Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

WASHINGTON – Roland Burris announced Tuesday he was rejected for Barack Obama's Senate seat, in a bizarre rainy-day scene on the Capitol grounds as lawmakers awaited the gaveling of the 111th Congress into session.

Standing amid a huge throng of reporters and television cameras in a cold and steady rain, Burris, 71, declared that he had been informed that "my credentials are not in order and will not be accepted."

The former Illinois attorney general said he was "not seeking to have any type of confrontation" over taking the seat that he was appointed to by embattled Gov. Rod Blagojevich. But Burris also said he was looking at options for taking the seat.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090106/ap_ ... ate_burris

What a fcukin' goatrope. Obama should be proud to be from that great institution known as Illinois politics.

AZGrizFan wrote:What a fcukin' goatrope.

Only a complete idiot would expect to actually get the seat after Blowjobitch nominated him. Any politician with any political sense would have distanced himself from the Gov. right away.

Burris was put in an impossible position, then made it worse by going along with it.

To me, that exposes him as a lousy pick.

First Reid was against Burris.

Next day he wanted to negotiate

Now if Burris credentials are in order, he can play with the big boys.

Burris showed a lack of character by going along with the nomination, probably because he views it as a lifetime appointment (same with Caroline Kennedy). He should have distanced himself, but he didn't. With that, Reid really overplayed his hand (much like Bush in 2005 with his "mandate") and showed he is not nearly as powerful as he thought he was. The Democrats really don't have a leg to stand on. Blago is still legally the governor, the governor alone can appoint a replacement, and Burris is his pick. The Dems have to seat him, and by not doing so, shows a contempt for law.

ASUMountaineer wrote:Burris showed a lack of character by going along with the nomination, probably because he views it as a lifetime appointment (same with Caroline Kennedy). He should have distanced himself, but he didn't. With that, Reid really overplayed his hand (much like Bush in 2005 with his "mandate") and showed he is not nearly as powerful as he thought he was. The Democrats really don't have a leg to stand on. Blago is still legally the governor, the governor alone can appoint a replacement, and Burris is his pick. The Dems have to seat him, and by not doing so, shows a contempt for law.

Accurate

CHICAGO – The Illinois Supreme Court says Secretary of State Jesse White doesn't need to sign Roland Burris' appointment to the U.S. Senate to make it valid.

The ruling says no Illinois official has to do anything further to validate the appointment made by Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

Burris was refused President-elect Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat this week in part because Senate Democratic leaders said his paperwork was incomplete without White's signature.

The state Supreme Court says nothing in state law requires White to sign the appointment.

White has said he wouldn't certify any Blagojevich appointment in the wake of the governor's federal corruption arrest unless the court forced him to.

Blagojevich was impeached Friday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090109/ap_ ... nor_burris

Well, doesn't much matter what the Illinois Supreme Court thinks. Senate rules require the signature.




Majority Whip Dick Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, said that he still thinks White's signature is required on Burris' certificate.

Durbin, the senior senator from Illinois, said he did not see a way around the Senate rule, dating to 1884, that a certificate must bear the secretary of state's signature.

The rule has never been waived to seat a senator, Durbin said.

"The rules of the United States Senate are clear. ... At this point, we've clearly reached an impasse," Durbin said in Chicago, Illinois.

Burris will be seated.

Burris will be seated. The alternative would start a race war in Chicago...Burris is well connected.

Kinda interesting how this played out. With all the "war room" poli strategy (chess) planning by both party, neither calcs in having some loose cannon party member pull some stunt like this...and the net result will be, Burris, if seated, will be man-handled by Reid and the Dems...he'll go back to IL in two years madder than a wet hen, go blitzkrieg negative during the campaign, and very conceivably lose the seat to a Repub. If not seated, it's a race war with the IL blacks screaming discrimination and turning against the Dems to spite them.
(Hint: To IL Republican party...find a young black conservative and begin grooming them for 2010... )

What are the alternatives?

travelinman67 wrote:Burris will be seated. The alternative would start a race war in Chicago...Burris is well connected.

Kinda interesting how this played out. With all the "war room" poli strategy (chess) planning by both party, neither calcs in having some loose cannon party member pull some stunt like this...and the net result will be, Burris, if seated, will be man-handled by Reid and the Dems...he'll go back to IL in two years madder than a wet hen, go blitzkrieg negative during the campaign, and very conceivably lose the seat to a Repub. If not seated, it's a race war with the IL blacks screaming discrimination and turning against the Dems to spite them.
(Hint: To IL Republican party...find a young black conservative and begin grooming them for 2010... )

What are the alternatives?

Theres no guarantee Burris will run in 2010, he is 71 years old and may not have any interest beyond the two year appointment.

If he does run, theres no guarantee he will be the nominee. A majority of Illinois voters (52%) don't think he should be seated, only 32% think he should.

UNHWildCats wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:Burris will be seated. The alternative would start a race war in Chicago...Burris is well connected.

Kinda interesting how this played out. With all the "war room" poli strategy (chess) planning by both party, neither calcs in having some loose cannon party member pull some stunt like this...and the net result will be, Burris, if seated, will be man-handled by Reid and the Dems...he'll go back to IL in two years madder than a wet hen, go blitzkrieg negative during the campaign, and very conceivably lose the seat to a Repub. If not seated, it's a race war with the IL blacks screaming discrimination and turning against the Dems to spite them.
(Hint: To IL Republican party...find a young black conservative and begin grooming them for 2010... )

What are the alternatives?

Theres no guarantee Burris will run in 2010, he is 71 years old and may not have any interest beyond the two year appointment.

If he does run, theres no guarantee he will be the nominee. A majority of Illinois voters (52%) don't think he should be seated, only 32% think he should.

And the remaining 16% of voters?

Are undecided