The question is why Rush and Burris are going along.

Burris is going along because he gets to be a Senator. Rush, I don't know.

I don't care. Blago is overdone. A minor corrupt politician, that the media has been talking about for over a month now. It's really hard to care anymore, given the far more serious forms of corruption the media completely ignores. Rape, torture, and murder thousands of people in a gulag? maybe a story or two buried deep in the fold of print, and nowhere on TV.

A possible (what real evidence have we actually seen here?) allegation that someone is attempting to get something out of a political appointment? 2 weeks of 24/7 coverage and front page stories, followed by another 2 weeks of only slightly less apoplectic coverage.

Now people ignore the fact that this is how the constitution is supposed to work. People get a presumption of evidence. Supreme courts don't get to remove governors. Governors get to appoint Senators, and the Senate has no constitutional authority to prevent that unless you omit half a constitutional quote and make 'Clause 1. Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members' into 'Clause 1. Each House shall be the judge of elections of it's own members'

These actions, among the media and the blogosphere, are a more insidious form of corruption than any blago has done. They want everyone to ignore the legal framework created to deal with these issues and just do what the national and blog elite want.

That is dangerous. Blago is not.

soullite, my sentiments, too. The only "evidence" comes from excerpts of alleged telephone conversations made by Blago and reported to us in a prosecutor's complaint by a unnamed investigator. It's time for Fitzgerald to shit or get off the pot; either indict and try Blago, or hand the tapes over to the Illinois House so they can begin the process of impeachment. Until he's impeached, he's still governor--end of story.

The press did the same thing when teh Monica story first broke: 24-7 coverage with outraged pundits demanding that Clinton do the honorable thing and resign. Thank God he didn't--as I recall some Dems even wanted him to. That's why we have the process of impeachment--because we don't want to undo elections on the fly. And I'm sick of being told that the results of a valid and legitimate gubernatorial election in my state need to be voided because the pundits are outraged.

And another thing. St. Patrick Fitzgerald, who everyone agrees is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being we've ever known, indicted Tony Rezko about three weeks before Blago's election in 2004. The press went wild speculating on the ties between Rezko and Blago--it almost cost Blago reelection. Coincidence? It's the Bush Justice Department--you decide.

If these were state or local charges, then Blago would have a much better chance at being successful in his efforts. But he's going up against the Feds against which a state-level crony can never win.

I agree with all four of the intial comments. Blago is guilty of nothing at this point but playing Godfather in front of a bunch of flunkies while being surreptitiously taped.

But, like with Fitzgerald's prosecution of George Ryan, Fitz will pile innuendo upon innuendo, along with some circumstantial evidence that minor quid pro quos may have been given in exchange for jobs or influence (i.e., politics as practiced at every levle of government in every jurisdiction in America), ginning up citizens' distrust of politicians in general, and getting Blago's scalp on his wall. Prosecutions of this type are fraught with the potential for abuses by politically-motivated prosecutors (see Don Seigelman), and, quite frankly, frighten the hell out of me.

Of course, the foregoing comments are in no way intended to defend Blagojevich as either a person or as a governor. I'm just not convinced he is guilty of criminla behavior.

There is certainly an Alice-in-Wonderland off-with-her-head aspect of this that does indeed remind of the Clinton nonsense.

The question is why everyone is objecting. Seating Burris does not affect the legal case against Blago. And that's where Blago's future is going to be decided -- in a legal case.

All these people calling for Blago to resign or stop using his powers are just as delusional as Blago himself. Blago will never be elected to any office ever again, and he's so tainted that he probably won't ever end up with one of those corporate board posts he so covets. At the same time, it's been clear for years that the man has no shame. So why on earth would he resign? He has every incentive to party like it's 1999.

We should be grateful that he appointed a potentially good senator, when for all that he cares he could have appointed Sammy Sosa. So sit Burress, and let Blago move on to rehearsing what he'll say when he takes the stand.

Why have Democratic politicians developed such a heightened impulse for self-immolation? Why did Reid and the other Dem senators, and Obama himself, have to make such sweeping statements about not allowing any Blogo nomination to be seated? Why not state that the nominee would be judged on his/her own merits, and maybe subject to more than usual scrutiny?

And just insist that the legal procedures against Blogo should play themselves out in an orderly manner.

Dems allowed Bill Clinton to be impeached over a trivial lie about a consensual sexual tryst. Gore conceded immediately in 2000 after Fox gave Florida to Bush (spit, spit, gag, gag!).

Larry Craig is still in office, while Spitzer is out. David Vitter is still in office; his wife is still standing by him, despite her ruthless denunciation of Hillary. Don Seligman is still a felon while Rove and his accomplices are free to spread their vile.

Now the governor of Illiois, arguably the most corrupt state in the union
and the machine of Obama's meteoric rise to power from obscurity, has appointed a new Senator to replace Obama.
Obama supported this man in the eighties.

Now, not so much.

