Patterico's Pontifications

12/30/2008

Blagojevich Appoints Roland Burris (Updated)

Filed under: Obama,Politics — DRJ @ 1:50 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

Embattled Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich appointed former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris as Senator to fill the unexpired term of Barack Obama:

“The people of Illinois are entitled to have two United States senators represent them in Washington D.C.,” Blagojevich said. “As governor I am required to make this appointment.”

Burris, standing at the governor’s side, said he’s eager to get to work in Washington. He said he has no connection to the charges against Blagojevich, who was arrested on Dec. 9 and accused of trying to profit from appointing Obama’s replacement.

Burris was the first African-American elected to major statewide office. He’s served as Illinois’ comptroller and ran for governor three times – the last time losing to Blagojevich.”

This appointment appears to be everything Democrats should like in a candidate: A reliable Party man and experienced caretaker who will hold the seat until the next election, but who also has the qualifications to run for the seat himself. Like Obama, he’s black and if he is seated he will be the only black member of the Senate.

The Democrats underestimated Blagojevich and this puts them between a rock and a hard place. Both the national and state Democratic leaders have pitted their power against Blagojevich and he trumped them.

The Illinois leaders disputed Blagojevich’s appointment power and unsuccessfully tried to unseat him under a disability provision. Now their only option is a prolonged impeachment process. Meanwhile, Senate Democrats threatened not to seat anyone he appoints, so they are faced with refusing to seat a Senator appointed in the manner Illinois law provides and who will be the only black member of the Senate.

I expect the Democrats will seat Burris but the next few days should be interesting. I am especially interested in Obama’s response since he promised a post-racial America where circumstances matter more than color. My guess is he may take a pass, saying it’s a political issue that he will leave to the courts and the people of Illinois.

NOTE: Scott Jacobs has more on this at The Jury Talks Back.

UPDATE: I was wrong about Obama’s response. Here’s his statement from ABC’s Jake Tapper:

“Roland Burris is a good man and a fine public servant,” said Obama, “but the Senate Democrats made it clear weeks ago that they cannot accept an appointment made by a governor who is accused of selling this very Senate seat. I agree with their decision, and it is extremely disappointing that Gov. Blagojevich has chosen to ignore it. I believe the best resolution would be for the governor to resign his office and allow a lawful and appropriate process of succession to take place. While Gov. Blagojevich is entitled to his day in court, the people of Illinois are entitled to a functioning government and major decisions free of taint and controversy.”

I think this puts even more pressure on the Democratic leaders in the Senate to refuse to seat Burris. I’m not sure that’s in their best interests but maybe they view this as a matter of principle. If so, I hope they stick with it. I like people who act on principle.

H/T love2008.

– DRJ

56 Responses to “Blagojevich Appoints Roland Burris (Updated)”

  1. This governor made it abundantly clear to anyone paying attention that he was going to go down clinging to his podium, all the while doing a good imitation of Bogart as Captain Queeg. Watch the inanity unfold over the next few weeks.

    Dmac (eb0dd0)

  2. So Blago started a race war in the Democrat party!

    PCD (7fe637)

  3. Good guess, DRJ, Obama will vote “present” on this issue.

    SPQR (72771e)

  4. Of course the Dems will seat him, it avoids a special election and the GOP getting another senate seat. But they have to pretend they are outraged.

    Joe (dcebbd)

  5. If the Illinois candidate meets the age and residency requirements I’m not sure what authority Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats actually have to rely on to avoid seating the nominee. I believe the matter rests more in the hands of Illinois.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  6. BRILLIANT!!!

    Dandapani (7aefb0)

  7. I have a subliminal affection for Roland Burris because, as Comptroller, his signature was on my check in my Appellate Defender days. I don’t know if he is squeaky clean — which Illinois politician is — but his reputation is pretty staid, not to say boring. I won’t insist on this, but there may be a quid pro quo. Burris was always strong downstate and Blagojevich did well there in both his elections. So maybe if Blagojevich can no longer sell the seat, maybe he can use it to pay off old debts.

    nk (2f022a)

  8. Apparently, Burris is insane, as well

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2156384/posts

    jimboster (364ef3)

  9. So what price did they finally settle on for this Senate seat?

    Perfect Sense (9d1b08)

  10. “Obama may take a pass”

    “present”

    J. Raymond Wright (d83ab3)

  11. jimboster says ” Apparently, Burris is insane, as well ”

    Well Jimboster, he’ll have lots of company in the U.S. Senate and a few others who somehow think that Blago is not the Governor of Illinois. He is the Governor whether Harry Reid, the Illinois Secretary of State or the talking heads on TV like it or not and he retains all the powers of that office until he is impeached AND convicted.

