|
||
Arrangements are under way for a Wednesday meeting between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Roland Burris, the Democrat tapped by Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich to succeed President-elect Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate, ABC News has learned.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
All Reid can do is is delay. He has no bullets in his barrel and is willing to hurt the party to the point of giving away the seat to conservatives to feed his ego. You have to wonder why this question was never put to him on the Sunday rubber chicken circuit Face the Nation. Senator are you willing to let this process be dictated by the majority of the Republicans in the State and Federal Supreme Courts?
What specific law can you provide that gives you authority beyond what you mention about the constitution? TV talking heads have no brains and can only read off teleprompters.
The Meet The Press interview indicates that the Democratic Senate Leader (Reid) is dishonest, weak, and lacks the the courage and vision to lead. America deserves better.
This test of Democrats is a God sent. I am only sorry that Mr. Rush interjected race into this clean drama. However, I am glad for the pain that this is causing Reid, Obama, Pelosi, and democrats because they were all in such a hurry to appease conservatives, ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, etc that they were unwilling to allow the legal case against Mr. Blagojevich to take its course. Judging from Obama’s appointments, his reneging on repealing Bush’s top bracket tax cuts, ending the Iraq occupation, Rick Warren, and his move to toward conservatives, Obama’s administration is going to be nothing more than a continuation of the old status quo, bipartisan, political centrist log jam that we have had since Regan.
AndersonCooper is that you
In the immortal words of the Misfit's "Last Caress"..... I've got something to say!
First, people point out the bizarre rationale that Burris could never win a high office in the State of Illinois. I suppose most people missed the fact that Burris did win the very high State office of Attorney General, which just doesn't go to any Joe Public off the street. These same people, while claiming his Governorship defeats were a rejection of Burris....
Ummm, no. It was a rejection of Democrats as the Republicans held the Governors seat for 25 straight years. Who was the one who stopped the Republican domination of the Governorship in Illinois? Some wierdo named Blagojevich.
In the past 40 years, there have been 4 Republican and 2 Democratic Governors of Illinois. Blagojevich is the first 2 term Democrat since Otto Kerner did it from 1961-1968. Horner also did it from 1933-1940. None of the three will finish their second terms.
Since 1857, there has only been those 3 Dems who were re-elected, only 7 Dem elected governors total, and no concurrent governorships by Dems either.
Remember that if you call for a special election in Illinois! And Quinn better be the the next best thing to God himself if he is elevated and runs for re-election. History is not on the Democrats side in Illinois. ;o)
But since when has anyone listened to me?
I listened/read and I agree with your well reasoned, dispassionate argument.
Thank you very much, I enjoyed the read.
Thanks, but I don't know if I said it well enough. Much as I hate posting things like that, I just can't help being honest and blunt and wishing that somehow the Party doesn't self destruct over something that was probably a GOP plan from the outset.
I'm no expert on all things politics, i'd have more luck shaking a cup full of yahtzee dice and guessing all the numbers prior, than being able to predict the outcome of every single election. With that said, I don't understand the "electability" question that people are suddenly placing on Burris. He at first said he wouldn't run. And his being 71 years old dictates that sooner or later he should retire home to rest. I think if he turned out to just do the seat warming, hopefully that would give plenty of time for the long list of people who want to be elected, to get their acts together and be ready. Not to mention, allowing them to devote their entire time to the campaign, while Burris devotes his time to working for Illinois and restoring it's image. I can't really find any fault with that. Keep in mind, we're now less than 2 years from the election for this seat anyways. Anyone appointed and then having to go right into campaigning for the seat full-time, will put themselves at a serious disadvantage by being labelled a "do-nothing" for spending all their time campaigning.
Well, election for governor and election for senate are 2 different things.
If Burris ran unopposed, he could win the Senate. Burris would not survive a Democratic primary in this state. There are too many Dems in this state (of all colors) who want that seat.
While you are speaking of Quinn, the Machine Dems that run the Illinois Legislature do not like a Reform Dem like Pat Quinn. That could get really ugly.
True, Senate is different. It's just that it worries me that Reid would go out of his way to block this simply over Blagojevich's wrongdoing. When's the last time we heard anything from Fitzgerald? Not since that lavish and very public press conference he held with his team of prosecutors. Why? Because the GOP mission was accomplished.
Reid has his intentions in the right place, but he is going about it the very wrong way. As me and others have said before, he has done nothing to prevent Senator Stevens and Craig keeping theirs. They both committed crimes and were arrested on Reid's watch. Reid did nothing to them. Burris has committed no wrong. That's why people are upset with Reid and why the allegations of racism have become a factor now. For what reason is Reid opposing Burris? The Fitzgerald publicity party only ensured that Blago would be forced to do the right thing. If they had waited til he actually sold it, the Dems would have came away looking good. But by doing it earlier, the way Fitzgerald did, they have thrown the Democratic Party into absolute turmoil.
Exactly the same way that McCain's intentional pick of pretty Palin did the very same thing by throwing the party into turmoil over Hillary supporters. Remember?
Funny how the Dems are so easily manipulated by the GOP, as if Cheney is pulling the DNC strings rather than George's.
Mind you, I am not arguing as to whether Burris should be seated or not, I thought he should have been seated from jump street. I rather liked the idea that even though he had reached a ceiling in his political career of his own making, that he should be Senator for 2 years. But if we are talking about his electibility, there is plenty of evidence that shows that there are better politicians in Illinois that could win the seat.
