He went so far as to compare Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to former Alabama Gov. George Wallace, who in 1963 stood in the doorway of a University of Alabama school building to block two black students from entering. Reid and Senate Democrats pledged to refuse any appointee sent by Blagojevich, even Burris, who would be the chamber's only black member.
Rush's lecture, however, seems quite two-faced considering he chaired Blair Hull's 2004 U.S. Senate campaign.
You remember Hull - the millionaire blackjack player who invested a record $30 million into an unsuccessful Senate bid.
Hull is white.
If sending a black senator to Washington is so important now, why didn't Rush support a black candidate four years ago? Not only was Obama on the Democratic ballot, but Joyce Washington, a black woman and health care executive, was as well.
Back then, Rush set aside ethnicity. It wasn't that important.
This puts me in the mind of this article by Jonathan Chait on Bob Johnson. Johnson made a career out of agitating for greater representation of black people in the halls of big business--especially when he was the black person in question. Rush isn't Bob Johnson--not even close--but the technique of selective pro-blackness is the same:
As I said yesterday, it is amazing to me that just four years ago Rush wouldn't support either black candidate running for the Senate. But now in '08, it's a national embarrassment that we don't have a black person in the senate.As Johnson tells it, he asks only to be treated like any other entrepreneur, black or white. But he applies his disregard for race selectively. When he's asked to help the black community, he's just a businessman. On the other hand, when Johnson's own interests are at stake, he portrays himself as a stand-in for black America. Race is his catchall justification for all sorts of socially and economically noxious behavior. He has turned the racial mau-mau into a business plan.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
I haven't changed my stance on Rush's clown shoes race baiting statements one iota BUT, I don't think this kinda visual is going to be a good look for the Dems.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_01/016263.php
That definitely won't be a George Wallace type situation but for some older black folks (and you know he will make sure the cameras are rolling) it just might bring up some bad memories.
BUT, I don't think this kinda visual is going to be a good look for the Dems.
Originally I felt like it would make sense to push back on Blago's appointment. At this point however it seems like its going to be a whole lot more drama than its really worth. If they could have avoided seating Burris with some simple procedure that was clearly within the Senate rules, then that would have been one thing. But letting this turn into endless opera with Blago in one of the lead roles, and a half a dozen court rulings as well as these kinds of visuals for the press to fixate on, seems counterproductive. Its not an ideal situation and it might be difficult for Reid to walk back his earlier stance but the alternative is sure starting to look worse.
Armed police?
I want to see that. Fuck Reid. There's no overarching principle that says Burris shouldn't take the oath.
It's just now, after backing down on FISA, and backing down on Lieberman, he wants to play Mr. Consistent. Standing up to Burris.
Obama could say that we should move on, put this behind us and focus on more important things. That would give Reid plenty of cover for going along. What happened to that laser-like focus on the issues?
You know, the reason why I didn't post on my own blog about this situation was I had a funny feeling from the get go that in the end it would turn in the direction of allowing Burris to take the seat. And like I said if they actually put armed police officers to block him from coming to the floor of the Senate and God forbid he resists in anyway you can cancel Christmas for the Dems. I can honestly imagine a scenario where he gets tasered and ends up in the hospital. How many black people are gonna give a shit about cemetary monuments and Blago's scandals at that point?
There has to be a better way they can get him to not show up with out using force. Hell people even felt sympathy for Cynthia McKinney's crazy ass when she had her altercation with the police on the Hill. Even if that was the plan why would any Dem ever tell any media source that it was? Now you might as well sell popcorn to the event.
I want to say this briefly. Fifty-seven white, male Democratic Senators. A real party of inclusion (when they need votes to keep their positions). This cannot be disputed or argued away.
As Governor, Blago was legally entitled to, though shouldn't have, appointed Burris to take the Senate seat.
As a man of good character, Burris was legally entitled to, though shouldn't have, accepted the appointment.
As a man with free speech rights in America, Rush is legally entitled to, though shouldn't have, accused those against the appointment as racist.
"Fifty-seven white, male Democratic Senators."
I think you just meant white. Off the top, I know McCaskill, Koubachar, Clinton and Boxer, are not male.
A wise man once said that every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.
Any guesses on what stage we're at with these guys?
Sorry. there are a few white women. But who the hell pays attention to them?
Jack,
were you one of the "plants" at the Blago/Burris press conference? You know the "grassroots" folks who just happened to be there to support Burris.
Hell, I'm wondering if you are not Burris himself. Or at least one of his children Roland Junior or Rolanda.
Burris is a hack. Now perhaps hacks deserve representation in the Senate also. The man is a narcissist of cosmic proportion. He and Bobby Rush don't give a rat's ass about black representation in the Senate. Burris is only concerned about "Burris" representation and Rush is playing out some psychodrama involving his loathing of that young whippersnapper Obama. Remember it was Obama had the audacity to run against Rush's authentic aggrieved 1960's version of being an angry black man in 2000. Rush is playing the Reverend Wright/Jesse Jackson Sr/Bill "I'm sorta black" Clinton/ card against the younger, smarter, more successful black politician who didn't follow "their" playbook or rules.
To paraphrase the end of the internet hit "Hillary's Downfall" that Andrew Sullivan has linked to today, "God fuck them all to hell".
Claire McCaskill was ride or die for Obama so I definitely pay attention to her.
Since "tommism" was used in the other thread perhaps we should develop a definition for "bobbyism" or "rushism".
It would revolve around a black politician playing the "race" card only when it benefits him personally or psychologically.
By the way, has anybody but me had to get past thinking that every time someone typed "Rush" that it was going to be followed by "Limbaugh"?
Uh, I also pay attention to Clinton. You know, the one who ran for president just now, the one who's going to be Sec of State?
But hey, who gives a shit about women, right? Especially black women, who, if we're going to play straight up identity politics, have got no horse in this race...
KevDog
Nah man its getting me too. Especially on these boards where we talk about race so much. I am thinking we need to make a rule like when you have two players with the same first or last name. You gotta use RushL or BRush from now on.
At least thats what I propose.
And not only do I not understand this drive to denigrate Rush, I don't know why Reid even wants to fight this.
Reid can just say Blago tried to sell the seat, got caught, and was forced to make a clean appointment that we can accept. What's really so hard about that?
I feel that the reason Reid does not want Burris, is the reason I do want Burris. Burris is closer to the kind of person who wins in majority-black electoral districts, which may be different from the kind of person who usually wins statewide and national offices.
I think two years of him as a senator would be a good thing, even if he loses reelection. Reid and the democrats are acting like two years of him would be a bad thing. Since it means actively denying Burris, that makes me angry at Reid, and disappointed at Obama for going along.
Rush is really not the issue here. I feel like all these anti-Rush hysterics are providing cover for the real dispute, which is between Burris and Reid, and where Reid has very little ground to stand on if the issues are not distracted.
Jack Irons
I am not really so blunt but you are full of shit. Harry Reid and all the other Dems in the Senate as well as PEOTUS Obama all said they wouldn't accept any appointment from Blago long before he picked Burris. Burris himself said Blago should step down and Blago's attorney in a laweresque way inferred Blago wouldn't make an appointment. This doesn't have shit to do with Burris personally anybody who is paying attention knows that.
What size clown shoes are you wearing?
really should be usually
sgwhite, I think the closeset you are going to get to a black woman in the senate for a while will be caroline kennedy.
Hell, I'm wondering if you are not Burris himself. Or at least one of his children Roland Junior or Rolanda.
Haha. No, I'm not Burris or a Burris. But sometimes I get really sincere compliments in these comment sections.
What you're saying, or what I'm reading, is that you can't imagine anyone other than Burris defending him as well as I am. Not that I owe anything to him personally, but I am defending him and apparently doing a pretty good job.
Thanks.
I feel that the reason Reid does not want Burris, is the reason I do want Burris.
How do you reconcile that felling with the fact that Reid made it clear that wouldn't accept any nominee from Blago long before he actually ever appointed anyone?
sgwhiteinfla:
I get that Reid said that he would not accept an appointment. Now why would it be so tragic if he goes back on his word?
I'd rather him go back on his word than bring police to the Capitol to force Burris out.
Let's put this behind us and focus on the real serious issues facing our country.