    Charles Harkins (971090)

  12. What? Is Harry Reid going to admit that there is method in HotRod’s madness? Honesty in his cupidity? Altruism in his greed?
    This is an atomic football thrown to the Democrat receivers! And the Republicans should be cheering and not trying to stop the play!

    In the end let’s not forget that Blago was ELECTED as Hamas and Mugabe were ELECTED. Are the Dems going to disenfranchise the entire population of Illinois BEFORE Blago has been tried and convicted?

    As for Obama: he will surely contend that there is only one Governor of Illinois at a time….

    elixelx (bfcb6e)

  13. Since Obama apparently doesn’t even know Governor Whatshisname, why would he try to interfere in the process?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  14. Unfortunately Obama has responded to this, DRJ. He condemns it. You might need to update the thread to reflect that.
    My guess is he may take a pass, saying it’s a political issue that he will leave to the courts and the people of Illinois.

    – DRJ
    Wrong guess.

    love2008 (0c8c2c)

  15. Frankly this from Obama is more than I expected,

    “Roland Burris is a good man and a fine public servant, but the Senate Democrats made it clear weeks ago that they cannot accept an appointment made by a governor who is accused of selling this very Senate seat. I agree with their decision, and it is extremely disappointing that Governor Blagojevich has chosen to ignore it. I believe the best resolution would be for the Governor to resign his office and allow a lawful and appropriate process of succession to take place. While Governor Blagojevich is entitled to his day in court, the people of Illinois are entitled to a functioning government and major decisions free of taint and controversy.”

    Dana (79a78b)

  16. I’m sure the right honorable Burris will fit right in with the tres collegial Senate. Mr. Reid is squeaky clean and will keep him in line. Even if the Searchlight beacon of hope may have reelection woes next time.

    All and all the most ethical Congress in history will be well served by Blago’s appointment and it is always good that a proud liberal black man should replace the demigod great black hope Obama.

    And in the other chamber, Nancy Pelosi is another virtuous public servant- no hint of any scandal in her family, eh? And besides what’s the big deal if Mr. Burris were a tad shady. His constituents and the House of Reps. has no problem with former impeached judge Alcee Hastings of Miami sitting as a Congressman. Nancy even wanted him chairing the Intelligence committee. Thank god the dems will straighten out all the ethical messes resulting from GOP malfeasance. Dodd, Lurch, Obama and Franks are all clean even if they took in oodles of cash from freddie and frannie.

    aoibhneas (0c6cfc)

  17. DRJ, apparently not everyone got word that we are now in a post-racial America. It doesn’t get much more inflammatory than this,

    That point was driven home at the news conference by Democratic U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush of Chicago, who said it’s a matter of national importance that an African-American replace Obama in the Senate.

    “Let me just remind you that there presently is no African-American in the Senate…this is just not a state of Illinois matter,” Rush said.

    “I would ask you to not hang or lynch the appointee as you try to castigate the appointer,” Rush also said. “Roland Burris is worthy.”

    Dana (79a78b)

  18. Members of the Democratic Party playing the race card against their own?

    Now THAT is entertainment.

    Icy Texan (b7d162)

  19. Keep talking, Bobby Rush, eventually the word will mean nothing.

    As for Barack, “I like him but I don’t want to seat him” is the equivalent of “present.”

    Patricia (89cb84)

  20. While Governor Blagojevich is entitled to his day in court, the people of Illinois are entitled to a functioning government and major decisions free of taint and controversy.

    Hey, BHO! Why do the people of Illinois deserve this, yet the fair denizens of Connecticut (Dodd), and New York (Rangel), do not?

    This is a most delicious swig of chocolate milk. I am savoring every last drop.

    Burris is as good an appointee as Illinois couild have hoped for under a clean Governor. How does it put fruit on Michelle’s children’s table to not seat him?

    Ed (de2c64)

  21. I believe the best resolution would be for the Governor to resign his office

    Patricia, even this was fuller and more assertive than I expected which really means I’ve obviously set the bar pretty low. But his lack of unwavering commitment in certain matters has been a red flag for a long time.

