• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Senate Democrats yield to Obama, retreat on Burris

winnar111

Banned
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...on_go_co/senate_burris



WASHINGTON ? Senate Democrats beat a hasty retreat Wednesday from their rejection of Roland Burris as President-elect Barack Obama's successor, yielding to pressure from Obama himself and from senators irked that the standoff was draining attention and putting them in a bad light. Burris said with a smile he expected to join them "very shortly."

Though there was no agreement yet to swear Burris in, he posed for photos at the Capitol with Senate leaders, then joined them for a 45-minute meeting followed by supportive words that bordered on gushing. The events came one day after Burris had left the Capitol in the pouring rain in a scripted rejection.

Obama had spoken to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Monday on the need to find a quick solution to defuse the dispute, according to Democratic officials. Reid was told by Obama that if Burris had the legal standing to be seated ? despite controversy surrounding his appointment by Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich ? it should be done "sooner rather than later," said an Obama transition aide, speaking on condition of anonymity because the conversation was private.

The dispute had taken on racial overtones after comments by some Burris supporters. The former Illinois attorney general would be the Senate's only black member following Obama's departure.

"My whole interest in this experience is to be prepared" to lead Illinois, Burris, 71, said after meeting with Reid and assistant Democratic leader Dick Durbin, himself an Illinois senator. "Very shortly I will have the opportunity to do that."

Neither Reid nor Durbin disputed that, though they had declared with certainty a week ago that Democrats would not seat a senator appointed by a governor now accused of trying to sell the seat. Obama said then, "I agree with their decision."

On Wednesday, only words of good will, with photos, poured forth.

Obama told reporters that he knew Burris, liked him and would be happy to work with him.

The Democratic leaders brought Burris in from the rain and into Reid's spacious personal office just off the Senate floor for a meeting that had been set up last week. They invited news photographers in to capture the three ? Burris in the middle ? laughing and chatting.

Reid and Durbin then retreated from their won't-be-seated rhetoric and cast the dispute as a procedural delay caused by concerns about why Blagojevich made the appointment.

"First of all, understand we don't have a problem with him as an individual," Reid said of Burris, calling him an "extremely nice" and "forthright" man. "At this stage, the process is working out," he said.

Added Durbin: "I've known him for such a long time. We are friends and on a first-name basis."

The embraces reflected a growing expectation among Senate officials in both parties that the former state attorney general eventually would be seated.

As Reid and Durbin described it, the process depends on two developments: Burris securing the right signoff on his appointment papers, plus a sworn declaration that he didn't offer anything to Blagojevich in exchange for the seat.

"There was certainly no pay-to-play involved, because I don't have no money," Burris told reporters after his Senate meeting, previewing his sworn answer to that question.

It's a key issue in resolving the dispute.

Blagojevich is accused of trying to get something for himself in return for the appointment, an allegation he denies. By appointing Burris, he defied Senate Democrats who warned that a taint of corruption would strip credibility from anyone he named to fill the vacancy.

Secretary of State Jesse White also said he would not certify the appointment with his signature, giving Senate Democrats another point of objection.

The entire Democratic caucus then declared they would not seat Burris or anyone appointed by Blagojevich. They also said they would not seat Burris without White's signature, which Democrats said has been required by the Senate since the 19th century.

The scene Wednesday was a reversal from the day before.

Burris showed up at the Capitol Tuesday to be sworn in with the rest of the 111th Congress but was turned away by Senate officials who said his certification lacked the required signature from White as well as the official seal of the state of Illinois.

Senate Democrats refused to let Burris talk to reporters inside the Capitol but cleared the way for him to hold a news conference just outside. What followed was a bizarre, soggy procession in pouring rain as Burris, his advisers and dozens of news crews crossed Constitution Avenue to the news conference site.

The spectacle, broadcast live and repeated throughout the day, did not sit well with Democrats eager to project unity with Obama and to begin work on an economic rescue package.

Several behind-the-scenes phone calls and public statements later, displeased Democrats had conveyed a clear message to Durbin and Reid: Make this problem go away.

And a public crack appeared in the Democrats' wall of opposition when Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein of California said that Blagojevich, however sullied, had the constitutional authority to make the appointment regardless of any Senate rules.

Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday arguing that blocking Burris was unconstitutional.