Really why not? Who would be hurt by Burris taking the oath?
I guarantee Burris will have a better voting record than Lieberman.
Bobby Rush is a joke.
The man has a Camero in the Rayburn parking garage that he hasn't moved since the Clinton Administration. Other House members write insults on the collected dust.
Brent:
Easy, because Reid can very easily go back on his position and does not.
Had the 50 members of the Democratic Senate cacus not made it clear weeks ago that they would refuse ANY ONE Blago appointed, people like Rush and Jack Irons might be able to make hay with this race baiting tactic. But that ship has sailed. This is about Blago.
Burris is a desperate wanna be. The more I see of him, the more I understand why he could never get the political brass ring in Illinois politics. He's wimpy and unimpressive. But, prior to a few days ago, he at least had his dignified reputation. No more.
Burris is a power hungry guy who can't achieve that power on his own and is therefore willing to be the racial pawn in a cynical game of political brinksmanship.
Replacing Obama with Burris is equivalent to replacing Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas. Obama and Marshall got the job because they earned it and proved themselves worthy. Thomas and Burris only got the nod because they're black. Period.
I get that Reid said that he would not accept an appointment. Now why would it be so tragic if he goes back on his word?
Sorry. I didn't see that sg already asked my question. Maybe it wouldn't be so tragic. However the thing about what you're saying here is that Reid's motivation is, in your estimation, that he has a problem with Burris but it seems much more likely under the circumstances that Reid has a problem with Blago appointing anyone as he indicated before this all started. For sure, yours is the far less charitable interpretation and there doesn't seem to be any evidence of it.
Jack Irons
You are now officially changing your position. first you said.
I feel that the reason Reid does not want Burris, is the reason I do want Burris. Burris is closer to the kind of person who wins in majority-black electoral districts, which may be different from the kind of person who usually wins statewide and national offices
But now you are saying
I get that Reid said that he would not accept an appointment. Now why would it be so tragic if he goes back on his word?
You just moved the goal posts my friend and don't think we didn't notice. If Blago had appointed some random white guy I doubt if you would give two shits about Reid bringing in the cops to block him so maybe the problem is yours and not Harry Reid's
Brent:
Good. It wouldn't be tragic for Reid to go back on his word.
Why would it even be bad for Reid to go back on his word?
A decent senator is sworn in and the country moves on to dealing with the economy, the war, punishing Blago, etc.
Reid is avoiding something by "sticking to his word". What?
If you can't say Reid going back on his word would be a bad thing, then why do you think he's not doing it?
Yvonne:
I don't like Thomas because of Thomas' policies, his rulings in office. I don't mind that Marshall was replaced by a Black man. It was a republican who did the replacing, therefore we got Thomas. I don't think the white person Bush would have nominated would have been better.
And there are ways in which being black hurt Obama and ways in which it helped, but even though Obama earned his position, he'll be judged the same way I judge Marshall and Thomas - by his policies in office.
I expect Burris to be a good Senator, as good as Obama and far better from my point of view than Thomas is doing on the court.
Jack Irons
What inside information pray tell lets you come out with a guarantee about what Burris' voting record would be or to say what kind of senator he would be? He hasn't held any office that would be analagous to that of a Senator nor has he distinguished himself in any way as an AG or a Comptroller that made people of Illinois think he would make a good Governer, mayor or Senator.
So other than his skin color, what gives you so much confidence?
Jack Irons, If Reid goes back on his word, he's *only* doing so because Burris is black. That's what Blago is counting on. Allowing Burris to be seated because he's black is not different from blocking him because he's black.
We will probably have to wait 4-6 weeks later, but I have no doubt that the next Senator from IL will be a progressive African American. Fortunately, he will be appointed by the squeaky clean Lt. Governor when he replaces the impeached Blago in mid-February. And that senator won't start off as a republican punching bag under a cloud of suspicion with ZERO chance of getting re-elected.
Patience, my dear. Patience.
sg:
I didn't catch the goalposts thing. If I did move the goalposts, I forgive myself.
As to the rest, I like Burris. I'd like to see him as Senator. So I give two shits if Reid wants to block him.
If there was a random white guy who I liked, I'd give two shits if Reid wanted to block him.
1) Why are there all of these attacks on people who support Burris? Rush supports Burris. Is that some kind of crazy crime?
2) Why is Reid not moving on now? What principle is he really upholding that he's willing to bring police to the Capitol?
Jack Irons
Bobby Rush didn't give a shit about having a black face in the Senate when he backed Obama's white opponent in 04 so he is a blatant hypocrite now to invoke race into a matter that he himself had already weighed in on and said Blago shouldn't appoint anyone and should step down. Calling Bobby Rush a hypocrite isn't an attack. Its what God loves, the truth.
If you aren't getting paid by Burris and nem you definitely should be.
Yvonne:
Blago is counting on how? Burris takes the oath and now Blago can't be convicted? I just don't believe that. If there is a case against Blago, it can withstand Burris taking the oath. If there is no case against Blago, Burris not taking the oath does not make one.
About 4-6 weeks, a bird in the hand. Burris is not personally compromised by Blago. I don't see any possible attacks by the Republicans as being worth 4-6 weeks to avoid.
Oh, and I'm far less sure than you that the replacement will be a progressive African American.
What happened to moving on and focusing on the real issues facing this nation?
Rush is not the issue sg.
-First, Johnson is NOT in a league with Gates, Buffet, Mittal, et al.
-Second I agree with the tenor this post dude cherry picks "blackness" big time.
-Third, dude isn't that good. I saw him on CNBC a few weeks ago and besides being out of his league (every answer was prefaced with "I don't know much about it but...") his ventures, save the front-running BET have been money backed, and nothing more.
k1
ryanculve.blogspot.com
Jack Irons says
Then when I answer the question Jack Irons says
Man it must be really hard keeping your train of thought together huh?
SG, I'm with you. McCaskill went hard for dude, I was very impressed. Plus Klobes is my girl from the hometown so I keep up with her as well.
k1
Yvonne, I think you answered his question, but I doubt he will accept that. At least he has gotten to the point of considering that Reid, Obama, and the rest of the Democratic caucus would have to backtrack on their word to seat a person whom they had already designated as tainted, well prior to his having been named. That would be a problem. I guess you enjoy this circus and hope to see it continued for as long as possible. This is what I mean by looking up from your rice bowl. There are too many big issues to deal with, and this WILL continue to be a distraction if the Democrats roll for Blago. Despite what you might wish, I guarantee this story will be carried high far into 2010 if that guy is still in the Senate. Reid will have nothing to do with it. Narrow minded people interested in only getting their share of the diminishing returns will be responsible.
What happened to moving on and focusing on the real issues facing this nation?
- That's the problem. Because the focus will be on Burris and not the issues. He will be known as a Blago crony no matter what happens to Blago. There's really nothing there to make him a great senator. He may be--but that cloud will always be over his head, and unless he's "primaried out" (a hard thing to do in Chicago's Machine) he can be an easy target in the 2010 election.
The Dems have run on being the "better" party when it comes to rooting out corruption in their ranks. Burris may not be corrupt, but because Blago nominated him, it can appear that way even if he isn't. Letting Blago get his way will send the impession that the National Dem party is weaker than a few city politicians.
If you can't say Reid going back on his word would be a bad thing, then why do you think he's not doing it?
I am not sure what the confusion is here Jack. It seems the simplest interpretation for him not going back on his word is exactly what it seems to be. He doesn't want to accept an appointment from Blago. He said that was the case long before Burris was appointed so why, absent any actual evidence to the contrary, are we to assume that he would go back on his word if the appointment were anybody other than Burris.
People don't like to contradict themselves. If you want to convince anyone that the reason for not contradicting themselves is some other motive than the plainly simple one that they don't disagree with what they said before, then you have a pretty high hurdle to clear. "It wouldn't be bad" doesn't even come close to getting you over it.
Jack Irons
I said it on the last bored but I'll say it again. There are more ppl in IL than just YOUR KIND of black folk (as Maya said b4 we AA women get NO respect or help but that's a whole another thing).
This selective "blackness" or certain type of black folk thing is about to make me puke. It is the reason I DIDN'T move to Chicago.
