Comments on: The Optics of Roland Burris

By: elrod

elrod — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 04:06:44 +0000

Reid wants to bottle this up in the Rules Committee for 90 days. During that time Blago will be removed and the new Governor, Pat Quinn, can appoint somebody else. Then Reid can accept Quinn's pick as legitimate and have the Rules Committee say that the State of Illinois essentially undid its Burris pick.

At least that's what Reid hopes to do here.

By: JDRhoades

JDRhoades — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:02:27 +0000

Reid knows he doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. Powell v. McCormack is still the law of the land. Reid's waiting for the courts to take him off the hook.

By: Jazz

Jazz — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:56:48 +0000

The point made by GreenDreams also has an additional benefit for all concerned. If seated, Burris can just take the temperature of the polls in Illinois in early 2010 and if it doesn't look like he could carry the state (or even the primaries) he can always “gracefully retire” saying that he's now 73 and needs to get back to his family but was glad to serve by filling in. That way he still gets to put “U.S. Senator” on his tombstone. If his numbers look good, he could also take a shot at a full term if interested.

By: GreenDreams

GreenDreams — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:43:19 +0000

for once I agree with DLS. This is a stupid move on the Dems' part. They should just admit that like it or not, the governor, 'tainted' as he is by *alleged* illegal acts (innocent til proven guilty, right?), he is entitled by law to make the appointment. Then let Burris face the voters in 2 years.

By: Dave_Schuler

Dave_Schuler — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:27:11 +0000

I should have added this to my predictions for 2009: Roland Burris will be seated as temporary Illinois senator. It makes a nice matching set with my other prediction that unless he resigns (which I think is highly unlikely) Rod Blagojevich will serve out his term as governor of Illinois.

By: DLS

DLS — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:00:03 +0000

I believe the Dems are foolish to oppose the seating of Burris, not because of any racial angle, but because they look petty and silly. Was this not the same body that engaged in silly stunts before, such as with the treatment of Packwood? And can't the seat be contested in an election later, anyway? Was this appointment not a legal act by the governor, no matter what people may think of him (and other Dems)?

Is this another Dem “symbolic” ethics-related publicity stunt? (I guess Pelosi and the House Dems need to be matched in the Senate.)