PDA

View Full Version : Blago's To Name Us Senator


dudalb
30th December 2008, 11:54 AM
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/12/30/reports_blagojevich_to_appoint.html?hpid=topnews

:eye-poppi:eye-poppi:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp


Looks as if Blago wants to create as much turmoil as possible as he goes down.
I have to put some of the blame on the Illinois state legislators; I thought they were going to strip Blago of his power to appoint,but sat on their butts and did nothing.
But the arrogance of the man is incredible.

WildCat
30th December 2008, 12:02 PM
This is all because the Illinois Dems realized that holding a special election, which they originally called for, might actually result in the unacceptable outcome of the voters electing a Republican to the Senate. So they reneged on that decision. You can't leave such an important decision like that in the hands of lowly voters, so they decided to let Blago's likely successor, Pat Quinn, pick a Dem for the Senate seat.

Of course, Blago could drag this out for months leaving Illinois with only 1 senator for the foreseeable future as the Senate will likely refuse to seat Burris.

MattusMaximus
30th December 2008, 12:03 PM
It looks like Blago is going to name former IL Attorney General Roland Burris. Here's more news on it...

Report: Obama Senate Replacement To Be Named (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98822408)
Embattled Gov. Rod Blagojevich is expected to name former Illinois attorney general Roland Burris as his pick to fill Barack Obama's seat in the U.S. Senate, setting up a challenge with congressional leaders who have already said they plan to reject anyone the governor picks, the Associated Press is reporting.

State Senate President Emil Jones said Tuesday that Burris told him about the appointment, the news service reported.

The Democratic governor has scheduled a news conference for Tuesday afternoon. His aides won't say what it's about. ...

What I'm interested in seeing is how the U.S. Senate reacts to this appointment. I certainly hope they follow through on their threat to not accept anyone Blago appoints. Should be fun to watch :rolleyes:

Alt+F4
30th December 2008, 12:06 PM
Why would Burris or anyone for that matter, accept this appointment?

MattusMaximus
30th December 2008, 12:08 PM
This is all because the Illinois Dems realized that holding a special election, which they originally called for, might actually result in the unacceptable outcome of the voters electing a Republican to the Senate. So they reneged on that decision. You can't leave such an important decision like that in the hands of lowly voters, so they decided to let Blago's likely successor, Pat Quinn, pick a Dem for the Senate seat.

Is anyone here at all surprised by this? I'm certainly not - in fact, I predicted that this is precisely what would happen (better hit rate so far than Sylvia Browne :)) If the table's were turned, the Illinois GOP would have done exactly the same thing. No party is going to put themselves into a position where they might lose a U.S. Senate seat when it is otherwise a sure thing.

Of course, Blago could drag this out for months leaving Illinois with only 1 senator for the foreseeable future as the Senate will likely refuse to seat Burris.

Yes, one thing is for sure - the drama will continue for some time to come.

boloboffin
30th December 2008, 12:13 PM
Some people are wondering if the Senate has the power to refuse an appointment like this, one being Jeff Greenfield of CNN (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2008/12/maybe_the_senat.php).

I think you're wrong about saying the Senate has full power not to seat the Gov's pick. In Powell vs McCormick, a 1969 case involving Adam Clayton Powell, the Supreme Court said, 7-2, that a house of Congress does NOT have such power-they can judge "qualifications" in the Constitutional sense (age, citizenship, etc). And they can judge elections, but say nothing about appointments. (Nate Silver did a great piece on this awhile back).

They can probably EXPEL a member as they see fit--though the Court's decision does not make that clear---but on what grounds? Just because they don't like the guy who picked him?

WildCat
30th December 2008, 12:18 PM
Some people are wondering if the Senate has the power to refuse an appointment like this, one being Jeff Greenfield of CNN (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2008/12/maybe_the_senat.php).
I think the difference is if there is evidence the person was selected for illegal reasons.

Much like the double jeapordy clause in the Constitution doesn't apply if it can be shown the judge who issued the acquittal did so because he was bribed.

dudalb
30th December 2008, 12:26 PM
Some people are wondering if the Senate has the power to refuse an appointment like this, one being Jeff Greenfield of CNN (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2008/12/maybe_the_senat.php).

