Well, I'll give Roland Burris this much: I wouldn't listen to Dick Durbin either.
"I told him that under the circumstances, I would resign," fellow Illinois Sen. Richard Durbin told reporters after an hour-long meeting with Burris. " He said, 'I'm not going to resign.'" "I can't force him," Durbin added. AP Story.
Why would Durbin even say this if he didn't know if Burris would listen to him? Does he think that after all this, calling on Burris to resign is going to exculpate his responsibility for this debacle, which is second only to the Illinois General Assembly for not taking the appointment power away from former Governor Blagojevich months ago?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
Dick Durbin has worn so many different faces and has taken so many contradictory stands on the senate vacancy issue and the seating of Roland Burris that it is beyond laughable.
Perhaps Durbin should be referred to as "Sybil" in the future?
Or is he just a weather vane run wild?
Durbin is just part of the grand ploy and the joke is on each of us. He tried to buy back some credibility with IL voters. The Democrat controlled Senate needs the sure vote of Burris. And Michael Madigan is not going to call for a vote on a special election, preferring instead to let the current IL stand: that the Governor appoint a replacement. Bottom line is that we continue to be a State with a tainted reputation. Does any Republican stand a chance in 2010? I think the answer is clear - NO.
Anon 9:08 -
Why do you think the Democratic majority in the Senate needs Burris' vote?
What they need to stop Republican obstructionism is a 3/5ths majority.
Thanks to Norm Coleman's protracted and frivolous lawsuits in Minnesota, Sen.-elect Al Franken has not yet been sworn in, meaning there are only 99 Senators.
3/5ths of 99 rounds up to 60 votes and the Dems need 2 Republicans to reach 60.
But take away Burris and there are 98 Senators.
3/5ths of 98 rounds to 59 votes ... and the Dems still need only 2 Republicans to reach 59.
Either way, the Majority Party does not "need" Burris' vote.
As for MJM or the State Lege not calling a special election ... they need to find the money first. Unless they require every candidate to pay their equal share of the election's statewide costs, that isn't going to happen when the state is $10+ billion in the red.
--
As to TA's premise on Durbin ... it's purely political. He prefaced and then announced that he cannot support Burris in 2010, but he had to demonstrate he tried to reason with him (even though Burris is clearly unreasonable).
RobN. I have a bridge to sell you. Naive? Perhaps you've been drinking way too much Kool Aid.
Another great post TA. RobN is a democratic operative, he posts on capitol fax as well. Disregard his fuzzy math.
Durbin is a thug and a great test of whether this GOP is back and kicking a-- (you asked for no profanity TA) will be if we contest his Senate seat in 2014. By 2014 President Jon Huntsman will be doing well or Obama will be suffering from fatigue and it will be time for something new.
FOKLAES
Yep, Foklaes, RobN is clearly a partisan Dem who thinks that by saying something that outrageously stupid we'd be suckered into believing him. Not ever. Durbin is just doing the bidding of his party, nothing more. Burris will stay where he is until 2010. And life will go on, those of us in IL will just suffer through all of this nutty behavior and hopefully remember it when election time rolls around again. Something tells me it will be long forgotten by most, not by us, and we will have to speak up and speak out, and try as hard as we can to right the wrong.
I agree that Sen. Burris will probably finish this term. In 2010, who will replace him? I think the republican candidates will be Congressmen Mark Kirk (my congressman) and Peter Roskam. The Democrats will be Rep. Jan Schakowsky and Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias. If so, who will run for those four seats? I hope that St. Rep. Elizabeth Coulson and former St. Rep. Terry Parke will run for Kirk’s seat.
Phil Collins
Guys, especially FOKLAES-
I understand that you guys aren't big fans of Rob, or Democrats in general. Obviously. But there's nothing about his math that's fuzzy. He's right. Because of Minnesota, If Burris wasn't seated, Dems would still only need two GOP'ers to get cloture in the Senate. His vote in the Senate just is not the reason he was appointed. You can say that Obama wanted the story to go away, and that would be much more reasonable. I happen to agree with Rob that the logistics of a special were going to be a little rough, as well.
Also, you guys insult Rob for being partisan, yet he characterizes Durbin's move as purely political, something I'd think this blog would agree with. Rob's post was really innocuous and not at all deserving of the rancor in the responses.
Post a Comment