Obama calls on Dems to reject Blagojevich nomination to Senate

CtrlSource

Barack Obama has rightly urged Senate Democrats to make good on their pledge to refuse the confirmation of Roland Burris to the Senate.

That Blagojevich fella has some brass neck!


From BBC News:

Obama rejects Senate replacement

Barack Obama says he agrees with Senate Democrats that they should not accept the man chosen by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to replace him as senator.

Mr Blagojevich is the subject of a criminal inquiry and has been charged with attempting to "sell" Mr Obama's now-vacant seat to the highest bidder.

The governor defied pressure and picked Roland Burris, the state's former attorney general, to fill the position. The controversy is set to hang over the Senate when it convenes on 6 January. Democratic senators have vowed to veto anyone appointed by Mr Blagojevich.

The president-elect said he agreed the Senate "cannot accept" a new senator chosen by Mr Blagojevich, adding that Mr Blagojevich himself should resign.

Mr Blagojevich, himself a Democrat, denies wrongdoing and has rejected calls for his resignation.

Mr Burris, 71, became the first African-American to be elected to statewide office in Illinois when he won the 1978 election to be state comptroller. He was state attorney general from 1991 to 1995 and made unsuccessful bids for the US Senate and the Illinois governorship, including in 2002, when he lost in the Democratic primary to Mr Blagojevich.

"Roland Burris is a good man and a fine public servant," said Mr Obama.
"But the Senate Democrats made it clear weeks ago that they cannot accept an appointment made by a governor who is accused of selling this very Senate seat. I agree with their decision."

Appearing with Mr Burris to announce his choice, Mr Blagojevich said: "Please don't allow the allegations against me to taint a good and honest man."

But Harry Reid, the leader of the Democrats in the Senate was not impressed.
"It is truly regrettable that... Governor Blagojevich would take the imprudent step of appointing someone to the United States Senate who would serve under a shadow and be plagued by questions of impropriety," said Mr Reid.
"Anyone appointed by Governor Blagojevich cannot be an effective representative of the people of Illinois and ... will not be seated by the Democratic Caucus."

However comments by Illinois Representative Bobby Rush indicated that charges of racism may hang over the Senate if it does not allow Mr Burris to take his seat.

"There are no African-Americans in the Senate. And I don't think anyone, any US senator who's sitting in the Senate right now, wants to go on record to deny one African-American from being seated in the US Senate," Mr Rush said.

The Constitution gives the Senate wide powers to determine who can be seated in the chamber, but the authority is not absolute. In 1969, the Supreme Court ruled that the House of Representatives had acted unconstitutionally when it excluded a congressman, Adam Clayton Powell, who had been accused of financial impropriety.

Adding to the complications, the Illinois Secretary of State, Jesse White, has said he will refuse to certify the paperwork Mr Blagojevich must present to the Senate regarding Mr Burris's appointment.

An internal review conducted by the Obama team concluded last week that neither the president-elect, nor his staff, had had any "inappropriate discussions" with Mr Blagojevich about who should fill the seat.

Mr Blagojevich has vowed to "fight the false accusations" made by what he has termed a "political lynch mob". The Illinois state legislature has formed a committee to investigate the possibility of impeaching Mr Blagojevich.

There have been calls from many politicians, including Mr Obama, for the governor to step down. He was charged on 9 December with a number of offences including soliciting a bribe.

The charges relate to a variety of corruption schemes in which the governor was allegedly involved, including so-called "pay to play" deals - the doling out of jobs, contracts and appointments in return for campaign contributions.

On the day of his arrest, investigators released transcripts of conversations between Mr Blagojevich and others intercepted by court-authorised wiretaps.

In the conversations, the Democratic governor allegedly discussed offering Mr Obama's Senate seat in return for a well-paid position at a non-profit organisation or a group affiliated with trades unions, according to the affidavit.

Pocono Joe

And ya’ll thought the Republicans were out of control. Welcome to the America run by Democrats. The next 4 years will be just fantastic*. What A Long Strange Trip It'll Be!


