home

Poll: 52% of Illinoisans Oppose Seating Burris

In case folks were wondering what the people of Illinois think of the Blago/Burris Farce:

Roland Burris is paying the price for an appointment that is tarnished and tainted by the cloud of corruption and scandal that hovers menacingly over the head of Gov. Rod Blagojevich, according to a new poll by the Glengariff Group. The poll indicates that 52 percent of Illinois voters oppose the appointment. Only 32 percent support it and only 21 percent approve of the governor's decision to exercise his appointment power, while 72 per cent want a special election or an appointment by Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn to fill the Senate seat. "I think rather than a judgment on Roland, this is a judgment on the process," said Don Rose, political analyst.

(Emphasis supplied.) By contrast, a plurality of Minnesotans support the seating of Al Franken. If all politics is local, then the questions of the political wisdom of seating Roland Burris has to be questioned. I oppose the seating of Burris on ethical grounds and believe the Constitution provides the Senate the legal power to judge the "return" of the tainted Blago appointment of Roland Burris. If and when Blago is removed from office and indicted and convicted, the politics of this will be even clearer. That will be closer to election day 2010.

Speaking for me only

< Obama: Gitmo Will Take Time to Close | Sunday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Things really look different now (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by joanneleon on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:18:34 AM EST
    that Blago has been impeached.  There's a lot of blame to go around on this issue, but I'll give the top spot to the Illinois legislature.  Once they decided to impeach they did it pretty darn quickly.  If they had done it weeks ago, this whole situation would have been easier to resolve.  At this point, it seems there is no good solution.  And everybody looks really bad.

    On second thought (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by joanneleon on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:21:55 AM EST
    the Dems in the Senate, and the people who pressured them, deserve to share that top spot.  If Harry Reid had held out longer, he would be in a much stronger position to continue to refuse Burris at this point.  

    I rarely, rarely defend Reid and I want the guy out of leadership, but this time I think he was under tremendous pressure from his own side.  He should have stuck to his guns, but more importantly, Obama should have stuck to his.

    Parent

    Reid had two choices on this (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:24:31 AM EST
    Accept a Blago appointment or fight one to the end.

    He chose neither.

    Of all the actors in this Farce, Reid has clearly been the stupidest.


    Parent

    The race card is very potent (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:25:20 AM EST
    Burris didn't play the race card (none / 0) (#29)
    by Pepe on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 12:42:09 PM EST
    The Black Caucus did but Burris didn't.

    But you are right in one respect, the race card can be very potent. Look what it did for Obama.

    Parent

    BS (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 12:54:06 PM EST
    Burris, by accepting a whole card game devised by Blagojevich where the ace is a race card, is most certainly playing the race card. Had he not wanted to play, he would have turned down the appointment like Davis did.

    Burris' hands are not clean, his own ambitions trumped his good sense.

    Parent

    You make no sense at all (none / 0) (#34)
    by Pepe on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 01:13:35 PM EST
    You don't describe how Burris played the race card. You don't even come close. You post is a misinformed innuendo at best.

    Parent
    Whether Burris himself played the race card (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 01:18:00 PM EST
    is beside the point.

    You have this manner of changing the subject from discussion of the process to discussion of Burris. That's when you're not telling bloggers what and what not to blog.

    Parent

    I didn't change the subject (2.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Pepe on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 01:42:20 PM EST
    I responded directly to the post. Can't you read?

    As for my suggesting that a subject has been beaten into the ground after BTD himself has already admitted that Burris is a done deal is just confirming what he has already said himself. And it echoes what many other posters here have already said themselves. It's done. Over. Move on.

    How about the economy? Isn't that an important and timely subject long over due for discussion on a political blog? I'd think most posters here would agree it is. Certainly all the other blogs think it is. And you don't?

    Parent

    You really need to start your own (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 01:43:49 PM EST
    blog to have any input/control on the subjects.  

