My buddy, Doug is worried about the credibility of Illinois given the taint of Blagojevitch's future indictment (Yes, that's right, he has not yet actually been indicted.)
What credibility, precisely? No offense to Doug, but Illinois has no credibility to save at this point. Frankly, the main criterion which appears to be used by Illinois voters on election day appears to be: "Is this guy a corrupt bastard? And I don't give me run of the mill corrupt. I mean, will this guy help our state look like a bigger gang of thieves than Alaska, Louisiana, Rhode Island and New Jersey? Because if this guy can't help our state make Leno's monologue, I don't have any use for him."
It's all fine to talk about barring Burris, and about how you have to make sure the Senate pick is the people's choice, but why should the rest of the states care the people of Illinois' choice? Illinois seems determined to elect crooks. I do not know whether Burris will be a good senator or not, but I can tell you two things. One, the people of Illinois have refused to elect him to public office including governor several times, which appears to give him a fighting chance for being an honest man. Two, Blagojevitch picked him, so he might know Burris is an honest man if only because he has never seen Burris at any of the meetings.
When we are talking about making sure someone is the people's choice, in Illinois that appears to mean making sure he's a corrupt scumbag. (Though they do seem to have a better track record with senators than instate offices given that Paul Simon and the President Elect both appear to have been beyond reproach.)
As to Burris' judgement...
Accepting a nomination from an indicted governor does not appear to me, from a cynical point of view, to be more tainting than accepting the election of a group of voters who keep picking crooks. Besides, he's over 70. Maybe all he cares about is doing a good job and not what people think of him. Part of me just wants to say "If Illinois only wants one senator, fine. Let 'em." But we are trying to accomplish something with Obama's presidency, and right now the morons in Illinois seem determined to let the Democrats do that one Senate vote short. Well, you know what? Suck it up. Forget how you think it makes you look. And if Burris is qualified, let him do his job and punish Blagojevitch on your own time.
Meanwhile, up and to the left, Minnesota still hasn't picked a Senator. And the Republicans have vowed to block seating Al Franken should he win. I do not know if this turn of events is yet more fallout from Illinois' chronic inability to find an honest man...check that, let me rephrase. I do not know if this is more fallout from Illinois' inability to find and honest man, and to reject in the election any one who might be honest, and then refuse to certify that potentially honest man even when picked for them by someone who was obviously trying to pick the most honest person available in a pathetic attempt to save his own credibility, because Blagojevitch would never have picked Burris unless he was fairly certain Burris would reflect well upon him at least in theory.
I do not know whether this we-won't-seat-Franken movement is inspired by the "I will not seat him, Sam I am" movement regarding anyone at all picked by Blago the crook in the state down and to the right, but it seems plausible. So now Jesse White and Dick Durbin and the gang have cost us two, count 'em, two Senate Democrat votes for the foreseeable future. I do not know if those votes would make a difference, and frankly, the evidence would seem to be against it, but it does make Democrats look like a bunch of feckless idiots. Of course, looking like a bunch feckless idiots has the comfort of familiarity to the Democratic party just now. Maybe the success of Obama scares them a litte.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
How do you feel about Burris' attempt to send a clearly innocent man to the executioner?
The story you pointed me to says he was convicted twice. Now, we know that the death penalty in Illinois was broken. In 1992, that was far from clear.
You're telling me that someone who was convicted twice was clearly innocent? Why? Becaues some socialist website with an axe to grind says so? 24 people convicted the guy, Carl. Were you in the jury box?
As to how i feel about? I feel it is completely, and utterly irrelevant to the current issue.
What possible bearing does that have on his ability to be a senator. Espectially given the credentials of people who actually are Senators at the moment.
Besides, all he has to do is vote "yes" on whatever plan the Democrats put in front of him.
you are truly a јust right ωеbmаstеr.
The ωеbsite loading pacе is amаzing.
It seems that you're doing any unique trick. In addition, The contents are masterpiece. you have done a great activity on this subject!
Here is my web blog: Irving Taxi Company
my site :: http://www.efficienttaxiservice.com
Post a Comment