Burris launches re-election site

[kpete]

Source: Politico

Burris launches re-election site

Ignoring calls for his resignation, Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.) on Monday launched a campaign re-election Web site.

The Illinois senator’s camp confirmed to POLITICO that the site http://supportburris.com/ is in fact Burris’ official re-election campaign site, despite the fact that it is mostly empty of content and that the phone number listed under the contact information connects to the senator’s consulting firm.

While the site remains devoid of any information on the senator’s positions, legislation or press releases, it does include a biography and a functioning donation button.

The senator’s bio mentions that he was appointed by Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D-Ill.) but does not make any reference to the controversy surrounding the appointment.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090302/pl_politico/19496;_ylt=AjysQHsnx6LiIEBnRJp7eVKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTFlZDIxZ3RqBHBvcwM4NQRzZWMDYWNjb3JkaW9uX3BvbGl0aWNzBHNsawNidXJyaXNsYXVuY2g-

[madrchsod]

1. fat chance in hell he`ll ever get elected in this state

if the republicans can find a moderate, the election in 2010 is going to be close...

[The Stranger]

2. So is that what everyone here wants? A Republican in that seat in 2010?

I really can't for the life of me figure out why the fuck we are campaigning all over this web site against a fellow Democrat.

[Renew Deal]

4. You would prefer a criminal Democrat get elected?

What does that say about you?

Don't worry about Burris. He will not win a primary.

[The Stranger]

8. You want to talk about criminals?

There are Republicans war criminals walking free who tortured thousands and are destroying the evidence, and who launched wars based on lies, and you want to waste my time attacking a Democrat who tried to raise money for someone else and lied about it?

Are you fucking kidding me?

[struggle4progress]

23. You have evidence of criminality?

[Richard Steele]

31. His sworn testimony and affadavits add up to proof of Perjury. I think Perjury may be a CRIME again.

(I've misspelled 'afadvidits' again, haven't I?
That's one of the words I always get wrong.
Even when it's spelled correctly, it doesn't LOOK right to me,
so it never sticks in my feeble little brain. :( )

[struggle4progress]

33. Perjury involves a deliberate attempt to mislead with respect to material facts. You are

welcome to examine his 8 Jan 09 testimony in volume VII of the Impeachment Committee transcript, beginning at 935

The material question was whether Burris was involved in an alleged attempt by Blagojevich to sell the Senate seat. To my knowledge, there is still no indictment of Blagojevich on this charge

Burris swore he had not spoken with Blagojevich regarding the Senate seat (941: 3-14); there seems to be at present no evidence that testimony was false. The rightwing noise centers around the testimony 941:9-942:8. Durkin asked whether Burris had spoken "to anyone associated with the Governor about your desire to seek the appointment." Burris answered that he had. Durkin sought further clarification: "I guess the point is .. did you speak to anybody .. closely related to the Governor." Burris mentioned discussing the seat with Lon Monk. Durkin then indicated he was done with that line of questioning ("Okay" 942:8) and moved immediately to other questions, such as whether Burris had spoken to other potential appointees to the seat ("No, I did not" 942:8-13) or whether he had discussed any quid pro quo ("No, sir") (942:14-18). Durkin then attempted to discuss Burris' hypothetical reactions to a hypothetical quid pro quo, to which the Committee objected as immaterial (942:19-944:19)

Perhaps I am overlooking something but I can't see perjury there. Burris understood Durkin's question 941:9-17 and clarification 941:21-942:1 as involving whether he discussed the Senate seat with anybody on a long list; he answered that he had and provided Monk's name as an example -- at which point the questioner Durkin moved on. Had Durkin sought an exhaustive examination of every possible contact Burris might have recalled with anyone on the long list of names, Durkin had some responsibility to make the intent of his question plain; instead, Durkin simply dropped the line of questioning. In fact, Durkin seems to have been fishing around: his questioning began with an effort (to which the Committee objected as immaterial) to discuss Burris' reactions to the Blagojevich arrest (938:3-939:15); and within a few minutes he was attempting another immaterial discussion, of imaginary reactions to a imaginary bribery attempt (942:19-944:19)

[Richard Steele]

35. Well, perhaps I'm mistaken.

You've clearly given the matter quite a lot of thought.

