Defiant Blago to Appoint Burris to Replace Obama in Senate

[SuperTrouper]

Defying U.S. Senate leaders and his own state's lawmakers, Gov. Rod Blagojevich was expected Tuesday to appoint a Senate replacement for President-elect Barack Obama despite federal charges that he tried to auction off the seat to the highest bidder.

Illinois Senate President Emil Jones said Blagojevich has chosen former state Attorney General Roland Burris for the job. Jones, a Chicago Democrat, said Burris told him of the governor's decision in a telephone call Tuesday morning.

More information...see link

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081230/ap_on_re_us/illinois_governor

[Cary]

1. Ha!

I had a case with Roland and he told me he was going to be the choice. I never thought, in a million years, that he would get it.

[ananda]

2. A case..

.. of beer? LOL

[Cary]

14. Nope. A probate matter.

Sorry. Just plain old everyday professional dealings, and he was very professional.

[ginnyinWI]

3. Sec-state will not certify--

from the linked article:

"The Democratic governor can announce Burris as his pick, but it may be an empty gesture. Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White, who must certify the appointment, said Tuesday he will not do so. And U.S. Senate leaders reiterated that they won't accept anyone appointed by Blagojevich, who was arrested Dec. 9 on federal corruption charges"

[SuperTrouper]

5. Once again, Democrats in a circle firing squad. We need to get rid of Blago ASAP nt

[Danger Mouse]

4. Blago can appoint Pikachu to the seat and it won't matter for shit.

[On the Road]

6. Since the Whistle Was Blown on Blagoyevitch

it would seem pretty difficult for him to solicit bribes now.

If Burris is clean, what's the harm in letting him accept the appointment?

[Danger Mouse]

8. Burris isn't the problem, it's who is appointing him.

[On the Road]

11. If Burris Isn't the Problem,

why shouldn't he take the seat? The concern was corruption. Blagoyevich is still the governor and has the authority to make the appointment as long as there's no bribe involved and he hasn't been impeached yet. In fact, I would venture to guess that he chose someone above reproach specifically in order to avoid any questions of bribery at this point.

[Critters2]

9. There've never been ethical questions about Burris.

If Dems had had any sense in 2002, they'd have chosen him in the gubernatorial primary, he would've been elected governor, and we wouldn't be in this mess now. I wasn't in Illinois at the time, and have never understood how Burris lost that (or any) election. He's a good man, and has never had ties to the Chicago machine...which is probably why he lost that primary.

[Thrill]

7. We needed a strong candidate for this seat. Not some old ass placeholder

Now we're going to be in a strong fight for this seat

[Critters2]

10. Who's "we"? Burris is a good man, well-respected in this state.

His only problem is that Blago's naming him.

Why don't you let Illinoisans handle this?

[Thrill]

12. Democrats needed a strong candidate in this seat. Not a placeholder

I wouldn't be surprised if the Repukes won this seat now.

[Critters2]

13. Party leadership should've stood up to Blago a long time ago, and

not endorsed him for a second term as governor. Dem leadership in Illinois caused this. The party leadership in this state needs reform.

And Burris is still a good choice for the seat, precisely because he isn't part of the machine.