* Fan.tas.tic [fan-tas-tik]; adjective
1. Conceived or appearing as if conceived by an unrestrained imagination; odd and remarkable; bizarre; grotesque.
2. Fanciful or capricious, as persons or their ideas or actions.
3. Imaginary or groundless in not being based on reality; foolish or irrational.
4. Extravagantly fanciful.
5. Incredibly great or extreme; exorbitant.
6. Highly unrealistic or impractical; outlandish.

Tom10

Pocono Joe wrote: »

And ya’ll thought the Republicans were out of control. Welcome to the America run by Democrats. The next 4 years will be just fantastic*. What A Long Strange Trip It'll Be!


* Fan.tas.tic [fan-tas-tik]; adjective
1. Conceived or appearing as if conceived by an unrestrained imagination; odd and remarkable; bizarre; grotesque.
2. Fanciful or capricious, as persons or their ideas or actions.
3. Imaginary or groundless in not being based on reality; foolish or irrational.
4. Extravagantly fanciful.
5. Incredibly great or extreme; exorbitant.
6. Highly unrealistic or impractical; outlandish.

How could it be any worse than what has occured over the last 8 years, I mean comparing where the worlds economy was then to the state it is in now, well there's quiet a difference and all on the Republicans clock.

I don't see it getting worse - well i do but only before it gets better

Pocono Joe

Tom10 wrote: »

How could it be any worse than what has occured over the last 8 years, I mean comparing where the worlds economy was then to the state it is in now, well there's quiet a difference and all on the Republicans clock.

Well... if one’s rational is to blame the President of the US for anything that happens to the economy while he is in office, then I guess the statement makes sense (now we have lots more to blame Bill Clinton for).

But the Democrats have been in control of congress for two years now. Look back and you will see the Republicans have for many years (with especially high resolve back in 2002) warned of the problems with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - that which started the economic decline, and begged for better controls or face collapse. But their pleas fell on deaf ears. I guess the Republicans look like geniuses now, although you will never hear that from the GOP hating press.

Tom10

That is a good point, no doubting that, but the fact that the warned about this situation in 2002 and were in control of the country until 2006 says a lot. They said "we have this problem here and things could go wrong if we don't fix it", they were in power for 4 more years and didn't do a thing. And while the democrats were in control since 2006, they can't do much unless they president will back them in their proposals which was never going to be the case with President Bush.

brianthebard

Pocono Joe wrote: »

And ya’ll thought the Republicans were out of control. Welcome to the America run by Democrats. The next 4 years will be just fantastic*. What A Long Strange Trip It'll Be!


* Fan.tas.tic [fan-tas-tik]; adjective
1. Conceived or appearing as if conceived by an unrestrained imagination; odd and remarkable; bizarre; grotesque.
2. Fanciful or capricious, as persons or their ideas or actions.
3. Imaginary or groundless in not being based on reality; foolish or irrational.
4. Extravagantly fanciful.
5. Incredibly great or extreme; exorbitant.
6. Highly unrealistic or impractical; outlandish.

That doesn't make sense, Obama is making the senate accountable and preventing Blago from appointing the person he picked. That's quite a different situation to...whatever it is you are trying to defend. And failing.

Pocono Joe

brianthebard wrote: »

Obama is making the senate accountable and preventing Blago from appointing the person he picked.

Words... just words. So is Obama rewriting the Constitution or just ignoring it? Neither he nor the Senate have the authority to stop the appointment... only to change the situation after the appointment is already seated.

CtrlSource

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Words... just words.

Begrudgery!

So is Obama rewriting the Constitution or just ignoring it? Neither he nor the Senate have the authority to stop the appointment... only to change the situation after the appointment is already seated.

*yawn*

Oh did i tell you? The worst President in the history of the United States will be leaving office in 19 days!

Black Swan

Pocono Joe wrote: »

But the Democrats have been in control of congress for two years now.

