Stupid A$$hole. That is the only thing that can be used to describe this piece of garbage. The Democratic Governor from the state of Illinois basically tried to sell Obama's senate seat to the highest bidder. Mmm Hmm...went to his house today and arrested his dumb behind. I see Valerie Jarret has taken her name out of consideration for being given that Senate Seat, and everything produced so far has shown Obama had no knowledge or participation in this whole shady mess. As a matter of fact, the thug gov was being wiretapped and heard saying "F*ck them" because all Obama was prepared to offer was appreciation.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28139155/

Typical Illinois Governor....
Otto Kerner, Dan Walker, George Ryan, and now this douchbag....
What is it with this state????

They still have not revealed who the people were who he was getting these "offers" from to buy the senate seat.

But watching Larry King tonight there were two notable exceptions to the guest list of people being seriously talked about to get the appointment.

One was Illinois US House Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. and the other was Illinois Senate president Emil Jones.

Perhaps they were too occupied with doing their jobs to appear on a political talk show, or perhaps not.

Fitzgerald may be revealing a lot more in a formal indictment.

We posted a little about this on the Chicago thread, but anyone who spends even half a minute in Illinois knows that Blago, like most of the top players in the state, is corrupt or tied to corrupt people. (And then there's DALEY!) The brazenness of his greed and arrogance does surprise me, however; he even told one of the people affiliated with Candidate 5 (which is who?) to be careful because people were listening. DUH! But then he goes on to try and sell this seat AND to pressure the Chicago Tribune to fire people who've been criticizing him.

And Sam Zell, who has rendered the Tribune Company's employees' benefits and stock option plan totally WORTHLESS, allegedly took Blago and John Harris's rants into consideration!

What an entire pack of thuggish scumbags!

It also says quite a bit that the GOP could not field a viable candidate to defeat this man--Blago--in the last election, even though scandal was swirling around him then. Illinois has over 12.8 million people. There are better Democrats AND Republicans than these folks. We just sent one to the White House. He's not the only one!

I do have to say, though, that Patricia Mell Blago gets a wink from me for her comments about the Cubbies!

Amazing. I thought nothing in politics could shock me anymore, but this certainly does it for me. The brazenness is stunning - how could he think he could not get caught, having so many blunt conversations with so many different people? And I'd love to know who turned him in to the Feds? Was it Rahm Emmanuel? Whoever it was deserves a public citation for doing so. This is ten times more outrageous than the fix to give Hillary the State job so Obama's "supporter" Caroline Kennedy could get her free pass to Washington.

As for the prosecutor - Fitzgerald, is it? Maybe He should run for public office. I'd vote for him in a minute. He seems above reproach and actually appalled by this - I love his line about "Lincoln turning over in his grave." This is the same guy who got Scooter Libby convicted and came thisclose to being able to get an indictment against Karl Rove.

I just hope there isn't any kind of residual blowback on Obama. I can't imagine hwo there could be but I'll bet some of the uber-conservative, Obama-wasn't-born-in-the-US types will try and make some correlation.

Oooooooooo...candidate 5 has been confirmed to be Jesse Jackson Jr.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200...10/1709126.aspx

Oh Jesse. Please tell me you didn't agree to participate in these shenanigans. While nothing is on tape, the governor's comment about him saying candidate 5 will raise $500,000 looks bad. If I'm Jackson's lawyer I say don't admit to anything unless a tape comes out. Otherwise its your word against the gov's. I would even tell him to withdraw his name from consideration and just continue to deny any wrongdoing. Again, I'm not saying Jackson is guilty but...doesn't look good. I know he wanted that seat bad. Hopefully he didn't succumb to the power and lust of this foolishness

Illinois is giving Louisianna a run for the money in terms of corruption! But this is state politics. No matter what state, there's corruption on all levels. In New Jersey, we had McGreevey who resigned due more to an impending poltical contribution scandal than placing his lover in public office.

Can't help but think of the quote, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Look at Charlie Rangel the representative from NY in the House. In his case, the longer people are in office, the more they begin to think they're above the law.

What hubris!