Further pressuring Senate Democrats were the 41 members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who voted unanimously Wednesday that Burris should be seated.

"This is a situation where we have a senator who has now missed out on his first day," said Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md. "It's only fair that he be sworn in immediately. This is a no-brainer."

Senate Democrats weren't quite ready to do that. But it appeared that all concerned were anxious to step back from the brink of a political and racial confrontation.

The get-to-know-you meeting with Reid on Wednesday was the first of several steps toward seating Burris, Democrats said. Second, the Illinois Supreme Court would have to force White to sign Burris' certification to comply with Senate rules. Third, Burris would have to give a sworn statement to the state's impeachment inquiry on Wednesday, which he promised Reid and Durbin he would do.

Finally, the Senate would almost certainly vote on whether to seat Burris, Reid said.

The process still could take several weeks, Senate officials predicted.

Not everyone was encouraged by the situation.

White, the Illinois secretary of state, compared Reid's actions to "strapping me in a wheelchair and pushing (me) down four flights of stairs."

"I have skid marks," White told The Chicago Tribune.



We won't seat a Blago appointment.....yeah.....we'll vote on whether to seat Burris.....yeah......we'll work with him........


A week ago:

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," Obama said in a statement.

"I agree with their decision, and it is extremely disappointing that Gov. Blagojevich has chosen to ignore it."



The requirement for posting a thread is a commentary with a point. Make a decent effort to do so and your threads won't be locked like this one.


Hayabusa Rider - AnandTech Senior Moderator

 
After contributing $15K to Blago's campaign, Burris is finally getting paid back! I guess Blago has to settle for the $15K instead of the $1M's because he got caught! Now that Burris has "paid he can play."
 
We do have a Macro that's going to keep links to all the statements by Dem's who said Burris would not be seated, Correct?

I mean, there should be ample links to throw up in this thread alone I'm sure. Macro? Where are you? Come on, I know you're here...or, are you visiting Moonbeam still?

Chuck
 
Yawn. Repubs, entirely accustomed to pitching the rule of law overboard whenever it suited their whim, are now critizing Dems for sticking to it, even though Dems have registered their protests, done their best to get blago's resignation and avoid the whole mess.

Under the Illinois constitution, Blago has the right and the duty to name Obama's replacement. Talk of a special election or impeaching Blago is just blowing smoke. They have to amend the constitution to have that election, which doesn't happen overnight, and they'd need actual evidence to impeach Blago, not just accusations. Hell, the guy isn't even under indictment.

The Illinois SoS feels like he was tied to a wheelchair and pushed down 4 flights of stairs? That's what can happen when you start grandstanding, ignore the rule of law and your duty to the citizenry. You get creamed.

I'm not sure this statement in the linked article is accurate, either-

The entire Democratic caucus then declared they would not seat Burris or anyone appointed by Blagojevich.

That's a reach, I think...

It's all just a diversion from the business at hand, with repubs very much enjoying some embarrassment on the other side of the aisle. They're laughing now- I hope they're enjoying it, because the big laugh will very likely end up being on them this session...

59 Senators, ladies and gentlemen- all it takes to invoke cloture, get past rightwing obstructionism, is for 1 repub Senator to break ranks... Collins, or Snowe, or McCain, or a few others come to mind...

The whining and squealing should be epic...
 
So winnar111 masturbates furiously over some very temporary democratic disunity, missing the fact that democrats, unlike the GOP, will not tolerate political corruption by their own, and thus will not tolerate Blagojevich corruption, and are thus unsure how to proceed on getting an Illinois Senator to replace the seat Obama had to resign as he was promoted to POTUS.

But certain legal and constitutional questions also have to be respected, so its not an easy or sure process.

Once again, its a winnar111 epic fail.

And Jiggz has another epic fail with his assertion of " After contributing $15K to Blago's campaign, Burris is finally getting paid back!" A fact not yet in evidence, a prior political contribution is not a quid pro quo
if it was made long prior, and is thus an implied smear and nothing else. Shall we talk about Jack the Hat or Kenny Boy Lay also if we care to drag in red herrings.

But the real gold in the winnar111 post is the following, " Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday arguing that blocking Burris was unconstitutional. " As the GOP once again weighs in foursquare for political corruption. Anyone care to explain that one?
 