Let's be clear on one point: Reid won't be "bringing police to the Capitol"--there already police at the Capitol, called the U.S. Capitol Police. They are armed federal officers with arrest powers, and are under the jurisdiction of the Sergeants at Arms of the House and Senate.
Although the Capitol Police now provide security for the Capitol grounds, including protecting Congressman and Senators, the original mission of the Sergeant at Arms was to compel attendance of members when the House or Senate are in session (they are in fact allowed to take Congressmen and Senators into custody and bring them to the chamber) and to police the floor of the House and Senate, ensuring that only duly sworn members, former members, and credentialed staff are allowed in the Chamber. In fact, there are already armed police at every door to the Senate floor who check the identity of everyone who attempts to enter. So, this is a matter of Burris showing up, the police who are always there informing him that he does not have the necessary credentials to enter and...Burris rushing the door? Pushing the police? Or what? I understand civil disobedience, but...
Roadrunner
No matter what the technicalities are that are involved with armed police already being there, having them forcibly stop Burris from taking the Senate floor is a lose lose proposition. In politics perception IS reality a lot of the time and the Dems don't want that kind of an altercation. People believe what they see, not some rule in a rule book. Like I said there has to be a better way of dealing with it before hand.
Burris rushing the door? Pushing the police? Or what? I understand civil disobedience, but...
Well Burris has said that he won't cause a scene if he is not admitted but I don't think it takes much imagination to see how this will play out. It won't be a quiet 30 second segment on the local news.
Yvonne, I definitely get your sentiment ma', but IMO you can't draw eqivalence between an election and an appointment (Obama and Marshall).
Again, IMO you EARN an election, but appointments are way to subjective to broadly apply the earned tag.
Thinks law of large numbers (kinda sorta), the more data, the more valid.
k1
Jack Irons- The issues? What the heck are Burris' views on the issues? I don't know, I can't find out, I've asked, and heck no one seems to care.
At least ppl asked Caroline Kennedy that stuff. It seems like Burris really wants to make a name for himself so I'm a little afraid that he wouldn't be so solid when we really needed him (we as in the country not we as in the black folk that live in Chicago).
Are problems are too big for this Balkinization b.s. and Burris should KNOW better. He's a crab in the barrel, trying to pull down PEBO. It is a damn shame.
Just to interject on the '57 white men' comment, its already been pointed out that there are several women, but in addition there's one Japanese-American, one Native Hawaiian and two Hispanics (albeit white hispanics).
I just read the article on force...WOW!
Never back yourself into a corner facing someone(s) with nothing to lose, because in the words of Meryl Streep "you will lose."
I don't see how the D's win this. Obama can by having a very strong 100 days, but (as sg told me a couple days ago) the D's will eat crow.
k1
1. Burris was a piss poor candidate 15 years ago and judging by this recent TV appearances, he's only gotten worse.
2. In addition to his pathetic political abilities, the Republicans will label him as the hand-picked crony of a corrupt governor. They will raise "questions" about what he gave Blago in exchange for this appointment. If Burris couldn't win when he was considered clean and ethical, think how badly he'll tank with this over his head.
3. Blago will be impeached by mid-February and Pat Quinn will appoint Obama's replacement, mostly likely a progressive African American (as most are in Illinois) who can't be smeared with the Blago brush for re-election.
4. I'm willing to wait a while to get a senator from Illinois who's not a joke and a sideshow (as Burris will be). This is about the next eight years, not just the next eight weeks.
Just say he wouldn't support the man who ran against him in 2000. Cause nobody Black and thinking was going to support Alan Keyes.
K1 said "IMO you can't draw eqivalence between an election and an appointment (Obama and Marshall).
Again, IMO you EARN an election, but appointments are way to subjective to broadly apply the earned tag.
******************
Marshall EARNED that appointment to the SC. He was freaking brilliant and the best damn trial lawyer you could imagine. He argued 13 cases before the Supreme Court and won 12, including Brown v. Board of Education. He was solicitor general before being appointed to the SC.
When he was on the bench, he demonstrated his ability as a jurist. Legal scholars point to the heft and brilliance of his opinions.
Marshall distinguished himself before and after he was appointed as one of the best legal minds in the country. Thomas? Not so much. Before being appointed, he could not point to a single landmark case in which he was involved. On the bench, he's been a joke.
Ok, of all the democratic senators, many minorities sre included (I am sure there is at least one gay) except a Black person of either gender. THERE ARE NO BLACKS IN THE SENATE! How progressive of the Dems. How is this possible?
And to remedy this situation, an outlaw governor appoints a Black who has never been able to win the support of any electorate.
What does Blago have on Rush? That and/or Rush's sheer jealousy of Obama are the only things that explain his behavior.
For what it's worth, I think they should seat Burris. Reid and Pelosi have barely raised a metaphorical fist to Bush for the last two years, but now they want to go to war with their own party? Over this? Please. Seat Burris and let Obama get to work without this sideshow raging on.
res ipsa loquitur
Before Burris and BRush went on their race baiting campaign I would have tended to agree with you that the Dems in the interests of killing the story should probably bluff and bluster but in the end let Burris in. But now its almost a no win situation for them. Just think about the way the Republicans will spin not just this contest in 2010 but any other contested Congressional contest. If they give in then they will say "Those Dems are all about racial quotas and Affirmative Action" to gin up their "base". If Reid and nem keep him out then the Republicans will say the Dems are the REAL racists and try to split the minority vote. Now I don't think the minority outreach schtick will work but one never knows. Especially in this "post racial" era we are supposedly entering. Hell I can't call it at this point. I think in the end the law will be on Burris' side as well as the fact that the Dems will want to kill the story but I gotta say I am just about ready to cheer Harry Reid on to stand up to Burris (without the armed police though) and tell him to get bent.
Bob Johnson pretends to be "just a businessman" but twists arms so that his magazines are purchased by airlines and corporations and his pathetic TV network is pumped though every cable outlet (though nobody watches that crap)but he likes to pretend he is just getting an equal opportunity
Oh when we reach the day when all this fraudulent race-baiting fades away
Yvonne, no doubt, everything you say vis-a-vis Thurgood is accurate.
My point was the equivalence to Obama's election...that's all.
k1
Just think about the way the Republicans will spin not just this contest in 2010 but any other contested Congressional contest.
I think you let Burris in and this story is over and no one remembers it in 2010. Hell, I don't think anyone will remember it by the 4th of July. There is just too much going on. No one believes a word Republicans say re race, anyway.
After Dollar Bill Jefferson, I'm not so sure people will "forget it". The Republicans will probably find a young upstart black/minority Republican to run against him using corruption as the central issue, like they did with Cao. (I know not necessarily the same situation, but still..
res ipsa loquitur
Its a little obtuse to think nobody will remember in 2010 when the guy will either have to run for reelection or somebody else will have to run to represent the Dems in 2010. Besides that I can just about assure that Blago won't have gone to trial by 2010 or if he does they will be right in the middle of it. Lets not kid ourselves here, its going to be an issue. Republicans will make issues out of situations that never even existed, see Dukakis and voting against defense spending, see Cleland and voting against Homeland Security, see Hagan and screaming there is no God. If you don't think they are going to bang this drum in 2 years you are deluding yourself. The Repbublican leader said the other day when Burris was picked that NO Dem was fit to serve as Senator because damn near every Dem (including Burris) backed Blago in 06 even though they knew he was already under investigation. I have to say as someone who votes Dem the overwhelming majority of the time he actually made a good point. And he will keep making it for the next two years I am sure.
>>. The Repbublican leader said the other day when Burris was picked that NO Dem was fit to serve as Senator because damn near every Dem (including Burris) backed Blago in 06 even though they knew he was already under investigation. I have to say as someone who votes Dem the overwhelming majority of the time he actually made a good point. >>
Sorry. That dog won't hunt. IL is a very blue state and the vast majority of Democratic voters voted for Blago, too, in 2006 despite him being under investigation.
If the voters accept the flawed reasoning that any Dem pol who supported Blago in 2006 is unworthy of the Senate, they will have to accept that they themselves are also unworthy for having voted for him. That's a bridge to far, IMO.
Yvonne
Do you think any of those citizens who voted for Blago in 06 thought in their wildest dreams he was corrupt enough to be selling the Senate seat on wiretaps?