His wife sounds like a real charmer too, CNN comparing her to Lady MacBeth.

Sorry, but Illinois blows away Louisiana in the political corruption business. Illinois is far and away the single most corrupt state in the country. What's sad is that corruption in this state knows no party, either. Democrats and Republicans are basically cut of the same cloth in this cesspool that is called Illinois.

I found quite interesting what former Governor Jim Edgar said yesterday when he stated that Illinois voters have themselves partially to blame because we just keep electing these pigs. I know this is going to sound terrible, but when groups of people keep voting for someone because that candidate is of the same race, religion, gender, party, etc., regardless of such candidate's bad policies or corrupt past, then we do, indeed, have no one to blame but ourselves.

Add to that the fact that the politicians have rigged the system to favor themselves so that credible opponents can rarely challenge them, and well, it's easy to see the results.

Does anyone else see diabolical (read Manson-esque), when they look at this guy on TV? I see an evil monster, ill with bi-polar tendencies.

What a mess.......

And the wife? An enabler.

T

His hair looks like the hair on those claymation characters from "Davey and Goliath".

To the adage quoted by an earlier poster here "Power corrupts..." I would add "Be careful what you wish for." and apply both to any desire to see Patrick Fitzgerald run for public office.

I respected a lot of public prosecutors as well before they turned politician. US attorney Rudy Giuliani was one of my heroes when he stood up to organized crime and Wall Street (Is that redundant?); but then he became a routine Republican and supported the party line on the war in Iraq, as though Iraq had anything to do with what happened to his fair city.

I admired Manhattan Attorney Eliot Spitzer for the same, then he betrays his wife - open marriages I don't have a problem with, but when you know you're violating your own principles and do it anyhow, it suggests arrogance.Since this investigation has been going on for about five years, from what I've read, in one form or another, and Antoin Rezko was also on the radar screen, I think Obama would have been targeted long ago to prevent him from becoming president. Fitzgerald obviously has a lot of respect for the role of politician, which is why he condemned Blagoyevich. I don't think he would have allowed a currupt Obama as president.

I don't know. Louisiana politicians of late may not be embroiled in scandals, but you don't have to go back to the Long era for elected officials on a par with the Illinois governor. There's former Governor Edwin Edwards, now serving a ten year sentence on racketeering and corruption charges. In his 1983 election bid, he famously said, "The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy."

A lot of the states have corrupt goings-on. In Mississippi and Alabama, it appears GOP officials connived with Rove to put one Democratic governor (Don Siegelman) in jail and destroy the lives of other Democratic officials. Missouri's extreme right-wing governor decided not to run again because of several different scandals. New York's love-gov Eliot Spitzer didn't even last a full term, though I don't think his crime was or should be a crime. His predecessor, George Pataki, somehow or another never got busted but did have all kinds of scumbags around him. Connecticut's previous gov, Republican John Rowland, also had to step down because of criminal activity. And don't forget Ohio and Florida, where electoral trickery isn't unknown.

Nevertheless, I do think Illinois, New Jersey, Louisiana, and Rhode Island are in a category all their own.

I hope one of two things happens soon. Either Blago steps down and Quinn takes over OR Lisa Madigan can figure a way to get Blago out. Jan Schakowsky has said she'll run, and she's pretty liberal, so Illinois would get another liberal Democrat, and its second (right?) female US Senator, making it a pretty even exchange. I shudder to think of some of the other Democrats or Republicans who want that seat. Anyone want to be that Jim Oberweis will throw his hat in the ring?

I knew there was a reason I never buy his milk.

I actually grew up on Oberweis Dairy milk DELIVERED to the house twice a week....
The guy sounds like a real dick, tho...

There was an editorial in the NYTimes recently charting the number of elected officials who had been involved in corruption and/or had gone to jail ,but I couldn't find it.

I do remember that Illinois was not the most corrupt in any of the three charts. Not that that should be reassuring to anyone, especially Illinoisans. Widespread corruption makes it more difficult for any state to weed it out: each state likes its own crooks more than someone elses, as long as they bring home the bacon pork.