If I recall, the US Congress has two (2) bodies, the US House of Representatives and the US Senate? The Democrates won control of only the US House two years ago, but not the US Senate, consequently, the Democrats have not "been in control of congress for two years now."

I wonder why the Republicans lost control of the US House two years ago? I wonder why the Republicans will lose control of the US Senate this January 2009? I wonder why the Republicans are losing the presidency after 8 years of controlling it? Was it because the Republicans were doing such an outstanding job?

Nodin

Pocono Joe wrote: »

And ya’ll thought the Republicans were out of control. Welcome to the America run by Democrats. The next 4 years will be just fantastic*.

4? Given the level of disaffection due to the outgoing admin, I'd say ye might double that....

Pocono Joe

I don’t think our economy could withstand 8 years of Obama at the helm, unless he moves completely to the center and snubs the Liberal and Green juggernaut that helped get him into office… which I don’t see happening for more than 2 years (not if he has hopes of a second term). Can you say Jimmy Carter... Deja Vu All Over Again!

brianthebard

He's in the centre already. :rolleyes: I wonder if you actually believe the stuff you post?

Pocono Joe

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

I wonder why the Republicans lost control of the US House two years ago? I wonder why the Republicans will lose control of the US Senate this January 2009? I wonder why the Republicans are losing the presidency after 8 years of controlling it? Was it because the Republicans were doing such an outstanding job?

I think its because the Republican Politicians didn’t act like Republicans. When they decide to get their act together and back to fiscal conservatism, things will change... ‘till then Blue Dog Democrats will continue to improve their lot.

Nodin

Pocono Joe wrote: »

I don’t think our economy could withstand 8 years of Obama at the helm,

....wouldn't that statement require a period of Obama in charge for a basis?

Pocono Joe

Probably... but I look at his history on voting (including his “Present” votes which are telling), the promises he made in the campaign, the choices in personnel he is making for his administration (although a couple have been surprisingly good). And the biggest… Spending is still on top of his list.

Now, you would think the fact that the last 8 years have been pretty good for most of us would mean something to people here… but I don’t see the facts getting in the way of most posters antagonistic opinions.

A little something to set history right… WARNING! Do not click through if you wish to remain in denial that the past 8 years have been nothing but horrible.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20081222/cm_rcp/myths_and_facts_about_the_real;_ylt=Aj914wD6xxiL3BV7lVjUtt79wxIF

The Mad Hatter

Pocono Joe wrote: »

I think its because the Republican Politicians didn’t act like Republicans. When they decide to get their act together and back to fiscal conservatism, things will change... ‘till then Blue Dog Democrats will continue to improve their lot.

Actually, we agree here. I think the Republican party might actually be worth voting for if they moved away from the Christian lunacy, military gung-ho attitudes and destruction of the rights of their citizens that has typified them for the last decade or so (at least). At least a rational argument could be made for this position.

For the moment, the US needs a democrat in charge in order to improve their appalling standards of public education and health services. The only way to bring these services up to scratch is through higher taxation.

JohnMc1

Pocono Joe wrote: »

I don’t think our economy could withstand 8 years of Obama at the helm, unless he moves completely to the center and snubs the Liberal and Green juggernaut that helped get him into office…

Time will tell if he gets re-elected. Let's see what he does for the next few months. If Obama is smart he'll stay in the center. The last thing the US needs right now is radicalism. From the left or the right. Hopefully he won't cave to the "We got you in. You owe us." crowd.

As for the Blago-Burris situation concerned. Hopefully Obama and the Dems will keep their word and not seat Burris. There is too much controversy around this and this is not what Obama or the new Dem controlled Congress needs.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Actually, we agree here. I think the Republican party might actually be worth voting for if they moved away from the Christian lunacy, military gung-ho attitudes and destruction of the rights of their citizens that has typified them for the last decade or so (at least). At least a rational argument could be made for this position.

I've seen just as many if not more loony atheists than Christians. The Dems cater more to the secular-progressives so stick to that group.