    Dana (79a78b)

  22. Roland Burris is a good man and a fine public servant, but the Senate Democrats made it clear weeks ago that they cannot accept an appointment made by a governor who is accused of selling this very Senate seat.

    1. The legislature should have implemented a special election.
    2. Because they declined to do so, Blago is doing the proper thing considering that he isn’t stepping down. It is his job to make the appointment.
    3. Senate Democrats may have no choice but to accept the appointment.

    While Governor Blagojevich is entitled to his day in court, the people of Illinois are entitled to a functioning government and major decisions free of taint and controversy.

    Since when?

    Pablo (99243e)

  23. Burris as an affirmative action appointee for the US Senate would be the only black even though blacks represent ~12% of the population. This being the case we might expect 12 black senators. (12 0f 100)
    Jews represent ~2% of the population and there are 13 Jewish senators. This being the case we might expect just 2 Jewish senators. (2 of 100).

    This is a VERY wide divergence of results. Anyone want to postulate a theory. Sorry, slavery not accepted.

    Those in the know…know that the answer can be found in the book “The Bell Curve” by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray.

    rab (7a9e13)

  24. Until the legislature impeaches and removes Governor Blagojevich, he had every legal authority to make this appointment. The legislature even had two weeks to pass a quick bill, changing the selection method to a special election, and did not act.

    Why didn’t they act? Well, a special election would include the unsightly possibility that a Republican could win, while the appointment process insures that the new senator would be a Democrat. The lieutenant governor wanted to keep it an appointment, assuming that he’d be the one making the appointment, but the governor inconsiderately refused to resign.

    The Illinois Democrats did this to themselves. Can you hear me laughing? :)

    The laughing out loud Dana (556f76)

  25. DRJ, apparently not everyone got word that we are now in a post-racial America. It doesn’t get much more inflammatory than this,

    Dana, Rep. Rush is infamous for being the former member and spokesperson for the Chicago Chapter of The Black Panthers – he was a prominent figure during the “Days of Rage” here. So just about everything that’s come out of his mouth since then has been Bad Whitey/Good Blackie crapola.

    Dmac (eb0dd0)

  26. This is nothing compared to Al Franken getting into the Senate. Maybe that Russian Professor who predicted that the U.S. would break up in 2010 was right. This is Caligula sending his horse to the senate (without the benefit of Julius Caesar or Augustus first)–expect the people of Minnesota chose to send a jackass (or made the election close enough that the jackass could sneak in).

    I weep for the future.

    Joe (dcebbd)

  27. Unfortunately Obama has responded to this, DRJ. He condemns it Or so says Love 2008.
    I can’t really say that the Obama qoute in post #14 is a ringing condemnation of Blago and the appointment. But for the Obamatards if the Anointed One condemns something or pardons himself and his team, then it’s all peaches and cream.

    Mike Myers (31af82)

  28. Dmac, Congresswoman Schakowsky made a pitiful attempt to scold Rush for his unfortunate wording…

    Schakowsky, appearing on CNN’s “Situation Room,” said that Rush should not have injected race into the discussion about Burris, who would replace Obama as the Senate’s only black member.

    “I think the use of ‘lynch’ was really unfortunate because certainly it adds an unfortunate, I think, racial tone to this,” Schakowsky said. “It is not about lynching Roland Burris at all. And actually it’s not about race at all.”

    “Bobby Rush makes a point, but let’s remember that the secretary of state now, who says that he will not certify this because of the tainted process, is also an African-American: Jesse White,” she added. “So I think race is, in terms of this process, is really not an issue.”

    Funny, this is the same Schakowsky who called for Trent Lott to step down in 2002 in regard to Strom Thurmond’s bid for president in ’48, declaring,

    “Racism, in any shape or form, has no place in our nation, especially in the United States Senate. We must stand firm against any efforts to turn back the clock on hard fought civil rights victories.”

    Funny how it only works one way….from Lott’s apology,

    “A poor choice of words conveyed to some the impression that I embraced the discarded policies of the past,” Lott said. “Nothing could be further from the truth, and I apologize to anyone who was offended by my statement.”

    Perhaps Bobby Rush’s apology is forthcoming.

    Dana (79a78b)

  29. But Dana, that is different.

    No minority can be racist, remember?