I told you guys the day he was chosen it's a done deal. It's unfortunate racial politics are involved...we are so far from MLK's dream.
 
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Yawn. Repubs, entirely accustomed to pitching the rule of law overboard whenever it suited their whim, are now critizing Dems for sticking to it, even though Dems have registered their protests, done their best to get blago's resignation and avoid the whole mess.

Under the Illinois constitution, Blago has the right and the duty to name Obama's replacement. Talk of a special election or impeaching Blago is just blowing smoke. They have to amend the constitution to have that election, which doesn't happen overnight, and they'd need actual evidence to impeach Blago, not just accusations. Hell, the guy isn't even under indictment.

The Illinois SoS feels like he was tied to a wheelchair and pushed down 4 flights of stairs? That's what can happen when you start grandstanding, ignore the rule of law and your duty to the citizenry. You get creamed.

I'm not sure this statement in the linked article is accurate, either-

The entire Democratic caucus then declared they would not seat Burris or anyone appointed by Blagojevich.

That's a reach, I think...

It's all just a diversion from the business at hand, with repubs very much enjoying some embarrassment on the other side of the aisle. They're laughing now- I hope they're enjoying it, because the big laugh will very likely end up being on them this session...

59 Senators, ladies and gentlemen- all it takes to invoke cloture, get past rightwing obstructionism, is for 1 repub Senator to break ranks... Collins, or Snowe, or McCain, or a few others come to mind...

The whining and squealing should be epic...

Yeah, a quote from barack obama and a letter from 50 senators is a reach!

Guess who was talking special election? Dick Durbin.
 
Originally posted by: Lemon law
So winnar111 masturbates furiously over some very temporary democratic disunity, missing the fact that democrats, unlike the GOP, will not tolerate political corruption by their own, and thus will not tolerate Blagojevich corruption, and are thus unsure how to proceed on getting an Illinois Senator to replace the seat Obama had to resign as he was promoted to POTUS.

But certain legal and constitutional questions also have to be respected, so its not an easy or sure process.

Seems like they were quite sure with 'we will not seat a Blago appointment'. :laugh:

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said lawmakers have the legal authority to block Burris' appointment."

Deflect, diverge, and pretend that a judicial watchdog group of some sort is equal to the word of the incoming Democratic President.
 
The media (backing up there chosen one) did a good job of pointing out that "this is an issue of race" bullshit. If they would have worked this hard for Bush, he might be the King now.
 
Why is it that liberals can use the courts to tie up oil leases or obstruct inquiries into President Clinton's affairs for years, but they can't obstruct a senate appointment for 18 months?
 
Yep, it's a flip-flop, and a smart one, too. Whatcha gonna do about it, Righties? Snivel?

Looks like Reid is gonna put your heroes' feet to the fire- he's having it resolved by a vote of the full Senate...

Heh.
 
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Yep, it's a flip-flop, and a smart one, too. Whatcha gonna do about it, Righties? Snivel?

Looks like Reid is gonna put your heroes' feet to the fire- he's having it resolved by a vote of the full Senate...

Heh.

Probably. No different than the losercrats in 2002 and 2004.
 
Winnar111, if you think you are going to deflect or diverge your way into getting a special election with a republican able to run, you are likely to be a very disappointed fellow.

The constitutional process is going to be respected, and sorry Charlie, the GOP forgot to win the Illinois Governor position, and when they did, last time, their guy has already wound up in jail for political corruption.

As Jhhnn has already pointed out, Blago is not even indicted yet, but the democrats are taking that charge of corruption very seriously.

Individuals in any political party can be corrupt, only fools assume its a collective guilt borne by the entire party, especially since the dems have the better record now in terms of tossing the corrupt out.

As for judicial watch, my point stands, they are siding with corruption and nothing else.
 
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Winnar111, if you think you are going to deflect or diverge your way into getting a special election with a republican able to run, you are likely to be a very disappointed fellow.

The constitutional process is going to be respected, and sorry Charlie, the GOP forgot to win the Illinois Governor position, and when they did, last time, their guy has already wound up in jail for political corruption.

Then why did Dick Durbin talk about a special election?

