Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Senate Democrats expected to seat Burris
AP via Yahoo News ^ | 1/12/09 | LIZ SIDOTI

Posted on 01/12/2009 1:33:24 PM PST by Wolfstar

WASHINGTON – It looks like Roland Burris will take President-elect Barack Obama's Senate seat later this week. Senate Democratic leaders said they expect to swear in the former Illinois attorney general in the coming days, barring objections from Republicans.

Senators Harry Reid and Dick Durbin made that statement after Burris' lawyer met with Senate officials, who said his formal paperwork was in order.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; US: Illinois
KEYWORDS: 111th; blago; burris; cave; durbin; il2008; reid; senatedims
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last
Harry Reid and Dick Durbin have CAVED. Blago wins this one.
1 posted on 01/12/2009 1:33:25 PM PST by Wolfstar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

Did anyone here actually believe Durbin and Reid wouldn’t cave in?

If you thought otherwise, you are either very young, or you have a very short attention span.


2 posted on 01/12/2009 1:34:59 PM PST by Badeye (There are no 'great moments' in Moderate Political History. Only losses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

I’m shocked.


3 posted on 01/12/2009 1:35:20 PM PST by Neoliberalnot ((Hallmarks of Liberalism: Ingratitude and Envy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

Playing the race card out was brilliant... knew then and there that the Dims would fold like cheap suits.


4 posted on 01/12/2009 1:36:00 PM PST by Chet 99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
barring objections from Republicans.

Are you kidding me? This would be a mighty strange time for the Repubs to develop a spine...

5 posted on 01/12/2009 1:37:22 PM PST by NeoCaveman (Why did the GOP have to go and run Wilford Brimley against Will Smith?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NeoCaveman
This would be a mighty strange time for the Repubs to develop a spine...

Actually, this is an instance when the Republicans have absolutely no dog in this hunt. A Dem is going to fill that seat no matter what. The Republicans gain absolutely nothing by opposing Burris.

6 posted on 01/12/2009 1:40:32 PM PST by Wolfstar ("My 80% friend is not my enemy." Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar


7 posted on 01/12/2009 1:42:14 PM PST by CaspersGh0sts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
The Republicans gain absolutely nothing by opposing Burris.

Oh, I totally agree. If anything they should just sit back and let Dingy Harry have total ownership of this one.

8 posted on 01/12/2009 1:43:20 PM PST by NeoCaveman (Why did the GOP have to go and run Wilford Brimley against Will Smith?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

They probably would have looked better had they called on the Demons to seat Burris.


9 posted on 01/12/2009 1:43:57 PM PST by Always Independent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

Come Thursday, Senator Burris should get on the mike and suggest a change in Majority Leader—one sensitive to racial issues and the rule of law....


10 posted on 01/12/2009 1:44:19 PM PST by eureka! (Dear Lord: Some epiphanies for some of the 'rats now in charge, particularly BO? Please...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

A new record for caving in . White flag party .


11 posted on 01/12/2009 1:45:59 PM PST by Deetes (God Bless the Troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

Not only those two, but Obama as well.

He didn’t want Blago appointing anyone, but the spectacle that ensued made him press Reid to fold.


12 posted on 01/12/2009 1:46:21 PM PST by swarthyguy ("We may be crazy in Pakistan, but not completely out of our minds," ISI Gen. Ahmed Shujaa Pasha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaspersGh0sts

Snicker...Reid actually makes Daschle look good by comparison.


13 posted on 01/12/2009 1:52:46 PM PST by Wolfstar ("My 80% friend is not my enemy." Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Always Independent
They probably would have looked better had they called on the Demons to seat Burris.

Nah. They can't win either way on this matter. Besides, if Reid didn't wangle a promise from Burris not to run in 2010, then the Illinois Republicans have a shot at running a strong candidate against a weak and tainted one.

14 posted on 01/12/2009 1:54:45 PM PST by Wolfstar ("My 80% friend is not my enemy." Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: eureka!
Come Thursday, Senator Burris should get on the mike and suggest a change in Majority Leader—one sensitive to racial issues and the rule of law...

ROFLMBO!!! Now THAT is something I'd pay to see. Burris will be a good little go-along-to-get-along Dem though.

15 posted on 01/12/2009 1:56:01 PM PST by Wolfstar ("My 80% friend is not my enemy." Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

Comment #16 Removed by Moderator

To: Wolfstar
Is this because the Giants were knocked out of the playoffs, or is it because of the NFL suspension?