I am sorry to break this to you but I don't think you can speak reliably to what the citizens of Illinois will or won't do in 2 years in light of this scandal. None of us can.
I think you let Burris in and this story is over and no one remembers it in 2010.
After Dollar Bill Jefferson, I'm not so sure people will "forget it". The Republicans will probably find a young upstart black/minority Republican to run against him using corruption as the central issue, like they did with Cao. (I know not necessarily the same situation, but still
1. There are no Black Republicans to run that are credible.
2. That was a special election in Louisiana, where the turnout among Blacks was hovering around 15%. That certainly won't be the case in Illinois in 2010.
3. Whoever wins the Democratic PRIMARY in 2010, will have the full force of the Party for the general race.
4. The Illinois GOP bench is still as light as its been for awhile now.
I agree with Res ipsa. Seat Burris and let Fitzgerald do his thing with Blago. His appt of Burris seems so ham-fisted and desperate that I gotta think Blago will be easy to topple. If Jesse Jr. is clean, can he look forward to challenging Burris when he fizzles out in the Senate? I really want to recover a little bit of faith in JJJr.
Do you think any of those citizens who voted for Blago in 06 thought in their wildest dreams he was corrupt enough to be selling the Senate seat on wiretaps?
Corrupt enough?
Yes.
Stupid enough to do it on wiretap?
No. I thought he was smarter than that.
>>Do you think any of those citizens who voted for Blago in 06 thought in their wildest dreams he was corrupt enough to be selling the Senate seat on wiretaps?>>
Do you think that any of the pols who endorsed him in 2006 thought he was corrupt enough to be selling the Senate seat on wiretaps???? NO.
Everybody (including the voters) knew he was under investigation in 2006 yet he won by 9 points. Why would they blame an untained Democrat for not seeing into the future about Blago when they didn't see it either.
You're right. I don't know what the voters might do or think in 2 years. But based on what's going on now, they are not blaming Democratic politicians for endorsing the Democratic candidate for governor in 2006. If that were the case, Obama would be up the creek since he was one of them.
Yvonne,
What is your point?
Neither Reid nor the Dem caucus have the legal right or power to block Burris from being sworn in. The law gives the governor of Illinois the unilateral power to appoint the replacement; Blagojevich is governor; he has appointed Burris. The Powell case makes clear that Congress can only block members if they do not meet constitutional standards for eligibility, or if they were not actually elected or appointed. None of this applies to Burris: he meets the eligibility criteria, and he has been validly appointed. Seat the man, and move on.
That said, I certainly don't think Reid has been objecting for race reasons. It's purely political. They think they cannot afford to be seen as cooperating with Blagojevich in any way, about anything. They're mistaken; most people understand that if the Senate seats a valid appointment from a bad governor, it doesn't mean the Senate approves of that bad governor.
Bottom line: Reid & Co. need to back off and obey the law.
My thing about "just letting him in"-
Given that he's going to de facto be the Senator from Blagojevich, there's no way accepting his appointment ends the drama. Hell, given that IL Dems are successfully still running against Ryan, it is really depressingly simple to see how the Republicans would link Burris' every move to Blago- and link the entire Dem Party to Burris.
So the question is, is Burris good enough to accept him WITH his baggage?
I don't think so. His record is really sparse on accomplishments, though he does have a major stain from the Rolando Cruz case (which was one of the things that got me politically active). He hasn't been particularly articulate since his re-introduction to prime time. Frankly, I think accepting Blago's offer and playing along with Rush shows SERIOUSLY questionable judgment. AND we don't even know his view on the Senate's issues (which is bad not only 'cause he may have some bad views, but because it denotes a transparency problem).
I'm just saying, for me, these would be serious reasons to not want Burris to be a Senator AT ALL, much less through a tainted process.
What people should have done was get an injunction against Blago, so that he couldn't appoint a replacement. Thats Reid should have pushed for, but again Reid couldn't think a step ahead of an idiot like blago.
What people should have done was get an injunction against Blago, so that he couldn't appoint a replacement. Thats Reid should have pushed for, but again Reid couldn't think a step ahead of an idiot like blago.
Posted by yo-z
I still think it comes back to the Speaker of the Illinois House Madigan.
I have a friend who said - 'they got rid of Spitzer in what, 3 days', and then asked me when Blago was going to resign.
I said he wouldn't, and meant that.
Everybody in Illinois who hated Blago forgot who he was and how he came up. They should have known he wouldn't go quietly.
Its a little obtuse to think nobody will remember in 2010...
Hey, thanks for keeping it civil...and keeping it real.
I think the issues we'll be dealing with in 2010 will be worlds away from Blago and Burris. And if Republicans think they can run and win on Blago and Burris in 2010, well, all I can say is, "Filibuster-proof majority, here we come!"
Happy new year.
"I think the issues we'll be dealing with in 2010 will be worlds away from Blago and Burris. And if Republicans think they can run and win on Blago and Burris in 2010, well, all I can say is, "Filibuster-proof majority, here we come!""
I REALLY hope you're right, but I can't shake the fact that in IL two years ago (wait, I guess it was three now!), a scandal plagued governor, already under investigation, was able to win re-election decisively AND lead his party to greater gains in the state by finding some old pictures of his opponent and the PREVIOUS scandal plagued governor, who hadn't been in office for four years. I know we like to talk about the voters' short memories, but in IL, 2010 doesn't seem very far away at all.
Just for the record, if we treat the MN and IL seats as vacant and the two independents as Democrats, then there will be 57 Democrats in the Senate. 13 are women vs. 44 men. While obviously women are heavily underrepresented, 13 isn't just a couple of tokens "who the hell pays attention to." It includes such heavy-hitters as Clinton, Feinstein, and Boxer.
All of the women are white. Of the men, 40 are non-Hispanic whites. The others, as reported above, are of Japanese, Hawaiian-Chinese, Mexican, and Cuban ancestry, though the two Hispanics are also white.
Of the 41 Republicans in the 111th Congress, 3 are women (all white). The 38 men are all white, too, although that includes one white Cuban-American.
There are no openly gay members of the U.S. Senate, nor have there ever been. The only openly gay members of the 111th Congress are Representatives Barney Frank (D-MA) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI). Representative David Dreier (R-CA) has been "outed" by several people, but has never publicly confirmed or denied the reports.
I got all this info from Wikipedia, naturally.
Burris is a power hungry guy who can't achieve that power on his own and is therefore willing to be the racial pawn in a cynical game of political brinksmanship.
I'm a little late to this conversation, but I had to say that Yvonne could not have put this any better. This is exactly what Burris is doing. Using the politics of race is the most craven tactic I have seen to support the insupportable, in pursuit of a goal that would be otherwise unattainable. Anyone with an iota of common sense can see past any racial element to the basic indecency of Blagojevich appointing anyone at all to the open seat. Any argument to the contrary is an insult to our collective intelligence.
I don't think anyone's arguing that the Senate doesn't lack diversity, I think they're arguing that that's not sufficient reason for accepting Burris's appointment under these circumstances (they probably couldn't outright bar him, but they can expell him by a 2/3ds majority after he's been seated). If you want to call attention to the larger problem, I think you're also obliged to address the fact that this has zero long term impact. There have already been five Black senators. It would be one thing if this were some huge path-breaking thing, but upping the number to six black-senators, one of them with a tainted appointment muscled through via racial rhetoric, can't possibly help the problem long term (or even short-term if he loses in '10).
Adam, in support of having the first openly gay member of the US Senate, I invite you to write my name in during the next election in your home state. I will happily adapt to all manner of regional accents, and have no aversion to wearing funny hats (ten-gallon, Cheesehead... you name it) that may be required to more effectively blend in with my prospective constituency.
Harry always seemed a little crazy in some of his protests of Bush and in his lukewarm reception of Obama. An early negative on Obama was Obama got a lot of early support from people like Harry and Nancy Pelosi because Obama would be easier to push around than the Clintons.
The departure of Bush and Co is going to create a huge void for the new year. Blago and Burris might partially fill it this week, but if the Obama and Co in DC act anything like they did in Chicago, SNL may grow to new heights.