Now, Bobby Rush, the ex-Black Panther says that if Blogo's appointment is
not honored, it will be a "lynching". He effectively said that if he is
not seated, it's "racism".

This is the quagmire the Democratic party has created for itself and for
the nation. Race is more important than qualifications. Race trupms all and the this device was designed for their opposition. This is a hangover of the sixties.

The truth is race is not the most important issue and everybody knows it, but the cowardly Democrats will cower at the alter of racism to the detriment of the union.

Race seems to trump all.

It takes balls to stand up and say that race is not the most important issue. I have seen none of this in the Democratic Party. If anyone dares to argue differently, they are shouted down with epithets.

Nice...

It's a great system that liberals have created and now the sixties mentality they harbor has come back to bite them, and the rest of the nation, in the ass.

Thanks for having no balls.

Thanks a lot

But, like with Fitzgerald's prosecution of George Ryan, Fitz will pile innuendo upon innuendo, along with some circumstantial evidence that minor quid pro quos may have been given in exchange for jobs or influence (i.e., politics as practiced at every levle of government in every jurisdiction in America), ginning up citizens' distrust of politicians in general, and getting Blago's scalp on his wall. Prosecutions of this type are fraught with the potential for abuses by politically-motivated prosecutors (see Don Seigelman), and, quite frankly, frighten the hell out of me.

Of course, the foregoing comments are in no way intended to defend Blagojevich as either a person or as a governor. I'm just not convinced he is guilty of criminla behavior.

I think it's people like you who think corruption is no big deal are responsible for allowing it to thrive and thereby discredit government sevices in general and playing right into conservative Republicans' hands.

Blago is an arrogant selfish fuck who will end up in jail. His reputation is ruined already and I'd bet money Fitzgerald has something on him otherwise he wouldn't have come forward.

The Illinois Republican party is corrupt too as George Ryan has demonstrated, but thanks to Blago they probably just gained the governorship and Senate seat after Burris serves his term.

Brewman, your lazy complacent morally lax attitude is very Clintonian and reminds me why I am so very glad Obama beat Hillary in the primary.

She sincerely argued Obama couldn't win the general election? Bullshit, he wiped the floor with McCain. Corrupt Democrats need to take a hike.

If Burris was appointed without any quid pro quo (highly likely, since Burris has no great wealth or influence), then Blagojevich can argue that all the talk about other possible appointments were just that -- talk. And talk is not a crime.

Bullshit. Talk can absolutely be a crime. If I call you on the phone and offer you $50K to kill somebody, I'm not going to be able to walk free on the grounds that it was just talk.

It may be the case that the Senate seat was not, in the end, sold, but the attempt to sell it is just as much a crime as the actual sale of it (though it would probably carry lesser penalties).

The question is why Rush and Burris are going along.

Because by the time that the vote comes around nobody (or sufficiently few) will care how Burris got into office?

He'll be the incumbent and unless the Illinois machine really wants Burris out (and why would they) he's likely to re-elected. Accepting the appointment, however distasteful to lots of other pepole is a good move for him.

As usual, I'm leery of all this "race card" stuff; better I think to say, plainly, that Blago is making a play for African American support (which he needed anyway for his reelection bid, and one reason why Jesse Jackson Jr was on the short list), and it may or may not work. Burris, I think, can't be faulted for a) seeing it as a good thing that the Senate have a black man in it and b) being willing to do service. And yes, it does kind of put Democrats in a bind, because liberal guilt when it comes to race is such an effective tool. I give Blago credit for deciding to take the shot and firing it and seeing where it falls out, even though it probably means little in the context of the case against him. Illinois needs a Senator; no one else has come up with a workable process for them to get one just yet, and Burris is not the worst answer anyone could have come up with, even a bad actor like Blago. There's an argument for not seating him. It's not, necessarily, a good one. So we'll have to see how this plays out.

Also, Larry Craig is leaving the Senate, because he decided not to run for reelection. One would assume that his scandal played a role in that decision.

@El Viajero,

I proudly voted for Obama, but I agree with your points about liberals and the race card, in this instance anyway.

The elephant in the room, of course, is Obama himself. I'm dying to see what kind of leadership Obama will assert in this.
It cannot be any of his press mouthpieces like Axelrod -- it has to be Obama himself.

Obama has to speak up and take a clear stand on, a) this compromised Senate appointment by a corrupt governor, and b) the nasty hateful rhetoric of Bobby Rush.

I love Obama, but I grow weary of his silence and equivocation at moments like this.

Someone tell Barry to buck up!

She sincerely argued Obama couldn't win the general election?

I imagine when she said that she'd no idea the press would be SO in the tank for BO, but, hey, he's made his peace with her. You must LOVE that. LOL

If the press was "in the tank" for Obama, then please explain all the uproar over Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Explain Bob Schieffer's questions during final debate about the menace of Bill Ayers.

Please explain how Sarah Palin went the entire campaign without a single press conference. At least Dan Quayle held a press conference the very next day after he was selected back in 1988.