To listen to the pundits Blagojevich has a logical legal arguement that he did not actually commit a crime. Much depends on the wording of the statute and the gullibility of the jury, but I would put my money on Patrick Fitzgerald for now. What seems certain is that Blagojevich has the money, if not the political capital, to possibly drag this out long enough to deny the state a senator, and an effective governor, for a long time. That could hurt everyone in the state were it not for the fact that the president happens to be from there.

It is not that I expect any largesse from Obama for Illinois, though there do seem to be a few high-level people in his cabinet and on his staff from the state. This is to be expected since they serve at the president's pleasure, and he would know where the good bodies lie there better than anywhere else. Still I would expect a president Obama to be more vocal than a president-elect Obama about his senate seat.

I know USA Today had a story with corruption stats based on the state's population. The most corrupt state in that poll was North Dakota. Illinois was "only" #18.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-1...uptstates_N.htm

Basing it on one's population isn't the best way to award the prize for the most corrupt state. Sadly, Illinois wins this title hands down. No state has had more of its elected officials nailed than has Illinois. Illinois itself is the most political of all 50 states. Hell, of the 50 members of the Chicago City Council--the single largest city council in the entire U.S., by the way--exactly half have gone to jail. Nice track record, huh? 50% of an entity's elected officials have been convicted of corruption.

I remember when I was in college and for a political science course on state governments, I had to do a research paper comparing the political composition of two states. Stupidly, I chose Illinois vs. California. Our nation's largest state in terms of population, California didn't even come close to Illinois. California was in second place with some 6000 seats/positions of government, whereas Illinois had over 12,000! Wow!

We may be talking only about the ones who get caught, or are not smart enough to make their corrupt behavior legal within the letter of federal law; though certainly not within the spirit.

There is also the possibility that political corruption is pursued - or not pursued - differently in different states and under different federal administrations.

Don't senators, at least, have some influence over who is appointed as a federal attorney with jurisdiction in their state? A lot or prosecution might then depend on the bravery or ambition (whether positive of negative) of the individual federal attorney.

And, as we saw with the Bush administration, it may depend on the party of the various parties. I doubt the Bush administration invented selective prosecution, as self-righteous as the Democrats may have been when the Bushites were dumb enough to get caught.

Don't you love it? All this talk about which state is the most corrupt?

What a bunch of size queens.

I love Jack Higgins! He doesn't hesitate to nail anybody.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/higgins/62347,Higgins.cartoon

http://www.suntimes.com/news/higgins/-1,Hi...gallery?index=1

Governor Blagojevich to name former Attorney General Roland Burris as Obama's replacement!

Brilliant move, Governor! Seriously, this is a political stroke of genius. It makes impeaching him more difficult; African Americans will get ticked if Burris is not seated (because they believe this seat should somehow "remain black," whatever the hell that means, and because Burris is "untainted" and "perfect" for the seat); U.S. Senate leaders will be in a pickle if they stand by their word to refuse to seat "any Blagojevich appointee; and more.

Blago is a piece of work, that's for sure.

"As Governor, I am required (emphasis original) to make an appointment to fill a vacant Senate seat...".

--Governor Blagojevich filling the seat vacated by Obama

No, Governor, you forfeited your "right" to make such an appointment when you attempted to sell the seat. I never thought I'd see a governor who would make George Ryan look halfway decent.

Jim Warren of the Chicago Tribune says he's "dumbfounded." He describes Burris as "a political machine hack, with no great achievements beyond being the first African-American elected to statewide office in Illinois . . . a very, very uninspired selection." He later adds that he thinks that Harry Reid is going to have a very tough time with his pledge to not seat anyone Blagojevich named.

And isn't this interesting? Burris is a Blagojevich donor who has worked as a lobbyist in Springfield for Blagojevich allies. When asked about the $14,000 his law firm gave Blago, Burris responds, "Is it that much? Wow. That's a lot of money for us...I didn't think we had that much money to give to the governor."

Citizens of the United States, I wish to apologize for the State of Illinois. We are truly a national embarrassment.

Crew Chief, can you muster any praise for Obama who panned Blago for making his appointment?