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...ecide-obama-successor/

"No appointment by this governor, under these circumstances, could produce a credible replacement," Durbin, told reporters in Washington.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., made similar remarks, and called for a process to fill the vacancy that does not involve Blagojevich. The charges against the governor, Reid said, "are appalling and represent as serious a breach of the public trust as I have ever heard."

Durbin, the Senate's second-ranking Democratic leader, said his state faces a messy and uncertain future with Blagojevich holding the power to name someone to finish the last two years of Obama's term.

Special elections are costly, Durbin acknowledged, but it might be coupled with a special election that will be needed to replace Rep. Rahm Emanuel. The Chicago Democrat will resign his seat soon to become Obama's White House chief of staff.
 
I honestly doubt once he is certified by his secretary of state the democrats have any legal grounding for barring him from taking his seat. This is about the only honorable recourse they have without making complete dumbasses of themselves.

But what is with Reid? Played toughguy with this guy and said there is no way Norm Coleman will ever be seated even if he manages to win his litigation in MN. Wanna be dictator in town?
 
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Winnar111, if you think you are going to deflect or diverge your way into getting a special election with a republican able to run, you are likely to be a very disappointed fellow.

The constitutional process is going to be respected, and sorry Charlie, the GOP forgot to win the Illinois Governor position, and when they did, last time, their guy has already wound up in jail for political corruption.

Then why did Dick Durbin talk about a special election?

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...ecide-obama-successor/

"No appointment by this governor, under these circumstances, could produce a credible replacement," Durbin, told reporters in Washington.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., made similar remarks, and called for a process to fill the vacancy that does not involve Blagojevich. The charges against the governor, Reid said, "are appalling and represent as serious a breach of the public trust as I have ever heard."

Durbin, the Senate's second-ranking Democratic leader, said his state faces a messy and uncertain future with Blagojevich holding the power to name someone to finish the last two years of Obama's term.

Special elections are costly, Durbin acknowledged, but it might be coupled with a special election that will be needed to replace Rep. Rahm Emanuel. The Chicago Democrat will resign his seat soon to become Obama's White House chief of staff.


People talked and called for all sorts of things. Here in Illinois, it became apparent after 1 or 2 days that the time and expense of a special election meant it wasn't going to happen.

If you would look at the date of your link (Dec 9th), and followed the timeline, you would see that a special election was ruled out almost immediately after it was called for.

Originally posted by: winnar111
Why is it that liberals can use the courts to tie up oil leases or obstruct inquiries into President Clinton's affairs for years, but they can't obstruct a senate appointment for 18 months?

You seem to be getting your motivations mixed up with the Democrat's motivations. Unlike you, their goal isn't to destroy their party, fill the headlines with negativity, and make it hard to implement the policies they were elected for.

All the Democrats want is to get someone into the Senate who isn't under a cloud. As many people have pointed out, the fight to not seat Burris would have been messy, and likely ended with Burris being seated anyway. Like it or not, Blagojevich had the law on his side. Seeing as how they've acknowledged all along that there is no specific problem with Burris, they chose the pragmatic path of making nice without a big fight and getting down to the business of running the country.
 
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Winnar111, if you think you are going to deflect or diverge your way into getting a special election with a republican able to run, you are likely to be a very disappointed fellow.

The constitutional process is going to be respected, and sorry Charlie, the GOP forgot to win the Illinois Governor position, and when they did, last time, their guy has already wound up in jail for political corruption.

Then why did Dick Durbin talk about a special election?

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...ecide-obama-successor/

"No appointment by this governor, under these circumstances, could produce a credible replacement," Durbin, told reporters in Washington.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., made similar remarks, and called for a process to fill the vacancy that does not involve Blagojevich. The charges against the governor, Reid said, "are appalling and represent as serious a breach of the public trust as I have ever heard."

Durbin, the Senate's second-ranking Democratic leader, said his state faces a messy and uncertain future with Blagojevich holding the power to name someone to finish the last two years of Obama's term.

Special elections are costly, Durbin acknowledged, but it might be coupled with a special election that will be needed to replace Rep. Rahm Emanuel. The Chicago Democrat will resign his seat soon to become Obama's White House chief of staff.

Because Durbin was just blowing smoke, trying to get Blago to resign.