ML/NJ

17 posted on 01/12/2009 2:02:14 PM PST by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

Of course they will seat him. bo knows if they don’t, Burris and blago blab.


18 posted on 01/12/2009 2:02:14 PM PST by mojitojoe (Not my president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy; fieldmarshaldj; AuH2ORepublican; Impy; Norman Bates; ExTexasRedhead; justiceseeker93

I’m not shocked. The ‘Rats had little ground to deny Burris what he was appointed to, as Blago hasn’t been convicted of anything yet.

Republicans were sensible to mostly stay clear of this.


19 posted on 01/12/2009 2:15:01 PM PST by Clintonfatigued (If greed is a virtue, than corporate socialism is conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued

Just a bunch of rattlesnakes eating their own. No one would miss any of them.


20 posted on 01/12/2009 2:18:21 PM PST by ExTexasRedhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

Re #15 Of course he will. We can dream though. ;^)


21 posted on 01/12/2009 2:21:53 PM PST by eureka! (Dear Lord: Some epiphanies for some of the 'rats now in charge, particularly BO? Please...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: eureka!
We can dream though.

Yeah. We can dream, but I suspect we'll soon enough be waking to a nightmare caused by the Left's current stranglehold on our federal government. Burris will be part of making the nightmare come true.

22 posted on 01/12/2009 2:26:22 PM PST by Wolfstar ("My 80% friend is not my enemy." Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

Yep. *sigh*


23 posted on 01/12/2009 2:29:24 PM PST by eureka! (Dear Lord: Some epiphanies for some of the 'rats now in charge, particularly BO? Please...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

For a while there it looked like their strategy was to drag their feet until Blago was impeached, but I guess they just didn’t have the stones to wait till Feb. Plus, I believe IL Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn stated he would resubmit Burris’ name when he took over anyway.


24 posted on 01/12/2009 2:32:06 PM PST by sinanju
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinanju
they just didn’t have the stones to wait till Feb

They want to clear the decks so they can hurry and pass all that Marxist legislation Obama will push.

25 posted on 01/12/2009 2:33:35 PM PST by Wolfstar ("My 80% friend is not my enemy." Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

What a ridiculous carnival of chest thumping. And the Rookie got to referee.


26 posted on 01/12/2009 2:40:07 PM PST by sarasota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Independent

Quite a few of them did.


27 posted on 01/12/2009 2:40:38 PM PST by top 2 toe red ("My Christmas prayer for our country, please God, make obummer a one termer." hdbc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

I just left a message on Reid’s voice mail telling him what an idiot he and Durbin look like over this. 1-877-762-8762 gets you the Capitol switchboard. Just ask for any Senator or Rep by name. You will be connected.


28 posted on 01/12/2009 2:42:17 PM PST by csmusaret (Congress hasn't got anything right since they declared war on Japan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: sarasota
What a ridiculous carnival of chest thumping. And the Rookie got to referee.

Very well said. Reid and Durbin lost the fight the day Burris showed up on Capitol Hill in the rain and cold looking a little lost, overwhelmed, but remaining gracious.

29 posted on 01/12/2009 2:46:31 PM PST by Wolfstar ("My 80% friend is not my enemy." Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
Actually, this is an instance when the Republicans have absolutely no dog in this hunt. A Dem is going to fill that seat no matter what. The Republicans gain absolutely nothing by opposing Burris.

They would in fact gain everything by supporting Burris. He will be remain a liberal Democrat, but there may be opportunities to use him to exact payback on Harry Reid after the way he was treated by him.

30 posted on 01/12/2009 3:01:26 PM PST by Chet 99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

What a surprise......not.


31 posted on 01/12/2009 3:07:03 PM PST by ScreamingFist (Annihilation - The result of underestimating your enemies. NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

It would have been a nice tweak at the nose of pinky reid. Oh I’ll bet that Burris runs again. Just by the way he tried to force them to let him. He will play the race card to the max to run again.


32 posted on 01/12/2009 3:46:51 PM PST by Always Independent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

I’m sure the Harry-Dick couple is very upset over having to obey the Constitution. To make themselves feel better, I’m sure they’ll try to unofficially amend the Constitution again. BTW, when is the DC House vote bill up for a vote?


33 posted on 01/12/2009 5:05:03 PM PST by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar

I think this is the ultimate middle finger to other Dems by Blago.


34 posted on 01/12/2009 7:20:25 PM PST by golfisnr1 (Democrats are like roaches - hard to get rid of.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: golfisnr1
I think this is the ultimate middle finger to other Dems by Blago.