    Of course, you can always ask a Korean about the Japanese.

    But then, I twist things so.

    Eric Blair (3e2520)

  30. love2008,

    I was wrong about Obama’s reaction. He sided with the leaders of his future Senate against Blagojevich, but doesn’t that put even more pressure on the Senate leaders to refuse to seat Burris? If so, that means there might not be a second Senator from Illinois for weeks or months — until/if Blagojevich is impeached or he resigns, which seems unlikely. I don’t see how that helps the Democrats in the new Congress.

    I’ll update the post.

    DRJ (1a6fbf)

  31. You can’t go wrong bashing Blagojevich right now. Does Juggy think further than that?

    nk (2f022a)

  32. I like people who act on principle.

    I do too, but remember that we’re talking about Senators.
    Senators with “-D” after their names.

    Marshall (19f225)

  33. Obama needs to learn to stop trying to be the smartest kid in the class (me, me, me, I know, I know)… great statesmanlike soundbite, but it would have been better to just wait until things sort themselves out a bit before saying anything that shows how little he (Obama) knows about Blago’s rights as sitting Governor who is innocent until proven guilty.

    By the way, was Bobby Rush talking to Obama?
    If not, then why did Obama answer?
    Geez.
    Rookies.

    SteveG (a87dae)

  34. Comment by DRJ — 12/30/2008 @ 6:45 pm
    It was only a guess DRJ. Something you are entitled to. And I think you are right. This is going to create an unpleasant situation for the Dems. With Obama siding with his party leaders, and calling for Blago’s resignation, how do they turn around later to seat this Burris fellow? Obama just complicated matters for them with this recent statement. This is an internal crisis waiting to explode. And I think Blago just played the race card. He is really a sleazy con artist!

    love2008 (1b037c)

  35. They say that Blagojevich was a bookmaker in his younger days. I have represented bookmakers but I have never understood a mentality of going to jail for money.

    nk (2f022a)

  36. What I take out of this is that for the first time in my memory, Democrats are demanding that a Democrat step down before being convicted of anything. Where was the outrage with Cold Cash Jefferson? Dodd? Rangel? Etc.

    This is simply too good for words. Now if they could just learn consistency in this …..

    Jay Curtis (8f6541)

  37. This is simply too good for words. Now if they could just learn consistency in this …..

    You said it, brother. Consistency would be nice.

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_/ai_18540905

    truthnjustice (d99227)

  38. What we need is a RICO prosecution of Nancy, and Harry, as the co-coordinators of a criminal conspiracy.

    Another Drew (wwbkaADitcy) (fa7341)

  39. What we need is a RICO prosecution of Nancy, and Harry, as the co-coordinators of a criminal conspiracy.

    WHAT DID THEY KNOW AND WHEN DID THEY KNOW IT!!!

    NO CASH FOR SENATE SEATS!!!

    Scott Jacobs (90ff96)

  40. Barack’s statement is ABSURD. Blago is merely ACCUSED. Sure, we THINK the evidence is damning, be we don’t KNOW yet. Will Barack resign if he is ever accused of anything?

    Ira (28a423)

  41. Sure, we THINK the evidence is damning, be we don’t KNOW yet.

    Didja stop to think that maybe, despite claims to the contrary, Obama or someone close to him knows a bit more about this mess than they are admitting?

    It certainly would explain his certainty.

    Scott Jacobs (90ff96)

  42. I agree Obama may indeed know way more… he just has to ask Rahm… that aside, it seems that Blago still has the authority to appoint a replacement, and if the replacement meets some minor criteria, he/she should be seated and any challenges should be overturned unless Burris is found to be complicit in the scandal.

    In th end Obama gains some niche along side some outpost out on the moral high ground, but loses even more of the black panther vote.
    This will not sit well with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, but who cares… it isn’t like the black vote is gonna bolt for Romney

    SteveG (a87dae)

  43. I have listened to both the Governor and Burris and am astonished at the audacity. I cannot believe for one that the Governor appointed someone to a seat he is accused of trying to sale in the first place. And i cannot see how Burris does not believes his appointment is not tainted by that fact. The Governors problems are Burris’ problems because he is now the possible highest bidder to the Illinois senate seat. I don’t think he bought the seat, but I do believe that he should not have accepted the appointment from a Governor we are being told is corrupt.