    Parent
    You Are The Blind One Here (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 01:20:08 PM EST
    Burris is being used by Blagojevich, only because of his race, that is a fact. OK, I will concede that Burris' effort in raising money for Blagojevich may also be in play but only tangentially. Blagojevich's ploy would not have worked had he appointed a white male.

    This stupid decision on Burris' part will always be part of his record and has forever marred his integrity, whether or not he is seated.

    Parent

    My $0.02 (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by jbindc on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 01:26:42 PM EST
    Burris isn't being used any more than he is using Blago.  The two are close friends and Burris has been around the block long enough to know the score.  It was a mutually beneficial arrangement - Blago stuck it to Reid, the Senate, and the Illinois Leg all in one swoop and Burris will (probably) get to be a Senator, which is want he wants.

    Burris won't have his integrity marred one bit.  If he doesn't get seated, people will forget about him the next time American Idol comes on and he will slip away into a nice retirement.  If he does get seated, he is the incumbent in 2010 should he choose to run again.  And since incumbents win most of the time, he's golden.

    Parent

    Well you are the only one (none / 0) (#46)
    by Pepe on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 01:48:08 PM EST
    in all the blogs I have read suggesting such nonsense. And unsourced and unfounded nonsense at that. Not even BTD is suggesting the race card here is being played by Burris. No one credible here is suggesting such a thing. I think you are just pulling whatever you can out of a hat and posting it. It's silly and will get you no where. The fact that you have nothing to back up your assertion other that your imagination does nothing for you.

    Parent
    HuH? (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 02:27:13 PM EST
    Didn't you just say to andgarden that Burris is not playing the race card?

    How does that square with your ridiculous claim that I am the only one in the blogosphere that says Burris is tainted because he is colluding with Blagojevich who is clearly playing the race card.

    Do you think that Burris is a dumb idiot, who is unaware that Blagojevich chose him only because he is black?

    Parent

    you think Burris (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by lilburro on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 01:21:02 PM EST
    didn't know what Rush was going to say at the announcement?  

    Another example - Prince Riley, Burris' "senior consultant":

    But Reid's office isn't backing down on its plan to not seat Burris -- and top advisers to Burris are suggesting that Reid doesn't want an African-American to succeed Obama.

    "It's interesting that all those who are viable are white women and the ones who are unacceptable are black men," Prince Riley, a senior consultant to Burris, told Politico.

    Riley was alluding to a Chicago Sun-Times story Saturday indicating that Reid called Blagojevich on Dec. 3, shortly before the governor was arrested on corruption charges, including the allegation that he'd tried to sell Obama's Senate seat to the highest bidder.

    Race card!  Tammy Duckworth identifies as Asian-American.


    Parent

    No I don't (none / 0) (#47)
    by Pepe on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 01:57:14 PM EST
    You are so desperate that now you are saying Burris not only can divine what Rush is going to say but that he should base his actions on what Rush says?

    I've read some silly stuff on blogs before but this one ranks right up there. If you think about what you wrote even you would agree with that.

    I suppose Obama should worry about Rush too!  After all Obama just said Burris is "a fine public servant" and  he's "going to work with Roland Burris". Oh no! What is Rush going to say about that? You better start emailing congress that we need to run everything though Rush to get his approval so as to not misstep! LOL!!!! We wouldn't want Rush making stuff up you know. Not that he ever has!!! Gees!

    Parent

    What was your reaction to the (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 02:10:08 PM EST
    BET founder who intro'd Hillary Clinton before she came on stage in, was it, South Carolina?

    Parent
    That has nothing to do (none / 0) (#51)
    by Pepe on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 02:18:20 PM EST
    with Burris. Nothing.

    I'm not going to get drawn into the obscure and highly imaginative stuff you guys are trying to pull out today for God knows what reason.

    Must be the full moon.

    Parent

    The Bob Johnson (none / 0) (#55)
    by lilburro on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 02:32:21 PM EST
    remarks were accompanied by an elaborate apology process - here.  The Blago/Burris situation is developing rather differently. Ex:

    Despite Rush's statements, Obama, the first African-American to be elected president, said he sides with U.S. Senate Democratic leaders in wanting the appointment of Burris or anyone else chosen by Blagojevich to be rejected.