As far as War goes. Both parties voted for both wars. So the Reps= War-Mongers and Dictators and the Dems= Tree Hugging hippies is very false. Both parties will vote for a war if they feel its in their parties best interests.

For the moment, the US needs a democrat in charge in order to improve their appalling standards of public education and health services. The only way to bring these services up to scratch is through higher taxation.

Taxes will go up thanks to the bailouts. Other than that those issues are handled on a state level.

Tom10

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Probably... but I look at his history on voting (including his “Present” votes which are telling), the promises he made in the campaign, the choices in personnel he is making for his administration (although a couple have been surprisingly good). And the biggest… Spending is still on top of his list.

Now, you would think the fact that the last 8 years have been pretty good for most of us would mean something to people here… but I don’t see the facts getting in the way of most posters antagonistic opinions.

A little something to set history right… WARNING! Do not click through if you wish to remain in denial that the past 8 years have been nothing but horrible.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20081222/cm_rcp/myths_and_facts_about_the_real;_ylt=Aj914wD6xxiL3BV7lVjUtt79wxIF

That was writen by a counselor to President Bush, how can you possible quote that as an accurate source for your argument. I mean there is no chance of that being balanced and fair in any real terms - Very bad point!!!

Manic Moran

The legal arguments are continuing as to whether or not the Senate can refuse to sear Burris. The more I look into it, the more I agree that they cannot do so.

NTM

The Mad Hatter

JohnMc1 wrote: »

I've seen just as many if not more loony atheists than Christians. The Dems cater more to the secular-progressives so stick to that group.

Oh, please. What are the atheists going to do, write a book at you? The fundamentalist Christian bigots who people like Bush and Palin cater towards are a danger to both the US internally and to the world at large. I'm aware that one can be both religious and a democrat, and these people I have no issue with.

As far as War goes. Both parties voted for both wars. So the Reps= War-Mongers and Dictators and the Dems= Tree Hugging hippies is very false. Both parties will vote for a war if they feel its in their parties best interests.

Yes, and both parties were mislead into believing that a war was in their best interests by a republican presidency. I admit that the views above are generally false, but the republican party has done very little to shed theirs in recent years.

Taxes will go up thanks to the bailouts. Other than that those issues are handled on a state level.

Which is obviously working very well...

JohnMc1

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Oh, please. What are the atheists going to do, write a book at you? The fundamentalist Christian bigots

Yeah we all know the left doesn't have any bigots that are ready to play the race card for the least little disagreement. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Yes, and both parties were mislead into believing that a war was in their best interests by a republican presidency. I admit that the views above are generally false, but the republican party has done very little to shed theirs in recent years.

And yet people will clap and cheer if/when Obama sends the troops into Afghanistan.

Which is obviously working very well...

Your point is? If you're trying to play gotcha with me its not going to work. I was and still am against the bailouts.

Black Swan

Pocono Joe wrote: »

I think its because the Republican Politicians didn’t act like Republicans.

So when do the Republicans "act like Republicans" and not something else? I am confused. I thought that character and integrity were important to the Republicans? You are telling me that there are times when Republicans are not Republicans? (Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! Don't tell Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Spin Factor!)

Maybe someone should go to the US Congress (both the US House of Representatives and the US Senate when in session), ignoring the side of the isle they tend to sit on, and yell out "Will the REAL Republicans please stand up" and do a nose count? Of course, it might depend upon what day, month, or year you yelled out that would make a difference?

What? Does anyone see the craic in this?:pac::D

The Mad Hatter

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Yeah we all know the left doesn't have any bigots that are ready to play the race card for the least little disagreement. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

What does that have to do with atheism and Christianity? And what does it have to do with bigotry?

And yet people will clap and cheer if/when Obama sends the troops into Afghanistan.

Which he only has to do to sort out the mess made by a republican presidency.

Your point is? If you're trying to play gotcha with me its not going to work. I was and still am against the bailouts.

What? I was talking about the health service and public schools. Try to keep up.