    Myshanda (8c652f)

  44. Recently, governor Rod Blagojevich was accused of selling the seat of Barack Obama to the “highest bidder.” This seat was given to Ronald Burris, who is of course, implicated in the very wrongdoing that the governor has been accused of. This dramatic media hype has been blown completely out of proportion, as the accusations are based only on hearsay and gossip. It is becoming increasingly clearer that this country operates under the assumption that one is always guilty until proven innocent. If the governor is guilty of any nefarious activities such as the one mentioned above, then there would be solid evidence against him. If there is no solid evidence to present in a court of law, then there is no evidence against him, thus reducing the accusations to false accusations.
    Why does our country always operate in this manner? It seems that even the president-elect Barack Obama has fallen into this trap of casting blame on the accused governor, and told him that he should step down from his position of power as governor, based only on gossip or accusations in rumor. This decision was based on little information. This is not how our country should operate, and I refuse it to continue to operate as such. Why is our country so dumb? Aren’t we smarter than this?
    Roland Burris stands defiant, because he does not associate himself with the decisions of the governor. As long as the governor is still in power, Roland Burris has every right to be the appointee, until the governor has been found guilty of any wrongdoing. Basically, until that day comes, the appointment of Roland Burris should not be “tainted,” rather, it should be allowed. It may not pass the Senates approval, because the Senate operates under the assumption of the issue stated above… they base all of their opinions on very little evidence. They see these things as an accusation equaling guilt. This is the same thing as guilty until proven innocent. This is the same thing as innocent until indicted, which is anything other than innocent until proven guilty. This is not how our country should continue to operate. The Senate is defiant in stating that “it will block” any appointments made by the accused governor. This is not right. He has been accused, with no evidence. This is guilt before evidence. I do not get it.

    Daniel (a6f878)

  45. Recently, governor Rod Blagojevich was accused of selling the seat of Barack Obama to the “highest bidder.” This seat was given to Ronald Burris, who is of course, implicated in the very wrongdoing that the governor has been accused of. This dramatic media hype has been blown completely out of proportion, as the accusations are based only on hearsay and gossip. It is becoming increasingly clearer that this country operates under the assumption that one is always guilty until proven innocent. If the governor is guilty of any nefarious activities such as the one mentioned above, then there would be solid evidence against him. If there is no solid evidence to present in a court of law, then there is no evidence against him, thus reducing the accusations to false accusations.
    Why does our country always operate in this manner? It seems that even the president-elect Barack Obama has fallen into this trap of casting blame on the accused governor, and told him that he should step down from his position of power as governor, based only on gossip or accusations in rumor. This decision was based on little information. This is not how our country should operate, and I refuse it to continue to operate as such. Why is our country so dumb? Aren’t we smarter than this?
    Roland Burris stands defiant, because he does not associate himself with the decisions of the governor. As long as the governor is still in power, Roland Burris has every right to be the appointee, until the governor has been found guilty of any wrongdoing. Basically, until that day comes, the appointment of Roland Burris should not be “tainted,” rather, it should be allowed. It may not pass the Senates approval, because the Senate operates under the assumption of the issue stated above… they base all of their opinions on very little evidence. They see these things as an accusation equaling guilt. This is the same thing as guilty until proven innocent. This is the same thing as innocent until indicted, which is anything other than innocent until proven guilty. This is not how our country should continue to operate. The Senate is defiant in stating that “it will block” any appointments made by the accused governor. This is not right. He has been accused, with no evidence. This is guilt before evidence. I do not get it. Why do you simpletons buy into the politics so easily? This is why “politics” is “politics,” because politicians know that the majority of American citizens are stupid.

    Daniel (a6f878)

  46. #37 Comment by truthnjustice — 12/30/2008 @ 9:49 pm
    You had to go back 12 years to find this inconsistency from a Republican, yet we have several criminal acts within the past year amongst senior Democrats. Since the article you pointed out is discussing inconsistencies in a presidential candidate’s stand on issues, do you really want to go down this road? With all the contradictions from The One over the past two years, it is an argument that you cannot win.

    Jay Curtis (8f6541)

  47. this was fuller and more assertive than I expected

    True, for Barack this was explosive.

    Patricia (89cb84)

  48. There is no such thing as a BLACK SEAT in the US Senate. It is just a seat formerly occupied by a 1/2 black and 1/2 white man. This guy doing the appointing needs to see some jail time. What a disgrace. He only did it to extract a price by rejecting a black man. What a disgrace!