Historical evidence proves he hasn't been electable in his own state. That does not make him a bad person. My opinion is that his appointment is tainted from the beginning. I hope we can prevent it from happening.
As tainted as this process is and as bad as it looked, I went along with it the idea of a 2 year appointment as a seat warmer when I first heard about it. Then folks started playing the race card, esp. Burris himself. That soured me on the idea.
Setting the standards low. You saying you are happy with the politicians we have now sitting in the Senate.
They have to do a lot to gain confidence of the American people. Time will tell.
Silly Rabbit of course not... Harry Reid for starters needs to go.
Well, maybe the system of getting elected by the electorate isn't working for us, huh?
We, the electorate are fooled all the time, by the big money, well connected politicians, aren't we?
I'm trying to think about this issue on a deeper level. We complain and complain about all our politicians that get elected by us. Why? What happens once the go to D.C.
All the talk and all the connections -- lobbying interest, make their interest becomes the interest of the lobby.
So, Burris couldn't get elected -- good, he doesn't have all those lobby connections, that helps one get elected.
So, Illnois may be in a good position, after all.
Think outside the box. This linear way of thinking hasn't served the electorate very well, up to now, has it.
Or, do you really dig the politicians we have now?
"He lost a total of five elections, and never got past a primary. He was last elected for public office in 1990, just over 18 years ago. He has been a lobbyist/ lawyer/ consultant, and has received more than $700,000 in fees from the State of Illinois, under Blago. He has reportedly donated $14,000 to Blago's campaigns"
Well aparently his connections finally paid off
You guys just make conclusory statements. He is tainted, he is inadequate.
Reason your positions -- don't just throw conclusory statements out there.
Geez, is that too much to ask?
You have yet to support your arguement.
Right connection, what does that mean BobbyRush
Why is he adequate - Becasue he is Black
Make a case for him since you seem to support him so strongly; where are your facts I have provided you with mind, the people of Illinois reject this man 5 times for higher and you seem to think he deserves to get in through the back door.
Thank you Morning Joe, I am a black guy in Illinois who sides with you on this. Guess that means I'm an Uncle Tom or something.
Obama suported Burris in the election against Burris. Good. Burris and Obama may be the only clean polticians in D.C.
That makes two.
Burris couldn't get elected because he was too clean. Obama got elected because of a conflagration of many circumstances -- for instance, Bush, the war, the economy, etc...
Without that conflagration, Obama may have lost, also.
.Burris couldn't get elected because he is inept at connecting with anyone except his ego and to compare him to Obama is laughable.
Obama worked hard for everything he got; with all the barriers throw in his way he manage to break through while at the same time making a connection with the American people.
And although Obama supported Burris when he ran against and lost to the current corrupt governor of Illinois, Obama never thought highly enough of Burris to put him on his short list.
What does it say about Burris that he wasn’t even thought of highly enough to be on Harry Reid’s Discrimination-List?
Because he is 71.
YOu guys are making my argument for me -- Burris can't get elected. Good. Cause the electorate is fooled everytime, by the big money, well connected politicians.
Burris is an inadequate and mediocre politician whose only ambition is to add on to his exaggerated tombstone.
You don't even address the issues I presented above. You just keep repeating the same thing -- he is inadequate.
That's a conclusive statement. Address the issues raised in my above post.
I gave you a long answer, below. However, it is pending. The long and the short of it is: losing those elections, merely means to me that Burris doesn't have the right connections -- which may be a good thing.
We complain about our current politicians -- and, maybe, that's because there is something crooked in the system.
Trying something different, may get us something different -- a clean politician
This response is to Morning Joe -- I changed my moniker.
.I know who you are; I believe we have debated before; in the most spirited ways of course.
You are correct Burris doesn’t have the right connections; he appears to have a difficult time connecting to the people of Illinois
And so what does he do to correct this situation he solicited the help of the out date former BlackPanther BobbyRush to make his case for him. What a way of connecting with the people.
We complain about our politicians in office, they always disappoint. I think it says more about the system and us, the electorate -- given that he can't get elected to office.
Clearly, Illnoise residents elected Blago and look what that got them -- a crooked politician
Same can be said for many politicians -- crooked. Crooked because they are so connected.
Palin, Reid, on and on, none of them are any good -- but, they were elected, right?
If Burris were so inadequate, why would Obama support him during the primary against Blago -- that just doesn't make sense to me.
We know Blago is a cheat -- he could have cheated in that election and that could be the reason why Burris lost to him.
Speculation, because I don't know anything for sure.
However, I think Burris is just as good as many of the other Senators.
Why do you think Burris is inadequate?
What makes him adequate
You claimed he was inadequate -- explain and elaborate.
I tend to agree with many things Katrina V H says -- she is a heavy weight thinker. And her heart is in the right place, I believe.
I agree with you and I love that she can debate with the best of them without getting all riled up.
I've learned given this Gaza crisis how disconnected the party is from their constituents, yes.
Most definitely. The people of Gaza, as well as Israel, want peace. The leaders do not care. Not a good thing.
I think the grassroots movement that Obama lead, is a good thing. Keeping people still involved in the process.
I know here in Los Angeles protest are taking place at the I s r a e l i embassy on Wilshire.
|
||
Loading comments…
ABC News | LOUISE SCHIAVONE | January 3, 2009 07:51 PM