I like Greenfield, but I question his credentials in Constitutional law.

dudalb
30th December 2008, 12:30 PM
Why would Burris or anyone for that matter, accept this appointment?


Agreed, since when he gets to the US Senate he will be treated like something the cat dragged in before they refuse to seat him or seat him followed by immediate expulson.

MattusMaximus
30th December 2008, 12:45 PM
The U.S. Senate reacts to Blago's pick...

Senate Dems say they won't seat Obama replacement (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081230/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/illinois_governor_senate_1)

Senate Democrats are refusing to seat the man picked by Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich to fill the seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama.

Blagojevich plans to name former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris. Illinois State Senate President Emil Jones says that Burris has told him about the appointment.

In Washington, Senate Democrats say that no one appointed by the scandal-tarred governor would have the credibility to serve. ...

I wonder how far, if at all, this will play out in the courts? Very interesting.

kallsop
30th December 2008, 12:53 PM
Agreed, since when he gets to the US Senate he will be treated like something the cat dragged in before they refuse to seat him or seat him followed by immediate expulson.


There will be much public bluster, then the democrats will be glad to have one more vote and it's back to business.

dudalb
30th December 2008, 12:57 PM
There will be much public bluster, then the democrats will be glad to have one more vote and it's back to business.


I really doubt this.
And I have to remind you that the Dems don't have a monopoly on corruption. The previous Governor of Illnols,now residing in Joliet, was from the GOP......
You come off like a SNL parody of a die hard Republican, you know that?

WildCat
30th December 2008, 01:02 PM
Blago announcing it right now.

Burris looks oblivious.

kallsop
30th December 2008, 01:07 PM
And I have to remind you that the Dems don't have a monopoly on corruption.


You have the typical media template exactly backwards.

Where there's money and power and humans, there's corruption. Newsflash from Captain Obvious - the sun rises to the east tomorrow.

WildCat
30th December 2008, 01:07 PM
The previous Governor of Illnols,now residing in Joliet, was from the GOP......
He's actually at the Federal pen in Terre Haute, IN.

WildCat
30th December 2008, 01:08 PM
Hahaha, a reporter asked if his $14,000 donation to Blago's campaign was the reason for his appointment.

Burris feigns ignorance! LOL

dudalb
30th December 2008, 01:08 PM
He's actually at the Federal pen in Terre Haute, IN.

That I did not know.
But the idea is still the same.

WildCat
30th December 2008, 01:10 PM
Blago refuses to answer questions "because I don't want to take the limelight away from Roland Burris".

:dl:

WildCat
30th December 2008, 01:15 PM
Bobby Rush saying Burris should be a Senator because he's black.

You can't make this stuff up...

dudalb
30th December 2008, 01:29 PM
Wow. Just wow.
This gives us Californians a very rare chance to laugh at somebody else's state Government for a change.

kallsop
30th December 2008, 01:38 PM
What's the over/under on this turkey making it out of Illinois and to the US Senate? Pretty slim I say.

WildCat
30th December 2008, 01:40 PM
What's the over/under on this turkey making it out of Illinois and to the US Senate? Pretty slim I say.
The strategy is now clear. Rep. Bobby Rush will lobby hard for Burris, and play the race card for all it's worth.

Who wouldn't vote to seat Burris unless they're a racist?

Policenaut
30th December 2008, 01:47 PM
When is Blago going to start playing his fiddle?

The Mutha
30th December 2008, 02:03 PM
MSNBC had a political reporter on, laughing, saying that the reason he covers Illinois politics is because it's always a zoo...

boloboffin
30th December 2008, 02:05 PM
I like Greenfield, but I question his credentials in Constitutional law.

Which is why Greenfield cites Nate Silver (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/12/senate-might-not-have-authority-to.html), who is writing based on his communication with a friend in law school (student or professor is not specified):

FYI. If the Supreme Court took the case, It isn't clear that the Senate has the Constitutional authority to refuse to seat a senator who has been validly appointed under the Constitution.

Art I Section 5 says that "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members..."

In Powell v McCormack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powell_v._McCormack), the Court held that the House of Reps couldn't refuse to seat Adam Clayton Powell as long as he met the Constitution's qualifications for membership (age, residency, citizenship.).