Worst of all was that Philadelphia "debate" farce of Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopolous asking Obama bullshit Sean Hannity talking point questions about "flag lapel pins" and Bill Ayers.

Don't even get me started the on media's refusal to confront these genuine racists who keep spewing innuendo about Obama's "birth certificate."

This notion of the media having been "in the tank" for Obama will be one of the great myths of modern American politics.

If the press was "in the tank" for Obama, then please explain all the uproar over Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

The uproar that miraculously died down after BO contradicted his own earlier statements?

Please explain how Sarah Palin went the entire campaign without a single press conference

She declined to give one? Though I'm no fan of Palin, you can't actually be arguing she got "good" coverage, can you? Including the wacky accusations about her not being the mother of her child?

Worst of all was that Philadelphia "debate" farce of Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopolous asking Obama bullshit Sean Hannity talking point questions about "flag lapel pins" and Bill Ayers

Ahh, yes, the one afterwhich statesmanlike BO was such a sore loser he gave Clinton the finger? The only one of its kind as opposed to those that were so one-sided SNL had to make fun of them?

Don't even get me started the on media's refusal to confront these genuine racists who keep spewing innuendo about Obama's "birth certificate."

And the mainstream media that did that would be?

This notion of the media having been "in the tank" for Obama will be one of the great myths of modern American politics.

If it were only the media, that would have been one thing, but the DNC's rigging the nomination was even worse.

Well, at least HRC can solve BO's mideast problem for him. That must give you solace as you rewrite the history of the primary.

Bobby Rush's comment, "I will ask you to not hang and lynch the appointee as you try to castigate the appointer", is despicable. Clarence Toady Thomas' hyperbole has so devalued the word "lynching" that it has become meaningless.

The elephant in the room, of course, is Obama himself. I'm dying to see what kind of leadership Obama will assert in this.

No. Obama is rightly not getting involved in this ridiculous sideshow. He has much, much more important things to focus on. Whether Roland Burris is the senator from Illinois or not will make very little difference in the actual lives of actual people.

"I think it's people like you who think corruption is no big deal are responsible for allowing it to thrive and thereby discredit government sevices in general and playing right into conservative Republicans' hands."

Yes, because conservative Republicans are never guilty of corruption. I guess in your Manichean worldview crony capitalism is not corruption.

And explain to me how goverment functions without any contact with its constituents. It's unfortunate that money is the primary currency in politics, but if a developer gives a campaign contribution, and is awarded a permit to move their project forward, and the project is a good one that makes the developer money and imporves the neighborhood, I don't see a crime. I see politics as it has been practiced since humans had a goverment. Explain to me exactly how we remove this aspect of governance before you accuse me of moral laxity.

"Blago is an arrogant selfish fuck who will end up in jail."

And if arrogance and selfishness were crimes, then most of us would have done hard time in prison at some point.

And if being a sactimonious prick were a crime, you'd get the chair.

FREE Unlimited Streaming TV Shows, Movies, Music (over 6 million digital tracks), Unlimited Games, Money, Books, and College Educations (Stanford, Oxford, Notre Dame and more) http://www.InternetSurfShack.com

The DNC "rigged" the primaries? Really? Can't believe I missed that one.

Ah yes, of course, Obama is the guilty one for refusing to remain silent and deferential to his obvious betters as the Clinton mafia tried their best to rewrite the rules for Florida and Michigan -- the very same rules the Clinton's agreed to in advance.

A deal a is a deal. An agreement is an agreement -- unless, of course, you agree with the Tony Soprano mentality of making up the rules as you go along.

Obama's uppity problem is that he did not know his place -- unyielding obeisance to Her Most High Lord, Queen Hillary.

For Burris I think its ambition. For Rush, I have no idea why he's doing it. The cynic in me says that it's the elders' last ditch effort for relevance in the age of Obama. But I don't think that is it. Not entirely.

The DNC "rigged" the primaries? Really? Can't believe I missed that one.

I can.

With one hand Roland Burris' crotch and another pouring beer down his throat, I approve of this appointment.

Yes, because conservative Republicans are never guilty of corruption.

When cornered, always point to your perceived enemies and cry "Nyaa...Nyaa...Nyaa"

Face it, the Republicans are not involved. This pure racism is the produce solely of the Democratic party's making.

Enjoy....

"When cornered, always point to your perceived enemies and cry "Nyaa...Nyaa...Nyaa""

There was a context to my comment you chose to ignore, loser.

Because by the time that the vote comes around nobody (or sufficiently few) will care how Burris got into office?

He'll be the incumbent and unless the Illinois machine really wants Burris out (and why would they) he's likely to re-elected. Accepting the appointment, however distasteful to lots of other pepole is a good move for him.

The hot-sale Ugg Boots are coming now.We offer wide range of colors and styles Ugg Boots UK and Ugg Boots Sale for you.Shopping now for your favorite!