Comments on: Blagojevich makes audacious move

By: Xion

Xion — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 00:05:00 +0000

OK, one thing has really been bugging me…

Why are the Democrats acting so ethical all of a sudden about one of their own? Everyone knows that Democrats never apply ethics to themselves. The less ethical a Democrat is, the more he is praised and reelected by Democrats. A lengthy list of examples: Bill Clinton (an American hero), Barney Frank (savior of banking), Ted Kennedy (a friend of rogue nations) and Sandy Berger (caught with his pants down) more than illustrate the point.

The double standard is legion! Another example: Harry Reid called Blagojevich to tell him not to appoint any blacks to the seat and no one, not even the press even blinks. Who cares?

Finally … finally … tonight I heard a plausible explanation that starts to make sense:

The only ethical thing to do in Illinois was to call for a special election to fill the Senate seat. However, there was a chance that a Republican might win the seat.

Ahhhhaaaaaa! Nowwwwwww, it all starts to make sense! Machiavellian logic says it is better to cannibalize one of your own than to concede even a single inch to the Republicans. Here we see the dark ethics at play beautifully and all is right with the world once again in the underbelly of leftwing politics.

Report comment to moderator

By: Scroop Moth

Scroop Moth — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 21:21:47 +0000

Despite coming from downstate Illinois, Burris seems like he belongs to the generation of grandiloquent Negroes like Adam Clayton Powell. I think he’s silly as he wants to be, accepting Blago’s nomination. He’s got loser all over his face. With his grooming and haberdashery expenses, he’ll be the Black Caucus’ answer to Sarah Palin.

Report comment to moderator

By: Random Name

Random Name — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 05:07:30 +0000

Good enough for government work.

Report comment to moderator

By: krm

krm — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 21:56:19 +0000

NJL – By puting the complaint when he did, Fitz stopped the sale of the seat before it could be closed. Fitz probably also guaranteed that Obama has to keep him as US Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois (politically, the One really can’t can Fitz now, can he?).

The complaint also opened the floodgates of people to his office looking to deal and/or just looking to toss more data/evidence into the mix. Many people are having their interviews delayed due to all the people coming forward, swamping Fitz’ staff.

The curenly pending two counts of the complaint are likely to fail to generate any conviction. The potential several thousand counts in an indictment to come are likley to generate hundreds if not thousands of convictions. The extra time might be needed to process all of the material coming in.

Report comment to moderator

By: krm

krm — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 21:50:27 +0000

Ken – The Constitution does NOT erquire special elections for Senate Seats. One option is a special election, the other is a Governor’s appointment. Illinois law provides for the Governor to appoint until the next regular election (which would be 2010, when the term expires anyway) with no special election being held.

Peter L – Burris ran in the 2002 Democratic Primary against Blago, not the 2006.

Burris is actually a good choice for the seat – a long time statewide official of (relatively) good reputation (by illinois standards, he is sterling), and comes from downstate Illinois rather than Chicago. He is also old enough (and has done sufficiaently poorly in Democratic primary elections) that he isn’t likely to plan on sticking around past 2010. The race factor also works in his favor.

The Secretary of State doesn’t have the power to refuse certification, and the Senate doesn’t appear to have any legal justification to refuse to seat him.

All in all, this was one of the better moves in Balgo’s whole 6 years as Governor.

Report comment to moderator

By: Scroop Moth

Scroop Moth — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 22:32:52 +0000

Smooth move. Those corrupt Chicago politicians know how to work it.

Stop gloating, XION.

. . . he couldn’t produce an indictment on time.

Hi, NJLAWYER! Do you think Fitz is dealing with some reluctant witnesses? Any politician who talked to Blago must be worried about being criticized for failure to report a suspected attempt at bribery. Even if a politician is innocent of criminal conversation, that politician may want to minimize the scope or import of such conversations. “Hey, I didn’t really know what the guy was talking about!” All the slick politicians apparently were holding Blago at arm’s length, but one wonders if they were too lazy or cowardly to blow the whistle, and are now embarrassed.

Report comment to moderator

By: NJLawyer

NJLawyer — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 18:41:53 +0000

And now, the USAtty Fitzgerald is seeking an extension of time for the indictment to April 7th, to which Blago’s attorney doesn’t seem to object. This makes sense from Fitzgerald’s point of view, but it makes me wonder why he had Blago arrested if he couldn’t produce an indictment on time. What was he trying to stop? If he had allowed the “sale” of the seat to go forward, who knows what would have happened or who would have done it? Ah, the what ifs of history.

Report comment to moderator

By: Peter L

Peter L — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 16:18:57 +0000

Before the US Senate sees any appointee to the Obama’s seat, the Illinois Secretary of State has to certify the choice, and he has been quoted by the Associated Press as saying he will not certify Burris. (IMO, most likely if Burris were appointed by a “clean” governor, his certification would have been immediate.)

Report comment to moderator

By: Ken

Ken — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:35:00 +0000

The Constitution requires special elections to fill vacated Senate seats but calls for appointments to temporarily fill the seat until a special election can be held. Those appointments are to be made by those given the authority by the state. Blago is still that person for Illinois, regardless of indictment or scandal.

The Senate, under Article 1 of the Constitution, is given the privilege of establishing its own rules for seating members. The Powell case is regarded by some legal commentators for that reason as a dubious decidion, but it has been decided nonetheless.

Reid will have no choice when it comes to seating Burris, but as has been pointed out, Burris should not expect much coooperation or committee leadership consideration.

Report comment to moderator

By: paulr

paulr — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 15:05:56 +0000

#14 – It’s a bit more complicated. They voted to exclude him; he won a special election but didn’t take his seat; he sued & won; he returned to the House but without seniority; he was defeated in the next primary by…………..Charlie Rangel, another paragon of virtue.

Report comment to moderator