    Burris, appearing this morning on WGN-TV, defended Rush's comments and denied the South Side congressman -- whom Burris invited to yesterday's U.S. Senate announcement--was playing racial politics.

    Rush, Burris said, was just relating "facts and not playing the race card and not being emotional about it."

    As for Rush, in his interview this morning, he harkened to the days of segregation and the civil rights battles in Little Rock, Ark., and in Alabama in the 1950s and 1960s in warning the U.S. Senate Democratic majority shouldn't try to block Burris.



    Parent
    Good comment. lilburro "gets" it. (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 02:42:20 PM EST
    To point out racial disparities (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 03:00:11 PM EST
    and imbalances of power was not Rush playing the race card, I agree.  We have to be able to discuss things like no African Americans in the Senate -- or no women Presidents or Vice Presidents -- to be able to ever progress.

    But to use Clarence Thomasian terms like "lynching" in this case was playing the race card.  It diminishes the horror of the actual victims of lynching (including their families, communities, etc.).  And it's so unnecessary, so over the top, and stops the possibility of reasonable discourse about make progress to never again face, well, statistics like no African Americans in the Senate.

    Parent

    Hindsight is 20-20 (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:23:18 AM EST
    The question is what do you do now?

    This poll result will only get worse as the Blago removal trial in the Illinois Senate gets underway, when he is removed from office, when he is indicted and then convicted.    

    Parent

    Any idea on the timeline for the (none / 0) (#11)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:24:03 AM EST
    Senate trial?

    Parent
    Hearings have been scheduled (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:30:11 AM EST
    for the last week of January -- scheduled for some time now -- and legislators have stated that it could take until mid-February.

    Parent
    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:48:11 AM EST
    I imagine it will take (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:25:05 AM EST
    2 weeks and will start in about 2 weeks.

    Parent
    The best thing that could happen (none / 0) (#32)
    by joanneleon on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 01:08:37 PM EST
    is for Harry Reid to reverse his position again, and in light of the impeachment, refuse to seat Burris.  Then the IL Senate has to move very quickly and convict Blago.  I say this because I assume, with the tapes, it should be a "slam dunk."  Then the Lt. Gov. should appoint someone.

    I think this is a very viable solution, but I doubt it will happen that way.

    The only better option to the Lt. Gov. appointment is a special election, and that would actually be my preference.  I think it's silly to worry so much about a Republican senator being elected given that IL just produced a hugely popular Democratic president.  The only reason I don't think that a special election is the best option is because it leaves a Senate seat empty for too long at a time when the country direly needs a Senate that can pass legislation.  If a special election could be done quickly, I'd be all for it.

    One last thought.  Why is it that the Democratic party has so little confidence at a time when they have so much power?  It's truly unbelievable.  They really are out of touch with the sentiments of the people.  I don't understand how they could still be so out of touch, but they are.  As I watch Nancy Pelosi with her radiant smile in interviews, talking about the inauguration... well, whatever.  They need to spend more time with real people.

    Parent

    Because (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by jbindc on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 01:15:45 PM EST
    This whole fiasco has highlighted how corrupt the Democrats are in Illinois?

    .... Harry Reid to reverse his position again, and in light of the impeachment, refuse to seat Burris.  Then the IL Senate has to move very quickly and convict Blago.  I say this because I assume, with the tapes, it should be a "slam dunk."  Then the Lt. Gov. should appoint someone.

    This of course, assumes that another legal snafu is not opened up.  By that I mean that, as of now, there already is an appointment, sorta blessed by the Illinois SC.  There may be a question as to whether Quinn could make another appointment - especially if the Senate drags its heels and keeps Burris in limbo.

    Parent

    Good points, (none / 0) (#86)
    by joanneleon on Mon Jan 12, 2009 at 05:58:32 AM EST
    all.