In a number of respects, that's exactly what it is.

35 posted on 01/12/2009 7:31:38 PM PST by Wolfstar ("My 80% friend is not my enemy." Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
Harry Reid and Dick Durbin have CAVED. Blago wins this one.

Al Franken wins this one. Trying to seat him is why they allowed this to happen.

36 posted on 01/12/2009 8:25:14 PM PST by Colonel_Flagg (You're either in or in the way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued; BillyBoy; fieldmarshaldj

Burris in ‘10 in our best bet for a GOP Senator.

My mother told me a friend of hers, big Bush donor obviously he was invited to some good bye dinner, knows Aaron Schock and vouches for him. Don’t want him to peak too soon though.

In fact hell he’s not old enough till after new term starts. He’d be another Rush Holt Sr. :p


37 posted on 01/12/2009 11:35:06 PM PST by Impy (RED=COMMUNIST, NOT REPUBLICAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: swarthyguy
Not only those two, but Obama as well.

He didn’t want Blago appointing anyone...

Initially he did. He had a list of favorites. But when Blago was arrested, the O decided to get on the Senate bandwagon an oppose any nomination. But then the Burris appointment, Reid/Durbin being so far in the wrong legally, and subsequent squealing about racism from the likes of Bobbie Rush, forced him to make kind remarks about Burris. The last thing the O needed was this brouhaha dragging on into his inauguration. Not to mention the light it shines on his political background...

This situation shows Reid and Durbin for being the putzes they are, and the O for being the lightweight he is. If anything is above his pay grade, handling political infighting is it.

38 posted on 01/13/2009 5:33:55 AM PST by bcsco (Illinois politicians should be read their Miranda rights when sworn in to office...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Wolfstar
Besides, if Reid didn't wangle a promise from Burris not to run in 2010, then the Illinois Republicans have a shot at running a strong candidate against a weak and tainted one.

We still do...if we can find a strong candidate. Burris is not going to shine as a Senator. And much depends on how long the Blagojevich thing lasts. The jury trial, that is. The Illinois Senate trial should be over sometime next month. But the jury trial, depending on what Fitzgerald "conjures" up, and how talkative Blago remains, will take many months, if not years.

BTW, the only dog the Republicans had in this hunt is the desire for an open election for the Senate seat. That was a non-starter because 1) The Illinois Constitution awards the Governor the right to appoint a successor, and 2) The Illinois Democrats who control both houses would never allow it.

39 posted on 01/13/2009 5:39:41 AM PST by bcsco (Illinois politicians should be read their Miranda rights when sworn in to office...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg
Al Franken wins this one. Trying to seat him is why they allowed this to happen.

On first blush, I didn't think of this, but you have an excellent point.

40 posted on 01/13/2009 10:39:02 AM PST by Wolfstar (This much I know is true, that God blessed the broken road that led me straight to you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: bcsco

If the R’s expect the D’s to obey the Constitution, they should support strict constructionism even when they don’t have a dog in the race.


41 posted on 01/13/2009 9:59:26 PM PST by scrabblehack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: CaspersGh0sts

With a side of humble pie washed down with a glass of very bitter bitters?


42 posted on 01/13/2009 10:26:06 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Impy; fieldmarshaldj; Clintonfatigued

But Peter Roskam is over 30 . . . .

What I would be preferable?

(1) For the IL legislature to change the law so that the election to fill the Senate seat takes place this summer, and have Roskam run without having to give up his House seat; Roskam would beat Burris (assuming that the two would win their primary), and then he’d be the incumbent going into the November 2010 regular election for a full 6-year term.

OR

(2) For the IL legislature to do nothing, and have Burris as the incumbent in the higher-turnout for 2010 general against Roskam (who would have to give up his seat), and then have Roskam win the 6-year term?

Given that Roskam would have a better chance against Burris in a November 2010 regular election than against the Democrat that would get the 2010 nomination if Burris was defeated in a Summer 2009 special election (whether it be Shakowsky, Madison or whomever), we may be better off with Burris as the Senator through 2010 so that he has a better chance of winning the Dem nomination and Roskam wins a 6-year term, not an 18-month term.


43 posted on 01/14/2009 3:32:43 PM PST by AuH2ORepublican (Fred Thompson appears human-sized because he is actually standing a million miles away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican; BillyBoy; PhilCollins

I’m not so sure we’d have a better chance in 2010 than a special, I’d think Republicans would be much more motivated to turnout in a special?