I still think Burris is unfit for the position, regardless
of any particular crime which might or might not
be provable beyond a reasonable doubt.

Everything about him SMELLS WRONG to me.
And I've learned to trust that feeling
whenever I get it.

Learned the hard way.

[Tarheel_Dem]

5. Perhaps because Burris has been proven to be a liar? And some of

us don't countenance corruption, no matter what the party affiliation. He should never have been appointed in the first place, but he should just GO.

[The Stranger]

9. That's great. Good for you about standing up against "corruption." No, really.

I'm not sure what world you're living in, but maybe you can focus on the log of war profiteering, graft and brazen corruption in the Republican Party's collective eye and stop worrying about the relative speck (Burris) in our own collective eye.

[Tarheel_Dem]

12. So for you it's the size of the crime? I can't believe I'm hearing this.

Remember 2006? The American people had their fill of corrupt whacky assed politicians, and yes, Burris fits that description as well. He's a blight on the seat formerly held by the President. He should never have accepted, and he sure as hell shouldn't have lied to the Impeachment Committee about his contact with Blago's brother.

He's just another lying sack of shit whose ego rivals your own.

[earcandle]

16. drivel

[tanngrisnir3]

25. Blind

[The Stranger]

24. Fucking believe it.

Don't waste my time with what he told the impeachment committee, when torture, mass murder, illegal wars, and concentration camps are still in place brought about by the Republican Party.

I am sick and fucking tired of seeing Democrats attack their own over what is such a relatively minor issue, when the Republicans cover each other for the worst crimes imaginable.

And what is it with the junvenile, sideways ad hominem attacks? My massive ego has nothing to do with this, although, since you bring it up, yours could never rival it.

[Tarheel_Dem]

27. Gee, I'm sorry, but you seem to have misplaced your moral compass.

I hope you find it soon. One crime doesn't negate another. We prosecute criminals everyday in this country. We're big enough to do several things at once. The first, however, should be to get rid of Burris. We don't need these self-inflicted wounds at this perilous time. I don't know about you, but I don't care to be the flip side of a bad coin. Democrats should try to restore integrity to elective office.

[Tarheel_Dem]

26. Self-Delete. Replied to wrong post.

[Gman]

11. Puhleeeeeeeeeeezzz!!!

spare us

[Lost in CT]

15. Because he is an incompetent mentally ill liar... And when that is the case it

doesn't matter what letter is behind his name.

He needs to relieved of duty and retired... preferably to an institution that can treat his narcissism.

[depakid]

29. I'd take a Republican over both Burris and Harry Reid

In the long run- getting people like that out (however you have to do it) is a net positive.

[Tarheel_Dem]

3. And where will the funding come from? I seriously doubt that the DSCC will

be dumping money into a lost cause. Burris should go now, and save himself & the rest of us further embarrassment. He should make way for a viable Dem to replace Pres Obama.

[Still Sensible]

6. B F D............. that is all. n/t

[No Elephants]

7. Delusional. He will not win a primary.

[LaPera]

10. Let's hope the selfish stupid fucker Burris loses in the primary, at least then the Dems

will have another candidate and a fighting chance to retain that six years senate seat.

[wackywaggin]

14. Bussis should resign not even consider holding the office.

It is still amazing to me that any other representative with any self-respect for themselves or this country turned down Blago's appointment sperculation but not good, Ole' Burris. He jumped right in to "sacrifice" and to, "Help us all out". ..I don't trust the guy and think he is nothing more than a two faced, double standard, self serving liar....Burris needs to go, Now!! :argh:

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. Unpopular incumbents can win when the opposition is divided

If two or three strong challengers run they could split the anti-Burris vote, enabling him to win the nomination.

[earcandle]

17. I hope he wins and the people of Illinois get a clue about

the distinction between justice and lynch-mobbing; hearsay and guilt judged by the rule of law.