    Parent
    Its not what the people of IL want (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Saul on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:25:11 AM EST
    Obama has spoken & this overrides everything.

    Obama to Reid

    Settle this embarrassment now and seat Burris. This is making my inauguration look bad.

    No way then can back pedal now and not seat Burris.

    Obama can backpedal just fine... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by pmj6 on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 02:01:28 PM EST
    ...and leave everyone else in the dust wondering where that latest backflip came from. I wonder how Lawrence Tribe is feeling, having written this wonderful article about Obama's grasp of the Constitution, only to have Obama...change his mind.

    Parent
    the Constitution doesn't empower Senate to Block (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by blogname on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:38:47 AM EST
    Burris.  And voters should blame Democrats for not having a recall. Although they spewed endlessly about how having Blago pick the next Senator would lack credibility, they refused to hold a recall election because they feared Republicans would win. I guess putting the state above the party is just a slogan.

    They didn't want a special election, (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by esmense on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 03:27:35 PM EST
    they did want influence, even control, over who ended up in the seat. From the beginning, that desire has been the primary motivator in terms of how they have handled, and mishandled, this affair. If their concern had primarily and simply been to see the seat occupied by an "untainted" candidate they would have, as you suggest, supported a special election. And, they would not have so vulnerable to being ignominously played and out-maneuvered by either Blogo or Burris.

    Parent
    Blogo could have vetoed special election (none / 0) (#82)
    by esmense on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:38:51 PM EST
    I hadn't realized that earlier, but, apparently, the Governor could have vetoed legislation calling for a special election and gone ahead and made the appointment anyway. It appears that those who wanted to prevent his appointee from being seated really have been playing with a very weak hand. Especially considering Blago has no decency to appeal to.

    Parent
    Many of us think you are wrong (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:42:24 AM EST
    about what the Constitution says.

    Parent
    Not "says." "Means." (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:43:35 AM EST
    clearly wrong as to what its says (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:44:22 AM EST
    yup (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:47:56 AM EST
    Of course Article 1, Section 5 (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:43:56 AM EST
    given a plain reading of the text does indeed empower the senate to do just that. We have discussed the Powell case at this blog at length. I can accept disagreement but not willful blindness of the arguments that have been presented. I chose not to repeat them again because it did not seem necessary.

    The rest of your comment seems confused. You mean a special election, not a recall election.

    What is interesting to me in that of course is Blago could have appointed someone while Fitzgerald was having his press conference, while sitting in jail even.

    In terms of the legal questions, this notion that the Illinois legislature "could have moved faster" is absurd. They could never have moved faster than Blagojevich's pen.

    Parent

    Although that pen wasn't put to paper (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:46:15 AM EST
    until the 50 Senators sent their letter.

    Parent
    If you're going to muscle a (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by oldpro on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 01:03:01 PM EST
    streetfighter, you better bring muscle to the fight.

    Or a strategy.

    Inventing tactics on the fly isn't a good idea if you don't know the endgame.

    Maxine Waters said on MTP this morning that Burris 'has the law on his side' and will be seated.

    It seems now that what Burris has on his side is the black community.  Democrats will acknowledge that political reality IMO.

    Parent

    I did a mini-poll at a party last (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 01:11:49 PM EST
    night.  The whole Article I, section 5 issue rated a big "huh"? followed by a quick change of subject.

    Parent
    Before or after the drinks were served? (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by jbindc on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 01:16:35 PM EST
    :)

    Parent
    During. (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 01:27:50 PM EST
    Were these other lawyers? (none / 0) (#36)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 01:15:55 PM EST
    No lawyers and no blog addicts. (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 01:27:33 PM EST
    My pollees are Dems.. and "up" on political news.

    Parent
    So....did they think Burris should, (none / 0) (#58)
    by oldpro on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 02:57:58 PM EST
    or would, be seated?

    Parent
    They knew about the Gov. (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 03:39:29 PM EST
    being arrested and his subsequent appointement of Burris.  That was about it.  No opinions as to what should happen re the appointment.  