    Blue Proctor (60ddc2)

  49. If there is a “Black Seat” in the U.S.Senate, why is John Kerry sitting in it?

    Another Drew (wwbkaADitcy) (1b7d77)

  50. Mr. Burris is not ignorant nor unaware of the circumstances and controversy surrounding his proposed Senate appointment. “Legal” or not…by accepting this nomination it appears as though he at the very least is opportunistic, desperate and possibly naive if he honestly believes that that the controversy surrounding Blagojevich would not or should not effect his nomination. It diminishes his reputation and good name through association by accepting this nomination.

    Michael Holford, Yakima WA (8115bb)

  51. So what then happens when someone white defeats a seat reserved for a black? Peter Fitzgerald defeated Carol Mosely-Braun in 1999. And Obama took over the next election. So if the first black woman senator was from Illinois, should not that seat be reserved for a BLACK WOMAN? And what about sexual orientation? Should not homosexuals be proportionately represented in Congress? Back to blacks- it is an outrage that their are not at least ten black senators and 44 black congressmen in house of rep.?
    Is Barney Franks seat to reserved for a gay? What about the rights of transsexuals? Murderers? Ooops… Fatboy Teddy has that one accounted for, eh? Is Lurch’s seat reserved for clueless, married-serially- to heiresses/traitorous assclowns?
    And WHAT does it say about Ill. crooks of both parties that a man of conscience who would not play the effing game like his party wanted and voted against pork for his own state, was threatened by a primary challenge and thus retired after one term? The ONLY senator to vote against the 15 bil airline bailout. And against the 13 billion Ohare airport expansion? Why wasn’t this man of principle supported??? Rhetorical question- perhaps the GOP would have done better if they were not part and parcel of the endemic Washington corruption? But instead an inexperienced lackey of soros and daley and the chicago machine gets to be potus? What a friggin’ load of camel dung!

    aoibhneas (0c6cfc)

  52. Some bloggers are acting as if they are expert analysts of political discourse. They are reading into it way too deeply. Burris said that Blago’s actions are reprehensible (in the sense of ‘if found guilty’). He didn’t mean that he “did” anything wrong. It was uttered in the context of whether or not he is actually convicted of any nefarious activities, in a COURT OF LAW. This was not an implication on his part to any wrongdoing, as if he were thumbing his nose at everyone to suggest nana nana boe-boe, you can’t do anything to me, ha ha, nana nana boe-boe. Beware of simpleton analysts who would like nothing more than to perpetuate media hype. They are actively seeking the stupid to follow them.
    As far as any associations of racism is concerned with this case… aren’t we beyond this yet? C’mon… it’s rediculous to bring it up anymore.. isn’t it? People are still acting as if black people do not have a chance at politics… simpletons, I tell ya.

    Daniel (a6f878)

  53. DRJ, I don’t think there is anything “principled” about Democrats feigning outrage over the result they want, but can’t admit out loud to wanting. Threating not to seat Burris, while knowing all along that they’ll “lose” on that issue and be conveniently forced to seat him, anyway, costs nothing. The only thing the Democrats truly opposed was a special election, as that could have resulted in a Republican winning. Everything else is pure theater.

    Xrlq (e0ec4f)

  54. You have to ask: would it not have been irresponsible for Governor Blagojevich not to have made an appointment to the Senate seat?

    The incoming Senate takes office next Monday, and Barack Hussein Obama has already resigned from the Senate. Since the governor is the only person with the legal authority to fill that seat, had he not made such an appointment, Illinois would have only one senator.

    The state legislature could have dealt with this in the time they have had since the scandal broke, and passed a special election law, but they didn’t; that left only the governor’s appointment power to fill the seat. Like it or not, Rod Blagojevich was doing his duty in making the appointment.

    The realistic Dana (556f76)

  55. Like it or not, Rod Blagojevich was doing his duty in making the appointment.

    Yup. And given that he supported legislation to hold a special election, he’s got a great argument that he’s taking the moral (*snicker*) high ground. The Dems really tied themselves in knots on this one.

    Pablo (99243e)

  56. [...] long argued that Reid and Co. don’t really want to “win” the fight against Roland [...]

    damnum absque injuria » Reid’s Kabuki Dance (490ac4)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5108 secs.