But I agree with your other points , Burris would stand a very good chance of losing the special primary, we need him as the rat nominee. And an 18-month term isn’t worth much, (although we need all the Senators we can get right now.)


44 posted on 01/14/2009 4:22:06 PM PST by Impy (RED=COMMUNIST, NOT REPUBLICAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Impy

“Republicans would be much more motivated to turnout in a special?”

Than the rats I mean.


45 posted on 01/14/2009 4:26:02 PM PST by Impy (RED=COMMUNIST, NOT REPUBLICAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Impy; BillyBoy; PhilCollins

I agree that we’d have a better chance of winning in a 2009 special than a 2010 regular. But my concern is that a victory over Burris in a low-turnout 2009 special would be pyrric, given that it would get Burris out of the picture and allow the Democrats to nominate a stronger candidate in 2010 and greatly reduce our chances of holding the seat from 2011-2017. Frankly, I think I’d rather let the Dems keep the Senate seat for the 18 months prior to January 2011 if it improves our chances of winning the 6-year term in November 2010.

Of course, some may argue that winning a special election this coming summer would help the GOP to win the 6-year term in 2010, since we would have an incumbent running for reelection. However, I think that whomever would be our candidate in 2010 would be better off running as a non-incumbent against the incumbent Burris than running as an incumbent against a non-incumbent Shakowsky or Madigan.

At the end of the day, though, the decision on whether to hold a special election will be made solely by the Democrats, so we can have this philosophical discussion without risk that we’ll make a bad decision, since there is no decision for us to make.


46 posted on 01/15/2009 5:23:00 AM PST by AuH2ORepublican (Fred Thompson appears human-sized because he is actually standing a million miles away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican; Impy

Who should the republican nominee be, in 2010? The only Illinois Republican who was elected to the U.S. Senate, within the past 20 years, was Peter Fitzgerald, who was a state senator, when he was elected. I think our nominee should be St. Sen. J. Bradley Burzynski, of the 35th District, which includes De Kalb Co. and part of the Rockford area. These are some of his latest interest group ratings: NRA, A+; Chamber of Commerce, 100%; URF, 90%; AFL-CIO, 10%; and Planned Parenthood, 0%. He was elected to a four-year term, in 2008, so he could run for a statewide office, in 2010, without giving up his state senate seat. He’s been a state senator since 1993. If he becomes a U.S. senator, he would have 18 years of experience, as a state senator. That’s more than twice as long as Obama was a state senator.


47 posted on 01/15/2009 6:51:15 AM PST by PhilCollins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: PhilCollins; Impy

I’m sure that Peter Fitzgerald would have defeated Mosely-Braun in 1998 even had he followed up his state senate service with two terms in Congress.

I don’t know anything about Burzynski. Do you think he’d make a better statewide candidate than Roskam?


48 posted on 01/15/2009 7:10:16 AM PST by AuH2ORepublican (Fred Thompson appears human-sized because he is actually standing a million miles away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican; Impy

I think that Congressman Roskam would be a very good U.S. senator, but I think that St. Sen. Burzynski would be a slightly better candidate. Burzynski is more conservative, especially concerning gun rights. Burzynski has more years of experience, in elected office. I hope that Roskam will be a congressman until Sen. Durbin retires, probably in 2014. Then, Roskam should run for the U.S. Senate.


49 posted on 01/15/2009 7:19:38 AM PST by PhilCollins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: PhilCollins

Burzynski has only 4 more years of experience in elected office than Roskam (currently 18 years for Burzynski and 14 for Roskam) and has the disadvantage of being 6 years older (53 instead of 47). Also, I think that Roskam’s experience would be more helpful in convincing the electorate that he has what it takes to represent it in the U.S. Senate given his experience with both state and federal issues, given that he served 6 years as a state rep, 6 years as a state senator and, at the time that the U.S. Senate term in question commences, will have served 4 years as a U.S. Representative, while Burzynski would have served 2 years as a state rep and 18 years as a state senator. And as someone who has already run three very competitive federal races (he narrowly lost a GOP congressional primary in 1998), including his 2006 victory against all odds, we know that Roskam can take the strain of what promises to be a very tough campaign.

That being said, I know nothing about Burzynski, so maybe you’re right and he’d be an even better candidate.


50 posted on 01/15/2009 7:55:02 AM PST by AuH2ORepublican (Fred Thompson appears human-sized because he is actually standing a million miles away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson