition by requiring "diversity" in ownership is a fine example of his character. We don't get what "diversity ownership" is code for. Ha, ha. If you're scared to death of Rush Limbaugh, muzzle him.

As senators go, Roland Burris hasn't had time to build a Lobbyist Influenced and Corrupt Organisation like most of them in Washington.

Agree that Bobby Rush is a wing nut. That said, why does Teddy Kennedy get a pass? In all likelihood he did kill that girl and feel the scene. If not for his family connections, he would have probably spent a fair bit of the 1970s in the Mass pen.

However, when you compare Burris to Stevens and Vitter, you're forgetting one key point: Stevens and Vitter are both Republicans. -The Caped Composer

I think we're missing an even more important point. Stevens and Vitter were elected.

Cleanup on aisle Luther! Somebody spilled a bottle of Extra Strength Racism!

Agree that Bobby Rush is a wing nut. That said, why does Teddy Kennedy get a pass? In all likelihood he did kill that girl and feel the scene. If not for his family connections, he would have probably spent a fair bit of the 1970s in the Mass pen.

Actually, in Real Life (boring as that is), Kennedy was drunk. He took a wrong turn and went off a narrow bridge that would have challenged a sober driver on a dark night. He did flee the scene.

At the time, drunkenness was considered an extenuating circumstance in car accidents, not (as it is now) an aggravating circumstance. The glimmers of a reversal on that had only just begun to appear--and Kennedy's case helped give that change a big push forward.

Under the laws at the time, Kennedy had the book thrown at him. As feeble as the punishment was by our standards today, at the time, anyone without a famous name and/or a prominent position would have expected to get off much more lightly.

No one ever managed to produce even a shred of evidence in support of the theories behind the alleged motive for Kennedy to have killed her, or even a shred of evidence suggesting anything other than an accident caused by a drunk driver. And there were a lot of dollars and a lot of man-hours put into that effort, by the same kind of people who would later conclude that Clinton must be a drug dealer and a murderer, and that they could surely find the evidence if only the investigations continued.

And it's been forty years and the man is dying of brain cancer and everyone knows it. Burris has no class at all.

"He hasn't done anything that's indictable,"

That's going to the top of the tombstone. Right above, "never drove off a bridge while drunk."

Rush should also point out that Kennedy has been missing a lot of votes recently. I would also like to hear more about the "people" who died beyond the one person who is known to have been killed in the incident. Has Kennedy escaped justice for his responsibility for these further deaths for all these years?

As I've said before, the Democrats are too beholden to the racial spoils/ card player crowd.

Why the surprise? After all, Bobby Rush started out as a gang thug, and as the twig is bent ...

RE: Bobby Rush

Great campaign slogan he's got there: "ROLAND BURRIS: Unindictable".