Obama made a big mistake weighing in on the Burris issue when 1. HE is no longer a Senator, 2. HE earlier said didn't want to be involved in picking his replacement, 3. HE and his associates in parsed transcripts already look like co-conspirators with Blago, 4. Obama, the Acorn voting for everyone forever guy, said there shouldn't be a public election of his replacement and 5. Obama is going to be President (upholding the law of the land, constitution, etc. rather than Will of the Senate to deny seats to Governor-chosen members who happen to be African American with a better political resume than the ONE.) It is hard to blame anyone but Obama if Obama is distracted by the Blago-Burris affair.
Everyone keeps saying Blago is causing all this chaos-- maybe not. It looks like he just might be doing his duties and, at worst, representing just one side of many crooked Democratic transactions for which Illinois is famous.
Don
Let me guess, you are a Republican. The ACORN statement just made that prediction too easy
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Don, I was going to comment, but now I'm laughing too hard at your argument to coherently refute it.
Now if you'll excuse me; I need to go get a napkin to clean my desk. This is what happens when you laugh so hard, water comes out one's nose.
Seriously man, if you're going to write an anti-Obama post, at least have it make a little bit of sense or simply go to Townhall.com.
The current Senate sergeant-at-arms, Tarrence Gainer, may have to physically block Burris' entrance in to the Senate chamber when they open back up on Tuesday.
Now, I'm not one for pejorative shots across the bow, but I simply cannot resist this one because I've not seen anyone else mention it.
Regardless of the context of the two completely separate issues, anyone stop to think that the same party, the Democrats, had a governor stand in the doorway to prevent black students from entering one of his states segregated schools?
The old-school are going to have a field day with that if it comes to pass and you can bet that every news camera within 100 miles will be trained on the exchange.
I wonder if Forrest Gump will be there to pick up a book Burris might drop and wave blissfully unaware to the viewers in other countries who will judge us based on the visual similarities between those two events.
Uhmmm Scott, look at the very first comment. Yeah we had already kinda figured that out.
Not being a lawyer, I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this article from Slate, but the author is claiming the Senate does in fact have the power to not seat Burris.
http://www.slate.com/id/2207754/
-sg
Yeah, saw that. I was talking about the way it's going to look to everyone else watching on the cameras. If you're not up on the whole situation and all the details that go along with it, it would be easy to say, "see, there the Americans go again with the racism. Nothing's gotten better over there since the 60's"
If you saw on television that Germany was blocking a Jewish politician from entering the legislature, would you think "There go the Germans with the anti-semitism again, nothing's gotten better since the 40s" or think "wait, that sounds crazy, there must be something I'm missing," and either go back and check what was going on or just dismiss the whole thing as something wierd that you aren't interested enough in politics to care about?
As a Canadian I seriously doubt that the news that some guy from Illinois isn't being let into the Senate over a scandal will suddenly cause everyone in the country to totally forget that the US just elected a black guy president (actually, I seriously doubt that anyone not interested enough in US politics to discover the details will even HEAR about this, and we get more American news than most places). And looking down on Americans for racism is like a national pastime for Canadians.
"It would be one thing if this were some huge path-breaking thing, but upping the number to six black-senators, one of them with a tainted appointment muscled through via racial rhetoric, can't possibly help the problem long term (or even short-term if he loses in '10)."
Yes, exactly- and THAT is how I think the interests of the black community might be HURT by this. Because more black Senators IS a noble goal, but when you act like the only way to do it is through a corrupt governor that's lost the people's trust and a campaign of inflammatory racial rhetoric, you're just gonna reawaken all the Archie Bunkers of the country.
-colby
"Because more black Senators IS a noble goal, but when you act like the only way to do it is through a corrupt governor that's lost the people's trust and a campaign of inflammatory racial rhetoric, you're just gonna reawaken all the Archie Bunkers of the country."
Amen.
Decmber 2008
Senate: Nobody's coming through this here door if Blago appoints them. Nobody. We don't care who it is, the whole thing is corrupted, and will taint the institution. Blago tried to sell the damn key, after all.
Obama: Yep.
January 2009
Burris: Hey guys, let me through this door. Blago sent me. I have the key and everything.
Senate: Sorry, pal. You seem like a nice guy, but you heard what we said last month. Nobody gets through. No matter what.
Burris: It's because I'm black, isn't it?
Senate: Huh?
Rush: It's definitely because he's black. By the way, are these cameras on?
DB's right about how silly Burris and BRush look...but from a pure politics perspective, having a guard keep a black guy out of the Senate is a nightmare of a visual.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/01/blago_raises_the_stakes.html
Pat Buchanan's take on this shows why this kind of racial game that Burris, Blago, and Rush are playing is harmful to Democratic political prospects. There are people on the right more than willing to play their side of the "race card" for their advantage. I give you as another example "The Magic Negro".
This silliness regarding Burris should never have happened. If Blago wants a new Senator appoint me. Hell if he is hell bent on appointing a black guy I'll lie about my ethnicity.
I not nearly as nice as Burris or as narcissistic. I'll be an equal opportunity asshole and castigate everyone for their own hypocrisy and my own hypocrisy. I will mock them into submission. I'll show up for my swearing in with a multiracial gaggle of hookers surrounding me and a shotgun. When someone asks me my position on gay marriage I will state I'm against all marriage. When that same person asks me about abortion I will say "I wish your mom believed in it".
We have a nation facing the greatest economic crisis since the depression and we are stuck talking about this shit. Obama has to answer questions on this when he should be thinking about real issues. I guess we can call this Bobby's Rush's Revenge. After all as all true black radicals know Obama ain't nothing but a 1/2 white, Hawaii raised, Harvard educated, uppitty man bitch who has no idea about the "real"(as defined by Rush) black experience.
I think one of our trolls used a different word for that yesterday, and was nearly banned.
IrishPirate, I'll support your bid for the Senate so long as it does not compete with my write-in campaign.
Dan,
like Caroline Kennedy I want to be handed a Senate seat. I don't really want to work for it. I will not compete with your write in campaign as I'm not running for office. I just want to be appointed.
Since racial politics is now in vogue in Illinois I shall call it my "White-In campaign". Give whitey a shot. After all I am so white, I'm practically translucent.
******
I am sending this in for Mr. Hitchens. Early last December I left a threatening comment on the blog AoS during a conversation, retracted it and left an apology here. After repressing the conversation I left another comment here about buying someone a drink which would violate my promise to not meet either person at any point. The self imposed restraining order is permanent and I will not be meeting anyone involved in any of this. The comment itself stemmed from a tremendous amount of anger with myself being re-directed toward others and while there is no threat at all I will notify both the NYT's and Atlantic Monthly if I travel to D.C. or NY.
************
IrishPirate, it would be my pleasure to support your bid for a Senate seat, then. I will blog about your candidacy and laud you to whatever poor soul is foolish enough to stroll within earshot. I will, of course, expect your gaggle of hookers to be multiracial, as it is important that we practice what we preach.
In that spirit, I will show up for my swearing-in loudly singing along to the soundtrack of "Dreamgirls" on my iPod.
Irish Pirate,
You should actually run for the Senate. I would look forward to seeing your floats in the South Side Irish Parade and at the Bud Billiken Parade. I would also to hear your radio ads on WGCI and Power 92, with glowing testimnonials from some of your ex-girlfriends who were African-American. (Are you still on good enough terms with any of them?)
I could be the Pat Paulsen of Senatorial candidates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Paulsen
"Just a common, ordinary, simple savior of America's destiny."
I could run ads on WGCI that went "Vote for the White Devil" before it's too late and some of the BAPS or aspiring BAPS I dated in the distant past could speak up for me.
Since I'm well into my forties and unmarried I had better find some women to vouch for my heterosexuality. I applied to be a homosexual once, but I was turned down because I don't dress well enough and my sense of style is non existent. I guess I could be considered a lesbian trapped in a man's body, but having a sense of humor might preclude that.
Speaking of humor here is perhaps the best Blago toon to date.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/higgins/62347,Higgins.cartoon
Irish Pirate,
IT sounds like you need to find a lovely Black woman who is willing to be Mrs. Senator Irish Pirate. (Maybe you can put an ad out on Craig's List.)