I guess, theoretically, the Senate could seat the appointee and then expel him with a 2/3rds vote. The Court wouldn't interfere on Political Question grounds: the Constitution doesn't specify the standard for expulsion so it is properly at the discretion of the Senate.

How do you make Blagojevich's failings a question of Burris' qualifications? Maybe the $14,000 he contributed to Blagojevich's campaign? Seems awfully skimpy to me as a bribe for a Senate seat.

Burris is 71. He may only be a respected caretaker for the seat until 2010.

WildCat
30th December 2008, 02:11 PM
Here's an mp3 of the press conference: http://audio.wbez.org/cityroom/2008/12/cityroom_20081230_newsintern_1434764_Unfi.mp3

It's over 22MB so give it a bit of time to d/l.

eta: question about the campaign donation at 6:30.

WildCat
30th December 2008, 02:29 PM
How do you make Blagojevich's failings a question of Burris' qualifications? Maybe the $14,000 he contributed to Blagojevich's campaign? Seems awfully skimpy to me as a bribe for a Senate seat.
Burris's law firm got quite a bit of state business after that donation.

dudalb
30th December 2008, 02:31 PM
Which is why Greenfield cites Nate Silver (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/12/senate-might-not-have-authority-to.html), who is writing based on his communication with a friend in law school (student or professor is not specified):



How do you make Blagojevich's failings a question of Burris' qualifications? Maybe the $14,000 he contributed to Blagojevich's campaign? Seems awfully skimpy to me as a bribe for a Senate seat.

Burris is 71. He may only be a respected caretaker for the seat until 2010.

If this was a GOP appointment, I wonder if you would feel the same.

The Central Scrutinizer
30th December 2008, 02:40 PM
Why would Burris or anyone for that matter, accept this appointment?

He's 71. At the end of his career. Why wouldn't he?

boloboffin
30th December 2008, 02:44 PM
If this was a GOP appointment, I wonder if you would feel the same.

Actually, I don't think I've shared my feelings on this matter. I feel Blagojevich shouldn't be allowed to make this appointment. So take your wonderment and locate your fundament.

WildCat
30th December 2008, 02:47 PM
From the press conference I linked to above:
"There are no African-Americans in the Senate and I don't think that anyone, any US Senator who's sitting in the Senate right now, want to go on record to deny one African-American from being seated in the US Senate. I don't think they want to go on record doing that. And so I intend to take that argument to the Congressional Black Caucus. I intend to take that argument to the Senators. I intend to start with our own Senator, Senator Durbin who's a friend of mine, and I'm sure he will stand ready to be reasoned with".
The message to Durbin is clear: Seat Burris or you are a racist.

Oh boy, I can't wait to hear Durbin's response to this!

The Central Scrutinizer
30th December 2008, 02:49 PM
Prediction: He'll be seated

WildCat
30th December 2008, 03:04 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Democrats on Tuesday vowed not to seat embattled Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's pick to fill the vacancy left by President-elect Barack Obama, prompting a House Democrat to object to the nation's only prospective black senator being denied a seat.

Rep. Bobby Rush of Illinois told reporters that Senate Democrats should not "hang and lynch the appointee as you try to castigate the appointer."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j-CKHJCHa23Nx7aUCc8v-396YEcAD95D9EFO0

Yes, not seating Burris is the equivalent of "hanging and lynching" him!

How many race cards are in the deck anyway?

dudalb
30th December 2008, 03:09 PM
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j-CKHJCHa23Nx7aUCc8v-396YEcAD95D9EFO0

Yes, not seating Burris is the equivalent of "hanging and lynching" him!

How many race cards are in the deck anyway?

If anything these threats will make the Senate's refusing to seat Burris more likely.
I am amazed how many people here seem to favor letting Blogo get away with it.

Alt+F4
30th December 2008, 03:52 PM
He's 71. At the end of his career. Why wouldn't he?

End? Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd would disagree. Politics is one of the few professions where you're not an old geezer at 71.

dudalb
30th December 2008, 04:30 PM
I am beginning to wonder if Blago is not trying to do as much damage to the Dems as possible as revenge for not backing him.
This appointment is already putting the Senate in a horrid situation: Either Seat Burris, making them look like idiots for their statements of never seating a Blago appointee and look as if they are caving in to having the race card played,in an time when I think most people are sick of it, or doing damage to the Senate's standing with the Left Wing of the party for denying a Afro American a senate seat.
And the whole race card is the last thing Obama wants at the moment.
The more I think about it, the more I despise Blago.

dudalb
30th December 2008, 04:53 PM
Obama comments:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/30/illinois.senate/index.html

Sounds to me as if he is trying to give the Senate political cover to refuse to seat Burris. I think he wants to get this over with as quickly as possible, and that the pain from a quick cut (taking the heat for refusing to sit a Afro American in the Senate) is better then the long pain from dissapointing a lot of people by caving into the race card and giving the GOP a field day.

boloboffin
30th December 2008, 06:41 PM
Why haven't we gotten a reality show yet about Washington? Titles like Lobbyist or Take It To The Court or Sausage Making come to mind. Well, I mean aside from the 24/7 news channels. Even something like this Senate seat appointment could be the subject of a series if a production company could afford to wait on this and opportunities like it. If it were done well, and odds are against it, it would be interesting to watch.

Anyway, on another Senate seat front, Paterson interviewed an openly gay NYC assemblyman (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/interviewing-for-the-job-of-us-senator/?apage=2) for Clinton's office. It's not an Yes, but it's not a No either. I like Paterson more and more these days. ;)

BeAChooser
30th December 2008, 07:09 PM
Should I point out that as a former Illinois Attorney General (1991 to 1995), Roland Burris, was supposed to clean up corruption in his state. Appears he didn't completely succeed at that job. :) Other than that, he might not be such a bad choice since by many accounts he's clean as a whistle. He even ran against Daley for mayor of Chicago and that's got to indicate something good. Maybe the current governor is now just looking to stick it in the eye of democrats for turning on him by picking someone who is squeaky clean that they don't control. Just a thought. :D

WildCat
30th December 2008, 07:18 PM
Should I point out that as a former Illinois Attorney General (1991 to 1995), Roland Burris, was supposed to clean up corruption in his state. Appears he didn't completely succeed at that job.
You'll never see an Illinois AG do a damned thing to clean up the state.

See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil seems to be their motto.

Thunder
30th December 2008, 07:40 PM
I must say, this guy really wants to drag Illinois through the mud as long as possible.

What's in store for the USA....Capital Police forced to handcuff the guy so he can't enter the Senate chamber?

=(

Texas
30th December 2008, 10:25 PM
Some people are wondering if the Senate has the power to refuse an appointment like this, one being Jeff Greenfield of CNN (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2008/12/maybe_the_senat.php). I think Jeff is probably right. Blago has not been indicted, he has not been impeached and he is not mentally unfit he is therefore the duly elected governor and has a constitutional right to name anyone he likes barring proof of a criminal act by the one being appointed.. If he does name this guy it will end up in the USSC and I have a feeling that the court will side with the Governor.

MattusMaximus
31st December 2008, 02:21 AM
Prediction: He'll be seated

I disagree. The Senate has already clearly indicated their willingness to fight Blago's appointment. If they back down now, they run the all-to-public risk of appearing spineless. That's a bad way to start off a new Congress.

My Prediction:
I think Burris will last in the Senate for about a millisecond before he's booted. The seat will then remain empty until after Blago is impeached. Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn will then appoint another black person to the open Senate seat. Problem solved.

And if Blago and his allies play the race card on this one, let them. I'd say that most blacks are smart enough to see through this, and it's not like they're going to run to the "Barack the Magic Negro" GOP, are they?

Wow, what a circus. The only thing these folks are missing is the big, red noses and floppy shoes :rolleyes:

boloboffin
31st December 2008, 09:43 AM
The Senate has already clearly indicated their willingness to fight Blago's appointment. If they back down now, they run the all-to-public risk of appearing spineless.

:dl:

This crowd? The ones who give a 28%-approval-rating president anything he wants, the way he wants it, please, sir, let them know if they can assist him any further? The only risk they run is appearing to have a spine, because then they'll catch hades for not standing up to Bush before now.

I agree that Burris will not enjoy a Senate seat for long, but that's only because it's a Democrat (Blagojevich) who's wanting to see this done. If Blagojevich had had an R behind his name, they would have put up a fight for a little while and then settled down like good little lambs.

Like I say, you can trust Democrats with all three branches of government. We'll never do anything with it.

ETA: Oh, my gosh. I had posted this and then saw that a picture of Burris' tomb (http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/1208/Roland_Burriss_Monument_to_Me.html?showall) has been splashed onto The Politico. Wow, this got ugly in a hurry.

kallsop
31st December 2008, 10:32 AM
Black seat, playing race card in 3...2....

The race card is played (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2008/12/30/the_race_card_is_played_dont_hang_or_lynch_the_bla ck_man_chosen_by_rod_blagojevich)

Did NY select their new white woman yet?

Alferd_Packer
31st December 2008, 11:11 AM
I feel sorry For Burris. He's actually not a bad pick for a two year stint.

kallsop
31st December 2008, 11:22 AM
I feel sorry For Burris.


I don't. He made a choice, now has to live with the entirely predictable consequences. If he had an ounce of pride, he'd tell Blago to drop dead.

dudalb
31st December 2008, 12:08 PM
I feel sorry For Burris. He's actually not a bad pick for a two year stint.


In some ways I feel sorry for him though, but The comments that while he was attorney general he apparetnly did nothing about the incredible level of corruption in Illinois poltics has to be held against him, as does his accepting of an appointment as tainted as this one. He looks like a guy who has not really outside of attoney general been really sucessful at his political career, and just got to tempted by the vision of a senate seat.
The only way he has a chance in hell is if he promises..and keeps the promise..to only serve as a caretaker until 2006 or a special election is held.

dudalb
31st December 2008, 12:11 PM
But I hope we cal all agree that the playing of the Race Card is truly reprehensible?

BeAChooser
31st December 2008, 12:54 PM
The comments that while he was attorney general he apparetnly did nothing about the incredible level of corruption in Illinois poltics has to be held against him

He also was comptroller for 3 terms (with again no hint of scandal). You have to admit, his avoiding any charges of corruption after 2 decades in Chicago and Illinois politics is a point in his favor. But you are correct that he apparently didn't do much to fight corruption in Illinois. But then, who has? For example, did Obama? No. Did any of those who are now so supportive of Obama? Not that I can name. So I don't find the logic that Burris doesn't deserve the job because he didn't fight corruption all that convincing. Afterall, Obama got the job of Senator and he didn't fight Illinois corruption either. In fact, one might argue that Obama and his wife were a part of the machine. :D

Thunder
1st January 2009, 04:23 PM
But I hope we cal all agree that the playing of the Race Card is truly reprehensible?

I am a liberal. I am a Democract. I think having at least one black in the Senate is a decent goal.

But this way? With this governor? No @#$%&#$ way.

This is going waaaaaaay too far..and I fear more bigots will jump onto the race-card bandwagon.

Thank God, Obama is smarter then that. He has made up for his pathetic choice for Inauguration invocation speaker with this move.

The Central Scrutinizer
2nd January 2009, 09:22 AM
I disagree...

My Prediction:
I think Burris will last in the Senate for about a millisecond before he's booted.

So you agree with me. He will be seated. I said nothing about what might happen after that.

The Central Scrutinizer
2nd January 2009, 09:24 AM
The only way he has a chance in hell is if he promises..and keeps the promise..to only serve as a caretaker until 2006 or a special election is held.

In that case, he would make history as the only senator to serve his term in reverse! Senator Benjamin Button?

Thunder
2nd January 2009, 10:13 AM
lol.....laughing...coughing.....stop being funny!!

..meow.

MattusMaximus
2nd January 2009, 05:39 PM
So you agree with me. He will be seated. I said nothing about what might happen after that.

Damn you and your attention to detail, Scrut! ;)

UserGoogol
2nd January 2009, 06:23 PM
I think Burris will last in the Senate for about a millisecond before he's booted. The seat will then remain empty until after Blago is impeached. Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn will then appoint another black person to the open Senate seat. Problem solved.

I'm inclined to agree with you that they are sincere in trying to get him not seated, but booting a person after they get a seat (although it comes with less constitutional red tape than contesting his qualifications) requires a 2/3 majority. I really don't know how that would go down. Would Republicans purposefully vote for keeping him just to spite Democrats? Would enough a minority Democrats split over it's better to kick him out on principle or keep him in because he's a decently qualified Democrat aside from the particulars of his appointment? The dynamics might be weird if it got to that.