[No Elephants]

18. Let's hope not because Burris will not win an election.

[groundloop]

19. It'll never come down to a re-election campaign for Burris...

if the Governor has his way. Remember just a few days ago the news item that the governor was planning to call a special election if Burris didn't give up his seat? The basis for that, at least on the surface, seemed fairly sound.

[antimatter98]

20. I'm from Illinois, and I'm ashamed of this guy. n/t

[damntexdem]

21. Oh, a re-conviction site!

Err, I mean, a reelection site.

What, he's never been convicted? Well neither has he ever been elected to the U.S. Senate.

[struggle4progress]

22. Yahoo or Politico labelled it "a re-election site": as far as I can tell, the site

itself doesn't discuss "re-electing" Burris but rather "electing" him

[depakid]

28. Burris is shining example of the dysfunctional nature of the US Senate

[Zavulon]

30. What a tool.

The last time he won an election, Bush 41 was in office. I have a better chance at that Senate seat than he does, and I'm a Maryland resident.

[murielm99]

32. Wasn't Alan Keyes a Maryland resident when he ran against

Obama for the Illinois Senate seat?

All joking aside, I am seriously worried about this. We could lose that seat to the republicans. We could lose the governor's seat, too. I curse the corruption in this state.

[Zavulon]

36. I share your concern.

Whoever ran against Burris wouldn't even need a campaign staff to win. This is not good. The goal here is to get Repugs down to well under 40, and this just isn't helping. Burris couldn't even win a city council election anywhere, with the possible exception of Marion Barry's ward in DC (they'll vote for any useless, corrupt tool that runs). Burris has got to know that this seat is more about all of us than it is about him; he's being a selfish prick and risking a seat for the party that he never could have won on his own and has no chance of winning in an actual election. People like him make me sick.

If there's enough to deprive him of this seat, I hope it's found sooner than later.

[murielm99]

37. I think Burris can be persuaded to bow out and not stand for

re-election. I will see what I can find out.

There will be a primary. Giannoulias has already declared his desire to run, and he has set up an exploratory committee. He announced at the last chairmen's committee meeting. I expect further announcements. It sounds like Hynes wants it, too.

I am too busy in my own county March and April to drive all the way to Springfield to attend the monthly chairmen's meetings. It is a four-hour drive for me. I can send someone, but none of them are as good at ferreting out the dirt as I am. I will have to ask some of the chairs from nearby counties to find out what they can.

I do not want to see a special election. I think we could lose the seat if one were held in the next few months. We may be a blue state, but most of the newspapers are republican, and the average joe is looking for revenge on the latest batch of corrupt politicians. It does not matter what party they are. Remember, our last governor, a republican, is in jail right now. So are some of his sidekicks.

Politics are wild in this state, even at the local level.

[Zavulon]

38. If you remember, please let me know what you find out.

I don't know a single person in your state and don't trust your papers to tell me everything, especially since as you correctly point out they're not exactly objective.

I hope you're right and I'm wrong, but I don't think Burris can be convinced to step down with anything other than unequivocal proof of guilt and a promise of complete immunity from what would amount to a life sentence. His actions so far indicate what a selfish asshole he is.

[murielm99]

39. I don't think he should step down.

I think he should finish the term and close his ears to republican yelling. The party should tell him to sit down, shut up and vote the way he is told.

A special election would be a media circus and very expensive for the state. It cost over eight million to hold the special election when Foster won Hastert's former seat. Then he had to turn around and run a few months later in the general election. This state is broke.

Burris answered the questions he was asked. I do not believe he did anything corrupt. I don't believe he is or ever has been corrupt.

This nonsense is also dividing the party along racial lines. We don't need that either.

The primary and the regular election will be in 2010. The people who want the Senate seat will have to begin circulating petitions in August of this year. I think we should force the media attention onto that primary. There will be several people who want the seat. Hynes and Jesse Jackson Jr. are two possibilities, in addition Giannoulias, who has already declared. I may be wrong, but I don't think Burris will be running in 2010.

[jzodda]

34. If this guy can win in a primary there it would be a miracle

n/t