Well, isn’t this interesting:
Reid pressured Blagojevich not to appoint Jackson Jr. to Obama’s U.S. Senate seat
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/blagojevich/1360191,harry-reid-blagojevich-jesse-jackson-010209.article
When this all began, ‘the talk’ in the beauty and barbershops was, “Man, it looks like they’re trying to knock out all the Black candidates.” To wit, Black folk were called ‘ paranoid’. And the whole, ‘ well, we just need the most qualified person for the job.’, bullshyt, which always, once that phrase is used, seems to EXCLUDE Black folks. Guess we weren’t so ‘ paranoid’ after all
Rikyrah,
So Harry Reid thought that Tammy Duckworth would be more electable than Jesse Jackson, Jr., Danny Davis, and Emil Jones, even though she has never succeeded in getting elected to any sort of governmental position? What has that man been smoking (in violation of his Mormon faith no doubt)? No wonder why Dubya has been able to run circles around him, despite Dubya's disapproval rating.
While Lisa Madigan probably would have a better chance of winning the 2010 race for the US Senate than Jackson or Davis or Jones, she's not interested in the job. Did Harry Reid also not notice that Lisa Madigan has her sights firmly on the governor's office, and has said so publicly?
It sickens me to think that someone as ill-informed about the possibilities of Illinois politics would try to influence the selection of Obama's successor. For Harry Reid to summarily rule out people as talented as Junior (who's my congressman), Danny Davis, or even Emil Jones in favor of Tammy Duckworth based on some vague notion of electability is just further proof that Harry Reid needs to be dumped as Senate Majority Leader. (Put Dick Durbin in charge of the Senate.)
Rikyrah,
you're paranoid all right. You also don't understand the game even though you have a scorecard.
The national Dems want to keep the seat Democratic in 2010. Jones, Jackson and Davis are not electable statewide. Jackson may have had a shot prior to this Blago mess at winning statewide, but that shot is kaput.
I don't happen to think appointing a black "folk" to the seat is smart politics. It plays into the hands of the Buchananite GOP'ers who want to continue the "race card" games for their own benefit.
However, if someone black is going to be appointed it should be someone who could win Statewide. Valerie Jarret would have fit that mold. There are some state legislators who fit that mold. Jones, Jackson and Davis don't fit that mold. Why not appoint Reverend Wright? He's certainly black. Is that the only criteria that matters to you?
From your comments in another thread Dan Seals doesn't seem to pass the "paper bag test" because he doesn't live in a largely black community and has a white wife:
"Some final words on this Dan Seals mess.
What is his base?
I'm just askin'.
He's a Black man with a White wife, who has NO Chicago connections whatsoever. The Black vote IS Cook County, and we don't know him.
So, the thought that they'd throw away Burris - who IS well known and rooted in the Black community.
For Seals, who is a NOBODY in the Black community.
I know some folks live in post-racial delusion. But, wake up.
That SEALS would be chosen over the numerous presently elected Black officials?
Uh huh. "
So only well known black officials should be considered for the Senate. How well known was Obama before he ran for the US Senate in 2004?
So go back to the barber shop and continue with the paranoid BS.
Ah, my dear Irish Pirate.
Did you read the rest of the comments in that thread.
I do believe I wrote:
Yes, Barack Obama was a nobody. But, he was a nobody who built his FOUNDATION in the Black community.
I don’t speak of where other folks live. I’m a Chicago gal. I went east to school, but came back home after college and graduate school.
Barack Obama built his foundation in the Black community. Folks want to pretend that I don’t know where I live.
Dan Seals doesn’t live in the Black Community. He doesn’t work in the Black community. He doesn’t work for the Black community. He has absolutely NO connection to the Black community of Cook County, and we ARE the Black vote in Illinois.
to that I would add:
Black folk in Cook County aren’t going to be his ‘ base’, just because he’s Black. He doesn’t even have a political base where he lives, because he couldn’t even win the elections where he ran in not one, BUT TWO OVERWHELMINGLY PRO-DEMOCRATIC CYCLES.
If folks want to live in post-racial eutopia, that’s fine. But, I’m talking about Illinois politics. And, choosing a Black candidate who doesn’t even have a Black voting base from which to depend upon and build for the 2010 Democratic Primary, makes even the possibility of the choice of Seals, just as tokenist as Clarence Thomas.
The beauty and barbershops don’t know Dan Seals. And can’t point to one reason to choose him - other than he’s Black, and despite what folks might think - Black folk DO need something more than that.
Black folk know Roland Burris. That’s why we can separate him from Blago.
We don’t know JACK about Dan Seals, and 2 years isn’t long enough to build it.
Look at the visual.
Work with a Sista.
They would kick out Burris, who has a 30 year history with the Black community. Who won 4 STATEWIDE elections.
To bring in this half Black guy that nobody knows shyt about with absolutely NO connections to the Black community that hasn’t won ANYTHING.
And, Chicago/Cook County, has all these politicos and Black business folk that could be chosen who actually HAVE TIES to the Black community.
Stand back and look and see how that looks to us.
What reason would I have to support Dan Seals - other than he is Black. I know a half dozen WHITE candidates that I could POINT TO things that they have done for the Black community - before I could support Seals. There are Black folks who could stand up and speak for these White candidates - because they’ve worked with them on projects. And, they understand Urban life.
Who Black is going to stand up for Seals and vouch for him on anything related to the Black community?
There’s a difference between supporting someone because they’re Black, and being asked to support them ONLY because they’re Black.
And being told by the likes lf Harry Reid and Pat Quinn that THIS is the kind of Negro that is acceptable?
Hell-to-the-naw.
If I’m going to support a Black candidate that supposedly ‘ has no chance’, then I’d just as soon see Jesse Jackson, Jr. in that spot.
I want someone to tell me, how Seals is a better candidate than Jackson Jr., who has a legislative record, who has an actual base, who actually has been building coalitions across communities from the moment he stepped into Congress, and he’s actully WON elections.
To answer your question about Obama, and how well known was he - he wasn't even completely known on the South Side of Chicago. But, the thing is, he had folks that he could go to that could vouch for him within the community. That could speak for him. That could give ' testimonials' for him.
I'll ask again....what would be Seals' base?
Why am I the bad guy when when I say that Black folk aren’t going to accept some Harry Reid/Pat Quinn-picked approved Negro with no connection to the Black community?
Don’t Black folk have the right to take a look at that and say, ‘ Naw, Son…it’s not going down like that.’
Irish Pirate,
In addition, Obama at least had won a state senate seat. Dan Seals hasn't even won that. The lone political endeavors Dan Seals has engaged so far have been failures.
Moreover, as Rikyrah has noted, Obama built a political foundation in the South Side's African-American neighborhoods, just like Harold Washington. Obama also merged this with political support from lakefront white liberals in Hyde Park, LIncoln Park, and Wrigleyville, just like Harold Washington did. On top of the old Harold Washington coalition, Obama stacked downstate Dems who had been Paul Simon's base. Is there any evidence that Dan Seals is capable of putting together such a mighty coalition?
(You might have a better chance of doing that than Dan Seals does, especially if you convince Rikyrah to engage into a marriage of political convenience with you.)
If you're into conspiracy theories, which I imagine many of the anti-bush types have been over this last year...
You could easily paint the reverse picture. Federal government trying to oust a governor who won't play by their rules and seat a senator they want. The govenor picks a senator who is qualified, although not ideal (but not any less ideal than most of our senators) and they get upset and insist he won't be seated.
Why? Because they have to be consistent? Because this governor was accused (but not convicted) of being questionable? All you have to do in the future is accuse someone with a few lurid soundbytes of being questionable and then they are no longer able to fullfill their constitutional duties?
I think what is making those "in power" so upset is that Blago had the audacity to demand some kind of favorable treatment from the higher-ups. Usually it's the other way around. The higher-ups give you favorable treatment when you play by their rules.
It's pretty common knowledge, or at least should be, that the vast majority of appointments that get made by the Federal Government are "returning the favor" type things. Only the very big/important appointments get scrutinized. How many ambassadors/diplomats, etc do we have? I've spoken face to face with many employees that work in embassies and they all understand the appointees are there because of favors/kickbacks.
But when a govenor tosses around the idea of a kickback in the opposite direction, suddenly the federal government doesn't play that way and the FBI comes crashing down.
You can be certain this is the FEDS taking care of themselves, and they wouldn't give a damn if the governor was selling a State Senate seat.
But back to the point, if there is no impropriety shown in this case, he should be seated. If you don't want him seated, charge the governor now and impeach him.
"However, if someone black is going to be appointed it should be someone who could win Statewide. Valerie Jarret would have fit that mold. There are some state legislators who fit that mold. Jones, Jackson and Davis don't fit that mold."
Irish Pirate,
I don't see how Jackson and Davis don't fit that mold, while Valerie Jarrett does. She hails from the same political circles that Jackson and Davis do (the circles that formed Harold Washington's base). The difference is that she played in a role in Mayor Daley's administration at one point, while they did not.
Moreover, Secretary of State Jesse White hails from those same political circles, and he has had no trouble getting elected statewide. I would think that if Jackson or Davis demonstrated simple competence as a US Senator once they are appointed, they would be able to win statewide, just like Roland Burris, Jesse White, and Obama have.
(You might have a better chance of doing that than Dan Seals does, especially if you convince Rikyrah to engage into a marriage of political convenience with you.)
Posted by eltoro
BWA HAHA AH AH HA
Irish Pirate,
I don't see how Jackson and Davis don't fit that mold, while Valerie Jarrett does. She hails from the same political circles that Jackson and Davis do (the circles that formed Harold Washington's base). The difference is that she played in a role in Mayor Daley's administration at one point, while they did not.
I agree with this. And, I don't think Irish Pirate has actually studied what Jackson has been doing since he got into office. How he has angered some of the old-time Black folks BECAUSE he has reached out to different candidates in different communities.
Remember the fundraiser who was in question about this? Wasn't Black. Wasn't White. He was INDIAN. Color me shocked (pun intended) that this man had NO PROBLEM fundraising on that level for Jackson. He obviously has a relationship with that guy. Shocked me, but I shouldn't have been, because Jackson has been working hard at expanding his base and his contacts since the moment he got into office.
Jackson is a solid candidate, especially now that we know he's a snitch, which could be his in with those skeptical White voters.
Irish Pirate,
In addition, Obama at least had won a state senate seat. Dan Seals hasn't even won that. The lone political endeavors Dan Seals has engaged so far have been failures.
Not just the State Senate Seat. Don't ever forget the years at Atgeld Gardens as a Community Organizer. See, it's all part of the FOUNDATION I'm talking about. Folks that he met then, who could step up to the plate, when he ran for Senate and, what - give testimonials...VOUCH for Obama.
See, there's being unknown with nothing behind you. - SEALS.
And, there's being unknown with a carefully built foundation - OBAMA.
I have to agree with folks who say "choosing a black pol for the seat who has no base in the black community is STOOPID!"
Appointing Dan Seals would be beyond ridiculous. Seals has run for Congress twice and been defeated twice by significant margins, i.e., he's a loser.
I imagine black people will be enraged if Quinn passes over qualified blacks like Davis and Jackson who have actually won congressional elections to appoint a certified loser like Seals because he thinks Seals "has more white appeal."
*Any* black politician who is elected statewide will have to have strong even overwhelming support and enthusiasm in the black community because they will lose *some* traditional democratic support among white voters. Seals lacks that black support and apparently has very little white appeal since, even with Obama on the ballot in a Democratic year, he got spanked by 10 points in his latest race!
Don't hate the players; hate the game. This was a brilliant move for both the governor and soon-to-be Senator. Burris is obviously "clean" (Blago knows this better than anyone), so neither the Illinois state legislature nor Sen. Reid can truly justify blocking the door. Sure, Burris will suffer a little derision, but it’ll be well worth it. At the very least he's raised his profile--I attended college with his son and still had no idea who papa was. More than likely, the seasoned politician will now have the honor of having "United States Senator" on his tombstone. These are politicians we're talking about.
Now that I think of it, Burris is kind of like Seals. He hasn't won a race since 1991, no lasting connections to Chicago...I'm not sure that he's any more "electable" than Seals, especially not with Blago's hand on his shoulder.
I should rephrase- instead of "no lasting connections", I mean not FROM Chicago and didn't run as a Chicagoan (I believe he works there now).
I can see those of you who own scorecards, but don't understand the "game" are out in force.
Jesse Jackson Junior shouldn't be appointed because for both good and bad his name is Jesse Jackson Junior. He carries the cross of his dad around his tiny shoulders. That worked to get him elected in a black congressional district, but wouldn't work statewide. I like to think of his as all mouth and little brains. Again, many pasty faced white devil politicians are the same.
Danny Davis is a nutjob. Outside a great Senatorial "voice" he would also lose statewide. Probably worse than Jackson. The man has had his head so far up the ass of Reverend Moon for the last decade that he can be certified as a human colorectal exam.
Black "folk" make up around 13 percent of the population of the Land of Obama. In order to win statewide they need to be seen as candidates who "happen to be black" and not "black candidates".
Now I suspect that in 2000 when Obama ran against Bobby Rush for Congress some of the posters here likely supported Saint Bobby of the Panthers. After all outside Hyde Park few people knew who the hell Obama was and he got "outblacked" by Rush. Rush played the Race card on Obama's half white, Harvard educated ass and trounced him.
As for Roland of the Great Ego he hasn't won a race since 1990. He has run many races since then. The man is all ego and little accomplishment.
Now I know Dan Seals has committed the "sin" of being "light skinnded" and marrying the white devil himself. However, he did run competitive races in a district that leans GOP against a moderate and popular Republican congressman. It's just too bad that Oberweiss or one of the GOP Palinistas wasn't running against Seals. Watch that district in 2012 after it gets gerrymandered by the State legislature. It likely will go Dem.
The reason I would support a Seals or Jarrett or some of the lesser known black state legislators is that they are non threatening to the vast majority of Illinois voters. That might not play well in the barber shops on the south or west sides, but it would play well in the malls or cornfields outside Chicago.
This non white former prosecutorial devil might be a good choice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwame_Raoul
Now if you truly believe that the Senate seat should go to a "black folk" because Obama is sorta black then I lay claim to the office of Mayor of Chicago for myself. Daley and I are both of Irish descent, raised on the south side and moved Northish, and I'm taller than him.
Frankly, I would much rather be Mayor than Senator anyway. Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeet, as far as I'm concerned Obama set his sights on lower office when he wanted to be POTUS instead of "da mare".
IrishPirate,
we disagree about Jackson, Jr. I believe he's done the work, and should be given his shot. If he didn't win the 2010 Democratic Primary, then ok. But, to call him unelectable,and choose someone who hasn't won anything - SEALS - doesn't fly.
Where is Seals' base.
IrishPirate, you keep on not answering this question.
NO Democrat wins statewide without Cook County.
And Cook County IS the Black community.
You seem to have this electoral map where a Democrat is winning without Cook County.
But, the above poster is correct that Jarrett comes from the same grouping as Jackson does. Jarrett would have as much credibility as a Jackson, and far more than the likes of Seals.
WHY?
Because Jarrett's FOUNDATION, is in the Black community. Because she her FAMILY has been in public service to the Black community for GENERATIONS.
Because her late father-in-law was LION in the Black journalistic/activist community.
Sigh..
I'll say it again.
FOUNDATION.
Seals has none. If they wanted to go younger, there are any number of younger Black elected officials, or Black business folk, who have ties and service to the Black community that would be acceptable.
Seals isn't it.
Harry Reid's Handpicked Negro isn't going to cut it.
Now that I think of it, Burris is kind of like Seals. He hasn't won a race since 1991, no lasting connections to Chicago...I'm not sure that he's any more "electable" than Seals, especially not with Blago's hand on his shoulder.
Burris is like Seals, 30 years ago.
Burris wasn't from Chicago. He was from Downstate. He didn't arrive in Chicago until after he finished law school - he was almost 30. But, he worked his way up in the Democratic Party, and worked in the Black community. He built his bridges.
"Burris is like Seals, 30 years ago. "
That's kind of what I meant. He didn't have the kind of deep connection to Cook County that you've been talking about- and given that it's been over a decade since he last ran, I couldn't say for certain if he does now.
Come to think of it, plenty of other statewide Dems that have won- and racked up big margins in the black community- also didn't have that connection.