MattusMaximus
2nd January 2009, 07:38 PM
Here's the latest...

Democrats plan cool reception for Senate appointee (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/senate_burris)

Senate Democratic leaders plan to grant few if any privileges next week to Roland Burris, the man picked by Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich to represent the state in the Senate, even if Burris arrives on Capitol Hill with the proper credentials.

Senate officials involved in the tangle of legal and logistical planning said Friday that a Democrat will object to Burris being duly sworn with the rest of his class and will propose that his credentials be reviewed for a period of time by the Rules Committee.

That would give Burris the status of a senator-elect to the seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama in the juiciest of several dramas swirling around open Senate seats days before the 111th Congress convenes.

Senate Democrats are slow-walking Burris' appointment because they hope Blagojevich will be removed from office before the Rules Committee completes its investigation. ...

Hmm, I didn't see this particular angle playing out. I still think this thing will end up in court.

MattusMaximus
5th January 2009, 01:14 PM
Interesting new wrinkle...

Secretary of Senate rejects Burris, aide says (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/05/burris/index.html?eref=onion)

Secretary of the Senate Nancy Erickson has rejected Roland Burris' appointment to the Senate, an aide to the secretary told CNN.

Erickson rejected Burris' appointment because his certificate of appointment was missing the signature of Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White, the aide said Monday.

Rule 2 of the Standing Rules of the Senate states that the secretary of state must sign the certificate of election along with the governor.

White has declined to sign the certificate, siding with some Senate Democrats who say Burris should not be seated because of the cloud over Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who is accused of trying to sell President-elect Barack Obama's Senate seat. ...

Whoops. That's not something I anticipated. I wonder what this means for future litigation? Would this put it at the state level or federal level in the judiciary?

dudalb
5th January 2009, 01:37 PM
And Illinois between Obama's election and the Bicenentenial of Abraham Lincoln's birth (and yes, I know Abe was born in Kentucky but he will be forever identified with Illinois and the state is holding a lot of high profile celebrations) was hoping for a nice image change.......

Land of Lincoln, baby, Land of Lincoln.:covereyes

The Central Scrutinizer
5th January 2009, 03:49 PM
Interesting new wrinkle...

Secretary of Senate rejects Burris, aide says (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/05/burris/index.html?eref=onion)



Whoops. That's not something I anticipated. I wonder what this means for future litigation? Would this put it at the state level or federal level in the judiciary?

I believe Burris has already filed a suit in Illinois to compell the Sec of State to sign.

WildCat
7th January 2009, 09:12 AM
No link yet, but the local news here is reporting that according to the AP the Dems will seat Burris.

WildCat
7th January 2009, 09:19 AM
Maybe, maybe not (http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/Burris-Reid-Play-Deal-or-No-Deal.html):

After senate appointee Roland Burris met with Senate Democratic leaders, and aide to the former Illinois Attorney General says "nothing has happened."

The information comes after the Associated Press reported that a deal for President-elect Barack Obama's seat had been struck.

It goes on to say that a press conference is scheduled for 10 AM CST, but that was 18 minutes ago. :confused:

boloboffin
7th January 2009, 09:44 AM
I caught the tail end of Reid's press conference just now, and it was my impression that after Burris testifies under oath about how he obtained the appointment, Reid would then seat him. I might be wrong, but that's what I think I heard.

Tsukasa Buddha
7th January 2009, 04:06 PM
I heard on NPR the deal was that he had to 1) get the signature on his certificate and 2) had to prove that he wasn't involved in any illegal dealings with Blagojevich.

kallsop
7th January 2009, 04:45 PM
The fat lady is warming up, getting ready for showtime:

Senate Dems May Seat Burris, But No Final Deal (http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/burris.senate.democrats.2.901914.html)

"no final deal" - who do they think they are kidding. Clueless Reid just got pwned.

dudalb
7th January 2009, 04:50 PM
Yeah, the Dems in the Senate are caving to the race card being played.
First good news for the GOP in quite a while.

I Ratant
8th January 2009, 01:11 PM
Burris has a few problems:
Any person with the normal amount of integrity would have refused the appointment, based on the potential for taint.
Burris is a politician, so he lacks any integrity.
And, he's a nutcase, claiming Blago was just god's instrument in his appointment.