Talk about ballsy and shameless! Who can hang with Blago at this point? I also love how he and Burris trotted out Bobby Rush (who is obviously quite ill) and got him to invoke not only lynching but to racialize the pick! Talk about a character.

Speaking of black Senators, Illinois does deserve props for electing both Moseley-Braun (in the 1990s, no less), and then, after Fitzgerald's term ended, Obama. Illinois neither has the most black people of any state in the US, either by percentage or total numbers, nor is it the most liberal or progressive, so all Illinoisans get a high-five and some credit despite the Blago debacle. A hack like Burris is a credit to no one, but I get the notion that the Senate should be more diverse. I've seen commentators and posters online stating that New York's junior seat should be filled by a woman since Hillary Clinton will very likely be confirmed as Secretary of State. Now, will Colorado governor Bill Ritter appoint a Latino (or at least a progressive Democrat) to replace Ken Salazar?

If it makes you feel any better, HornFan, sure. I commend Obama for blasting Blago, and I admire Obama for agreeing that Burris should never have been named.

Good luck to the Senate Democrats in trying to not seat him. I do not believe they have the constitutional authority to deny a seat to someone lawfully appointed pursuant to the 17th Amendment and Illinois law. We are certainly in unprecedented territory here, as the U.S. Senate has never in its history refused to seat someone who was appointed, and their power to deny seating someone is not absolute, as the Powell decision would seem to indicate.




I actually admired Burris when he was an officeholder, fantomas, but I kind of grew tired of him running over and over--and losing each time--for governor. Sort of reminds me of Oberweis, our perennial candidate for Governor/U.S. Senator/Congressman/Insert-your-office-here.

When I first heard this news today, fantomas, I thought, "Hmm. A good man, I guess," but when I learned that Burris was secretly campaigning for this appointment and began doing so after Blago got arrested, I figured, "What an opportunistic hack! Just like the rest of them."

And Congressman Rush today--I lost ANY respect I had for the man. Here he is, a very sick man trying to recover from cancer (his speaking was noticeably weak), and he gets up out of the audience and walks to the podium to essentially threaten the U.S. Senate if they go ahead and refuse to seat Burris. Worse, he makes this whole thing a racial issue.

I don't care if my senator's a female, male, black, white, or pink, I vote for him/her solely based on his/her policies and beliefs. Period. This "black" seat or "female" seat in New York or "Latino" seat in Colorado is divisive. We're coming full circle here, folks, as this kind of talk is nothing more than segregation.

I remember the shame Carol brought to this state, like so many before her, and sadly, so many after her. Roland Burris was dumb for accepting this nomination. He would have probably gotten the nod after all the dust settled, now he is no better than Blago. He has crawled right up in bed with the man. As for Rush, what would you expect from a racist clown. I don't care if he is sick or not, he is still a racist idiot. This whole thing is taking the tone of a cheap soap opera.

Calling it a cheap soap opera is an insult to cheap soap operas everywhere.

I agree with you in principle, but I also think that our Congress should reflect the country. As it is, the Democratic Party's Senators include people of all faiths (a Mormon leads the caucus, there are Catholics, Protestants of all types, Jewish members), all races and ethnicities, and a sizable number of women. I think this is a good thing, rather than having a mostly all-white, all-Protestant group of middle-aged white men (with a few women thrown in), which is what the GOP in the Senate consists of. How does that far narrower group of people at all reflect either their states or the country as a whole? The Democratic House caucus is even more diverse, but look at the GOP. Again, they hardly reflect the real diversity in this country.

Thinking about Burris, I guess he said to himself, what do I have to lose? (Beyond his dignity and the respect of everyone who'd supported him in the past.) He's 70, he's had quite a pathbreaking career, so why not go out with a bang? Make some history--and get a US Senate pension if the Democrats allow him to be seated. Plus if he's seated, he'd be another vote to advance Obama's agenda, sort of like Eugene Sawyer, who was a controversial pick, did after Harold Washington died. It all goes back to Blago, though. Just think, if he were this bold in doing good things for Illinois, the state would be a lot better off.

