No?

Wow. Nice cheap ad hominem attack. You’re quite the serious individual, aren’t you?

I don’t take homework from you. You’re not in a position of authority over me, in any way, I hate to break it to you.

I was referring to a man, Burris, who was willing to support removing Blago until Blago offered him a gig, even as he was campaigning to get said gig. A lobbyist before the state of Illinois, with direct business ties to Blago’s wife, who as it turns out lied repeatedly to the Illinois people and government in order to shield Blago until he could get into the Senate.

This isn’t about my ‘personal high standards’, this is about venal behavior more worthy of organized crime than our government, where silence and loyalty are valued above all else, and the public trust is thrown right out the window.

For the record, I detest Obama’s flip-flop on the FISA issue, and believe his backtracking on civil liberties issues will forever mar his presidency.

That being said, Obama flip-flopped out in public, and the public had the opportunity to vote on his behavior. He won anyway.

Burris covered up bribery solicitation and hid the truth until he could get himself into office, and is only coming forward now out of fear of FBI wiretaps.

How are those equivalent?

What about Dick Durbin? He has flip flopped and vacillated so broadly over the last few months that his trail resembles the path of a flagellate. I await your argument that he should not have been seated by the current Senate body. When you are done with your arguments on those two, please present on Harry Reid. Please be prompt with your homework.

As I saw it at the time, this silly move is what kept the IL legislature from going ahead with the impeachment bill that they were going to introduce right after the arrest. Presumably, it was a favor to Assembly Speaker Mike Madigan, L. Madigan’s father, meant to give her a boost toward getting the seat either now or in 2010.

Of course, when her request of the court failed and the legislature then dithered, that left the door open for Blago …

Burris was appointed, and he was appointed by a governor who (Bmaz ignores) was removed from office by the Illinois Senate on a 59-0 vote, a few weeks after he was appointed.

What you ignore is that the unanimous vote was AFTER the appointment, and in fact after Burris had been lawfully seated. You now use this after the fact occurrence to justify your disingenuous argument. For one last time and so that no reader is misinformed by this misleading bunk you put forth, the Illinois Supreme Court had the matter squarely before it. The Illinois Supreme Court ruled as a matter of law that Blagojevich was competent to exercise the duties of his office at the time, and he did so. At that point, you now argue that the Senate should just ignore the proper exercise of authority in designating its Senator by the State of Illinois. Furthermore, you argue that they should do so effectively on their whim, not based on any firm established facts or knowledge of a ground for exclusion, but on their whim, because it is the mob mentality of the moment. This is the precedent you then wish to leave for the Senate to use and abuse for time immemorial going forward. This is so short sightedly ridiculous that it is simply stunning.

“I certainly applaud her actions,” Burris said. “Illinois is too important to have a chief executive that is incapacitated and the state will have problems functioning.”

Link

I like the brazen chicanery of this little show he did. He simultaneously campaigned to be named to the Senate seat and publicly supported the removal of the man whose nomination he would later, happily, accept.

Talk about wanting (and getting!) it both ways.

Burris was appointed, and he was appointed by a governor who (Bmaz ignores) was removed from office by the Illinois Senate on a 59-0 vote, a few weeks after he was appointed.

Whatever we think of Bush, there was no politician who’s been arrested for trying to sell the office of the presidency, who appointed him to it.

There is also that little clause in the constitution about the Senate having the final say as to whom serves there. There may be contradictory statutes which cloud the issue but the best that can be said is that it might be for the Supreme Court to decide the issue. And I’m still waiting for Bmaz, or you, or anyone else to tell me what would have been illegal in putting Burris’ appointment into the Rules Committee while all this played out.

So. Let me ask the people who supported Burris’ seating this question:

Do you think that it would have been tougher or easier to get him in, after the legislature voted unanimously to remove Blago?

I mean, we all knew what was almost certain to happen, which is why the people shrieking “Do it NOW!”, including, of course, the republicans, didn’t want to wait for any more information about Burris’s dealings with Robert Blago, most notably, Burris’s refusing to talk about those specific contacts about contributing to Blago’s re-election commmittee, to come out.

As democratic Illinois Senator Dick Durbin says:

“…to say that he wasn’t given the opportunity to explain himself, is a load of B.S.”

What’s so bizarre about this is that the people who were so eager to seat Burris to protect the honor and integrity of the legislative process, are insisting that Burris’s character, or his demonstrable lack of it, has no bearing on whether or not he should have been seated. Since he wasn’t convicted of anything, nor indicted, that’s enough; let him in.

There were plenty of reasons (as we’re now seeing) for the democrats to do the right thing, and put Burris on hold, while the information about Blago and his dealings came out. Now that his dealings involved his brother hustling Burris for campaign help, the screws are tightening.
Burris, in his sworn testimony of Jan. 8th, said he had only spoken with Monk. Now he’s saying that he “likely” spoke to former Blagojevich advisers Doug Schofield and John Wyma about the seat, last June. He also asked about the possibility of being appointed, when he talked with Blago’s chief of staff, John Harris, who was arrested with Blago.

There is going to be some fine hair-splitting about whether or not Burris perjured himself in his testimony to the Illinois legislature, and he can put the best face on it, but I don’t think Fitz will doctor the tapes to help him look better. Which, of course, is why he decided that he’d better try to get out in front of the situation and fess up about the other conversations with Blago’s people.

I don’t think this is over. Burris says that he told Robert Blagojevich that he wouldn’t raise money for Blago’s campaign…

Let’s see what Fitz says. :o)