The racial breakdown for Cook County in 2007 was estimated to be 56 percent white and around 27 percent black. How that makes Cook County "the black community" is beyond me.
Now you can rightly say that the vast majority of Illinois blacks live in Cook County. You can say that blacks make up a disproportionate amount of democratic voters in Cook County.
You can't claim it is "the black community".
Seals base in the black community is tiny. Obama's in 2003 was slightly less tiny. Let's call it largely small. However, once he became known he received the overwhelming majority of black votes in 2004 and Seals would likely receive the overwhelming majority of black votes in 2010.
You may want to have JJJ's baby and want Davis to be the Goddaddy, but that is not going to make them acceptable to millions of whites. I know folks who voted for Obama who loathe JJJ because of his dad. Davis is just nuts and too much old black politics.
To win a seat in an overwhelmingly white "district" which the State of Illinois is in a sense you damn well need to appeal to whitey and be non threatening.
Now Burris is non threatening, but he is also a egotist of Olympian proportions who is tainted by the hairgel coming off Blago.
Now it's clear to me that some of you don't like that nearly white devil Seals because he is lighter than a paper bag, lives on the north shore, and has a white wife. That may not play well in the barbershops, but the barbershops are not where the majority of voters in this state hail from.
I actually think the white wife thing might hurt him in parts of the white community. It's clear it hurts him in the barbershops.
Irish Pirate,
Come on now.
Have JJJ's baby?
Come on.
He's a married man with children. I'm not that kind of woman...LOL
I don't like Seals because he has no connection to the Black community. And the days of White folks CHOOSING ' acceptable' Black leaders is OVER.
But, you still haven't told me what his BASE is going to be. What folks are going to come out for him no matter what.
I think Jesse Jackson Jr. is electable statewide. For the most part his name has already been cleared in the Blago mess. I think if he was given two years in the Senate and did good work (which I think he would), he could win over voters in southern Illinois. He may have gotten elected because of his name, but I think he has payed his dues and proven himself. One of the smartest political moves he has made was to not only support Obama but be willing to speak out against his father publicly and defend Obama. It gave him an opportunity to show people that he is his own man. I think that given the opportunity to campaign statewide and introduce himself to people, Jackson could win.
There are many qualified candidates (black and white) who could all do a good job - I just don't want Blagojevich making the appointment. I want a senator who is viewed as legitimate and unquestionably legally appointed or elected.
Irish Pirate,
Another factor that you are not considering is that in 2010 Jesse Jackson, Jr. or Danny Davis will have a record to run on as Senator if they are appointed to replace Obama. Are you arguing that even if Jackson or Davis have a decent record to run on, they are so lacking in appeal statewide that they would lose?
I don't find that argument credible. If anything, Illinois history has shown that if a black politician in a statewide office establishes a record of competence in the eyes of Illinois voters (e.g. Roland Burris, Jesse White), that politician will earn the votes of Illinois voters, even downstate whites.
I will grant you this point: Dan Seals, if he has a good record to run on, could also win the 2010 election for US Senate. However, knowing that Jackson and Davis have more experience and more success in running for political office than Seals does, Jackson or Davis would have a better chance of winning than Seals does.
Ahhh.... so the real reason why Reid does not want this appointment is crafy mid-term politics. Reid knows he won't get re-elected so they are gnashing and wailing against him.
Many of these questions we will not know the answer to because they are hypothetical. If Jackson in 2010? If Seals...etc.
Generally I think blacks understand whites better than whites understand blacks. Generally. This time I think many of you don't understand the way the name "Jesse Jackson" causes the hairs to stand up on the back of the necks of even moderate white folks. Go back to 1983 when Jackson Senior tried to muscle his way closer to Harold Washington on the podium at his election night celebration. Washington looked like he wanted to go all Al Capone on Jackson with a baseball bat.
The name "Jesse Jackson" is like wearing a Cubs hat at a bar near 35th and Shields. You are just going to inflame folks. As for Davis once he removes his head from Reverend Moon's anus I'll take him seriously. Actually I won't.
I don't know much about Dan Seals. He did grow up in Hyde Park and has an MBA from the University of Chicago. I was just using him as a potentially non threatening black candidate.
The Governor of Colorado just picked the relatively unknown Denver Schools Superintendent to fill a vacant Senate seat. I don't even think it is necessary to limit the choice to career POLS. Imagine a Judge Posner in the Senate. He would scare the hell out of the other Senators with his intellect. Perhaps Senator Springer?
You want a black guy? How about Terry Hilliard former Chicago Police Chief? Vietnam Vet. Well respected. Shot as a young cop. Not the greatest speaker out there, but a decent and sincere person.
My goal for whoever takes the Illinois Senate Seat is for someone who can hold the seat for the Dems in the general election. I really don't want to find out that JJJ can win the primary and then lose the general election to some moderate GOP'er. We can't always count on the Illinois GOP running right wing nuts. Now JJJ might not lose a general election. However, I think any reasonable person would say that him losing, as opposed to some other hypothetical candidate, is a stronger than average possibility.
Also JJJ's possibilities for the Senate in the near term died with this Blago business. He should concentrate on moving up the ranks of the Democratic leadership and trying to get some good committee chairmanships. I seem to remember some guy named Rostenkowski from Chicago who was Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. That's better then being a Senator.
"My goal for whoever takes the Illinois Senate Seat is for someone who can hold the seat for the Dems in the general election. I really don't want to find out that JJJ can win the primary and then lose the general election to some moderate GOP'er."
Irish Pirate,
This further undermines the Dan Seals argument. One thing we know for sure about Danny Boy is that he's very good at losing to a moderate GOP candidate, despite his non-threatening Black man vibe. Not just any moderate GOP candidate, but the very guy who is the most likely GOP nominee for the 2010 Senate race: Mark Kirk.
Is it possible that Mark Kirk or Susan Radogno or Steve Raushenberger or Judy Baar Topinka or even Jack Ryan will ride into the US Senate by denouncing Junior for being the son of Jesse Jetstream? Yes, it is, but Junior is not powerless in that matter. If he has a good record as a Senator to point to (which is very likely since he has done a good job as my Congressman), the Jesse Jetstream tactic will work as well as the Bill Ayers tactic did for John McCain. Illinois voters will care more about his record, that President Obama and Senator Durbin and Acting Governor Pat Quinn support him, and that his GOP opponent represents the party of Dubya, Dick Cheney, and George Ryan. So unless Junior is another Carol Mosely Braun, he will certainly be elected to his own term in 2010 over his GOP opponent.
Irish Pirate,
There is one African-American candidate conspicuously missing from your list of suggestions: Dorothy Brown. She's the Clerk of Cook County's Circuit Court, and she's a CPA. You can't found a more non-threatening African-American candidate than that!
If you want to see why Dorothy Brown is not on the list do a search for the "expose" one of the local stations did on her security and driver issues last year. The woman came off as an entitled, weary, bitter nutjob. She has the driver hold her arm as she walks to the car, pick up her newspaper and more.
The interview she gave was DEVASTATING. Even one of the anchors was mocking her. I think it was ABC7. Her campaign for Mayor was a bad joke.
Your example of Seals being worse than JJJ in a statewide run doesn't hold water. The district Seals ran in is whiter, more Republican and more suburban than the state as a whole. Imagine JJJ running only in that district. My guess is Seals would do better.
Saying JJJ would "certainly" be elected in 2010 is certainly wrong. He might be elected. There ain't nuttin certain about it. If he had been appointed to the Senate seat then he would have had two years to show folks that he wasn't as scary and annoying as they think.
As I have said I think some of you are misoverestimating the "mouth from the South Side's" appeal to white voters. I understand the white devil. I am the white devil. While it is possible JJJ could win he would have a hard road to victory. I wouldn't vote for him in a primary and while he would likely get my general election vote it would cause me indigestion.
My choice for the Senate seat, besides myself of course, is Tammy Duckworth. She ran well in an overwhelmingly GOP district, is of Asian descent, female, and lost her legs as a soldier in Iraq. Hard to beat statewide. I'd love to see her run against one of the right wing GOP'ers.
It seems I was more right about that tombstone than even I knew. The Chicago Sun Times reports construction is already underway:http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/blagojevich/1356758,w-roland-burris-tombstone.article