On that we agree. Truth is indeed stranger than fiction.

However the Executive and Judicial branches at the federal level are meant to be a balance to the Legislative. On that theory, the electoral process is modified by the non-elective aspects that dominate the other two, if people of good will are then chosen by them for the non-elective positions.

Constitutionally the choice is left to the states, and the state of Illinois has to decide for itself who it wants and how he or she is selected.

I think it's unfortunate that Burris has allied himself with an executive whose status is questionable in the minds of a large majority of Illinoisans, if the polls are to be believed. And it is good that the Senate has so far stuck to their stated constitutional prerogative not to seat the disputed governor's selection, assuming that right exists.

Still, a the selection - not election - of a minority candidate to fill the seat of an out-going minority would not be unethical in my view. Just as Obama as the federal executive choses people who serve at his pleasure, a state executive picking whomever he or she wants through a legal process should be respected. That said I personally would rather see someone able to compete more effectively in the next election replacing Obama.

I welcome diversity as much as the other guy, and I like that any body, whether it be an elected group like Congress or the local school board, reflects such diversity, but this should be the result of choice and not law or requirements or anything of the sort, which is why I do not like to hear talk of a "black seat" or "Latino seat," etc.

As far as which party more accurately reflects this diverse nation, the Republicans have failed to recruit and nominate, and consequently elect, as many blacks, Hispanics, etc. Once they begin to do that, they'll find that their stigma of the rich, old, white men party may begin to vanish. Palin, Jindal in Louisiana, Joseph Cao in Louisiana are a small start in some respects (never mind that just about anyone could have beaten the corrupt Jefferson in LA., but at least it wasn't an old white man).

When I vote, if my choice means the difference between someone whose policies I oppose but who will reflect diversity and continue that or someone who is another white dude whose policies I support, the latter will get my vote almost all the time because in the end, that is what's most important.




I cannot see how the U.S. Senate will be legally permitted to block Burris's seating. Their rights under Article I, Section 5 do not appear to be that far reaching. Refusing to seat someone who may not have been properly elected, which has been done before in the nation's history, is one thing, but refusing to seat someone who was lawfully appointed has never been done before, and based on the little case law that exists and what the Constitution says, I can't see how it would be permitted.

Maybe a constitutional lawyer here on the Board can clarify what that law is exactly.

I am merely guessing that in the abscence of a clear constitutional mandate the Senate can make laws governing it's own membership.

That could clearly be challenged by an elected senator, and probably by the usual selected senator. But in the case of one selected by a governor whose status is itself questionable, I doubt any lawyer would successfully challenge the Senate's prerogative.

I would not be surprised if the Supreme Court stays as far away from this one as possible given the disputed Florida vote for Bush's first term.

Actually, no it can't. They're bound by what the Constitution says they can do.



Don't be surprised to see either Blago or Burris challenge it--and win.

There have been reports that Blago has said if the Senate refuses to seat his appointee, he will sue. Numerous law professors and constitutional lawyers were interviewed yesterday by the various news outlets here and the opinion was unanimous: that the Senate's rights under Article I, Section 5 do not extend to their being able to deny a lawfully appointed person.



If SCOTUS has original jurisdiction, it may begin and end with them. If a district or appellate court, however, rules in Burris's favor, don't be surprised if SCOTUS simply refuses to hear the case. Of course, we'll see.

All in all, a master political move by Gov. Blagojevich!

Interesting article on this dilemma.

The constitutional grounds for not seating Burris look thin but the political headwind is strong.

The worst aspects of Illinois' political games are coming back to bite the Democrats for sure. And it appears that Burris has certainly played that game well.

But this one is not quite chiseled in stone yet.

Should be very interesting.

Chicago Sun-Times editorial on the appointment.

An empty suit for an empty seat.

And this from a liberal Democrat.