Illinois state constitution, sections 5 &14-

http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/conmain.htm

And, uhh, Genx87's comments are a distortion of what Reid actually said wrt Coleman-

http://www.politico.com/blogs/..._never_ever_serve.html

Reid predicted that Coleman's lawwsuit won't prevail- very strongly worded but that's all it is...
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
I honestly doubt once he is certified by his secretary of state the democrats have any legal grounding for barring him from taking his seat. This is about the only honorable recourse they have without making complete dumbasses of themselves.

But what is with Reid? Played toughguy with this guy and said there is no way Norm Coleman will ever be seated even if he manages to win his litigation in MN. Wanna be dictator in town?

Pretty much. Talk is cheap, but it doesn't matter much when the media is licking your balls.

Apparently when Democrats lie and change their mind, its blowing smoke, but when Bush does it...:laugh:
 
This issue isnt worth hot air.
He should be seated since the appointer is still a legit gov.
The appointment may smell a little funny, its really a non issue.
No flip flop. No scandal. Just a day in the life of politics.
Just another normal average day.
Seat him and get over it...!
 
I have a feeling that if the Senate Dems (Reid) did not register any sort of opposition we would be hearing a different set of griping coming from the righties...

That the Dems were complicit or "in the pocket" of the corrupt Governor from Ill. Blagovich.

damned if you do...damned if you dont.

 
Interestingly, the Senate GOP didn't bother to vote to kick 7x indicted criminal Ted Stevens from the US Senate. Instead they just waited it out, to see if he'd win or not. Then, when Stevens finally conceded the Alaska election, they gave him a standing ovation on his way out.

Compare/contrast.
 
Get a life Winnar111, Durbin is not the democratic party, and if Durbin made an ill thought out remark he has since retracted that you happen to agree with, it simply means nothing, nothing at all.

The fact is, under the Illinois State constitution, that very State constitution vests the power of appointment for Senate vacancies with the current Illinois Governor. But that same constitution drafted long before any of were born failed to anticipate that the same Governor would be corrupt, so logic dictates any appointment the Governor makes may be tainted, and another vague power was granted to the Illinois Sec of State
as a check against corruption.

Its a thorny and somewhat unique problem, but in no way comparable to the things that GWB has done.

So winnar111, the onus is now on you, other than a special election with Republican eligible, how do you propose the democrats proceed so it is fair.

Granted Burris is not a perfect human being, but neither is any democrat, republican, independent, or any human on the face of the planet.
 
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Interestingly, the Senate GOP didn't bother to vote to kick 7x indicted criminal Ted Stevens from the US Senate. Instead they just waited it out, to see if he'd win or not. Then, when Stevens finally conceded the Alaska election, they gave him a standing ovation on his way out.

Compare/contrast.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Still not quite comparable, Stevens was not just indicted, he was convicted by a jury of his peers. Who knows how the GOP would have proceeded if Stevens had in fact won the election in 08, Stevens did not, so its not comparable.

Its not even quite comparable to the William Jefferson bunch of bribe money in the freezer case either, as Jefferson has yet to see the inside of a court room, and to add insult to injury, he won re-election in 06, and thankfully not in 08. At least the dems stripped Jefferson of all committee assignments while he lasted.

And here Blago is not formally indicted yet, and the dems, and quite properly so, are being very proactive.

Sure beats the hell out of a traitor like Libby getting a Presidential pardon post conviction.
 
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Get a life Winnar111, Durbin is not the democratic party, and if Durbin made an ill thought out remark he has since retracted that you happen to agree with, it simply means nothing, nothing at all.

The fact is, under the Illinois State constitution, that very State constitution vests the power of appointment for Senate vacancies with the current Illinois Governor. But that same constitution drafted long before any of were born failed to anticipate that the same Governor would be corrupt, so logic dictates any appointment the Governor makes may be tainted, and another vague power was granted to the Illinois Sec of State
as a check against corruption.

Its a thorny and somewhat unique problem, but in no way comparable to the things that GWB has done.

So winnar111, the onus is now on you, other than a special election with Republican eligible, how do you propose the democrats proceed so it is fair.

Granted Burris is not a perfect human being, but neither is any democrat, republican, independent, or any human on the face of the planet.

There's the BDS....Bush isn't even mentioned in the story. And many other Dems said the same.

How about they don't seat anyone until Blago resigns?
 
Back
Top