Pocono Joe

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

So when do the Republicans "act like Republicans" and not something else? I am confused. I

Sorry, Don’t mean to confuse you more so. I tend to use the term Republicans when referring to Conservatives, although Conservatives would never be mistaken for Democrats.

It’s rather simple... When Republicans spend like drunken Democrats is what I mean when I state that Republicans don’t act like Republicans.

JohnMc1

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

What does that have to do with atheism and Christianity? And what does it have to do with bigotry?

You brought up bigotry. Don't cry when it gets thrown back in your face.

Which he only has to do to sort out the mess made by a republican presidency.

I actually meant to say Pakistan. My point is still the same. If Bush said he's sending troops into Pakistan the liberals would call him a dictator and a tyrant but if/when Obama sends them into Pakistan [that was part of his campaign.] people will cheer him and call him a defender of democracy.

What? I was talking about the health service and public schools. Try to keep up.

Your sarcastic comment was on how well the bailouts were working. Don't change your tune now just because you were busted.

mikemac

Leaving aside the corruption part, is it right to be sending a 71 year old on a 6 year senate term?

Yes you can reply with other examples of senators who are older but it's what I noticed about post 1

JohnMc1

mikemac wrote: »

Leaving aside the corruption part, is it right to be sending a 71 year old on a 6 year senate term?

Yes you can reply with other examples of senators who are older but it's what I noticed about post 1

Right as in Legal? Yes. Scandal aside Burris does meet the requirements needed to be a Senator. Besides he's only going to finish Obama's Senate [which is about 3-4 years left IIRC] After that he has to run for election for his own term.

Black Swan

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Sorry, Don’t mean to confuse you more so. I tend to use the term Republicans when referring to Conservatives, although Conservatives would never be mistaken for Democrats.

Well, I've heard that there are many Democrats in the South that are both conservative (and right wing fundamentalist religious), many of whom identified with, and voted for McCain-Palin in 2008 (especially with Sarah Palin being both conservative and fundamentalist on the ticket). So to claim that all Democrats are liberal or middle-of-the-road is in error. The same holds true for Republicans. I would guess that most tend towards the middle, because if they didn't, they would not get elected given the fact that there are a lot fewer registered Republicans than Democrats in many states, especially those with large populations.

That raises yet another question. If the Republicans have the best interests of most American citizens in mind, why are they in the minority in terms of numbers of registered voters in America?

Pocono Joe

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

That raises yet another question. If the Republicans have the best interests of most American citizens in mind, why are they in the minority in terms of numbers of registered voters in America?

Maybe because we don’t require a person to have at least an IQ of 120 to vote (I’d never make it as a politician :rolleyes:).

The US population is sadly moving towards an entitlement state… and the Democratic party appeals to this mentality.

JohnMc1

Most US schools are liberal slanted [especially Colleges/Universities] so it should come as no surprise that College kids are registered as Democrats. I'm a registered Democrat. I registered to vote when I enrolled in College.

Pocono Joe

What in the world is going on with Democratic Governors (and other Democrats like Charlie Rangle, Al Franken and his ACORN connection, and even Rahm Emanuel)? Governor “Let’s make a deal” Rod Blagojevich (D) remains in office as his pick for U.S. Senate, Roland Burris (D), heads to Washington today. And now New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (D) announces that he is withdrawing his nomination to be President-elect Barack Obama's commerce secretary amid a grand jury investigation into how some of his political donors won a lucrative state contract. And recently we’ve seen contempt and scandal from the Governor of New Jersey, Jim McGreevey (D), and NY Governor Client-9 (D). Even James Carville (Bill Clinton’s former campaign manager) is predicting the Democratic Party will suffer a series of embarrassing scandals in 2009… NO WAY! Are there any honest Democrats left? Should we change the term Democrat to Corruptacrat? And who are the odds-makers saying is the next Democrat-In-Disgrace. My guess is Pennsylvania Governor Fast Eddy, as BONUSGATE probably goes all the way to the top.