The more I read these articles, especially the latter two, the more I agree: Roland Burris has a huge ego. It's almost as big as Blagojevich's. While other politicians were saying no to an appt. by the governor, Burris was actually lobbying for it! Incredible. The guy was pretty much a nothing politician who didn't amount to much, and now he's running around literally saying, "I'm the Senator! I'm the junior Senator from Illinois!" (his exact words as spoken in an interview with two Chicago networks yesterday)

One thing I hadn't known was that Burris was openly pro-gay rights (and pro choice) all the way back in the late 1970s and 1980s. Until the Blago pick, he also had never been linked to any kind of scandal, even when he was appointed or worked with some of Illinois' and Chicago's more sleazy pols.

Reading more about Burris, I wish he hadn't allowed his name to go forward, as Danny Davis refused to do, but I really think he's decided to go for broke.

All pols have huge egos, but it would concern me more if that ego lead to a situation like the alleged one concerning Burris. True this may be peanuts compared to the number of people who died when Bush/Cheney lied, but this is only reflective of a small proportion of people around the world who have faced persecution or death because of the lack of a fair judicial system. It is below the standard we should expect for any of our public officials, much less one trained in the law, and who could become a senator.
Regardless of party I think higher standards can certainly be set. Political expediency is never an excuse for poor judicial acumen.

That disturbed me then, it disturbs me now, sport. I find it horrifying that this man pursued the death penalty against someone who was innocent. Hell, even his staff members were resigning because they couldn't fathom Burris's relentless quest to have executed someone who didn't commit the crime for which he was convicted.

On a related note from that link:



If this is even remotely true, wow!

Hey, guys:

Was listening to some commentary on the radio and TV this morning about Burris. They were briefly discussing that one reason they believe Burris took this pick was to boost his pension. If he serves as a Senator for 2 short years he gets a nice pension. In addition, his Illinois one gets boosted. Now, as a public employee myself--school teacher--I don't understand how this would affect his Illinois pension. Had he served in any additional Illinois public office, his pension would, indeed, skyrocket--figures. However, I can't believe his Illinois pension would increase if he served in a federal office.

Then again, the way this state's politicians wrote the pension laws, I wouldn't be surprised if he did, in fact, get a nice bump in his Illinois pension. Either way, he's going to benefit financially from this appointment.

"We are the senator! We are the sitting senator!"

-- Roland Burris on the sidewalks of Chicago when confronted by ABC 7 News this week.

Just who the hell is "we"?

Bobbi Steale did the same thing as the Cook County President..nice work when you can get it!

Yeah, I remember that. Bobbie Steele, "gave up" her seat as "just" a Crook County Commissioner, an $85,000/year job, to become interim president of this board. That salary is $175,000/year. By taking that job for a whopping 4 months, her state pension is based on that latter higher salary amount. This means she'll immediately get $65,000 once her interim term is over. If she lives to be 85, the difference in the pension will be an additional one million dollars!

Her new pension? $136,000 per year. Had she returned to her old seat as Commissioner, something she promised the voters she would do, her pension upon retirement would have been $65,000 per year.

Wow!

See, Crew, you could have been rich had you decided to work for Crook County! Too bad you wanted to better the world by being a teacher. (I say that sarcastically...I am glad someone like you went into teaching)

I left the business world, where I made more money, to get into teaching. It's easy at my age to be cynical about what I do, too, especially since I'm surrounded by a bunch of cynics who just show up to collect their paychecks and count down the days till school's out for the summer. I actually care about my kids, even the ones who don't care themselves. I really do want them to succeed.

Anyway, I digress. It's late. I can't sleep. I've been depressed. Wrong forum for that schit, I guess.

Back to Crook County.

Crew, there may be a lot of pissing and moaning in the teachers lounge, but trust me, the majority of the teachers are there to help the children as well. Don't be depressed...you are affecting HUNDREDS of lives. You may not realize it yet, and neither may your students, but you are performing one of the most noble jobs on the planet. Like the bumper sticker says, "If you can read this, thank a teacher". Plus, you don't go back to work until Monday....party like it's Saturday! WOO-HOO!

Oh, I'm not depressed about my job or the kids. Something totally different. I shouldn't have mentioned it. Just a very depressing time of year, which sucks, because I love Christmastime. Anyway, it's late. I should be trying to get some sleep.