    Parent
    Typical "in-the-know Dems." (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by oldpro on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 05:05:25 PM EST
    Gotta love 'em...

    Parent
    O/T (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 02:15:02 PM EST
    but since a BTD thread still somewhat valid...

    At The Swamp today before a crowd celebrating the school's latest national title...

    Tebow thrilled the crowd by saying: "Oh, by the way let's do it again. I'm coming back."

    Ah. And Percy? (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 02:19:45 PM EST
    P.S.  Finally got to see the Gator Chomp.  Cute.  

    Parent
    BTD writes (1.00 / 1) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 02:28:12 PM EST
    a plurality of Minnesotans support the seating of Al Franken.

    A poll by Daily KOS says seat the Demo? Wow!
    Dog bites man!

    .......and even then you can't get a majority?

    ......and even with a 7% edge of Demos polled over Repubs?

    Wow wow!

    Research 2000 (none / 0) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 03:42:16 PM EST
    conducted the poll for daily kos. The results are comparable to those garnered by SUSA.

    Parent
    Very interesting information. (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:07:41 AM EST
    Perhaps the people of Illinois do not object to having a vacancy for the time needed to stage a special election.  

    What is interesting about 52%? (3.66 / 3) (#27)
    by Pepe on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 12:25:11 PM EST
    That is well within the margin of error of any poll. It would be fair to say that it is closer to a 50/50 split with the 50% against being of the same mindset that BTD is - they don't understand the law. Nor do they understand that Obama, after giving orders to not seat Burris, has now come out and said seat him. Of course the 50% against Burris don't read the news in depth either.

    I know Roland Burris. Obviously, I've -- he's from my home state. I think he's a fine public servant. If he gets seated, then I'm going to work with Roland Burris, just like I work with all the other senators, to make sure that the people of Illinois and the people of the country are served.

    ~ Omama

    How much longer is this blog going to look foolish by beating this 'over and done with' story into the ground? Surely there are more important things to write about - that is if one is reading the news. Suggestion: How about discussing the laughable stimulus package that has been in the news for weeks but absent from this blog? Or perhaps Burris is a smoke screen to avoid that conversation?

    Whatever the case this blog is "weeks" behind other blogs in discussing the most important issue facing the country today, the economy. You know, the economy that this blog couldn't say enough about during the primaries and election but is MIA with now.

    Parent

    There will never be (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:11:38 AM EST
    a special election for this seat.

    Parent
    Never say "never." See: Harry Reid. (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:12:47 AM EST
    I say never for this. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:13:50 AM EST
    However, I did predict that Reid would cave on seating. He always does.

    Parent
    Well Reid caved after (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Pepe on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 12:37:00 PM EST
    Obama gave him orders to cave. Which coincendently came a day or two after Obama appointee Richardson came under similar scrutiny for 'play for pay'.

    Perhaps Obama realizes that his own 'play for pay' as evidenced in the unbalance stimulus package along with the likes of Dems taking Dems down like Blago and Richardson and who knows how many more is not exactly good for Obama's own political future or those of the party. And perhaps that is why most Dem promoting blogs have long walked away from this issue and moved on to more important matters.

    Parent

    Democrats don't want a special election (none / 0) (#2)
    by esmense on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:11:22 AM EST


    So, 72 percent want a special election. (none / 0) (#6)
    by EL seattle on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:14:14 AM EST
    I think that 72 percent is a pretty big number.

    Did the poll state how expensive that special election would be, or ask folks what they thought of the "special election is too expensive!" arguement?

    Or Seating by Quinn (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:46:56 AM EST
    I don't see any details (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:15:07 AM EST
    about this poll.

    I hate it when news outlets take a poll and then keep the crosstabs (heck, even the toplines) to themselves.

    And the order of questions asked (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 11:29:03 AM EST
    and actual wording of all questions and etcetera.  All are factors that influence results.

    The lack of application of "precision journalism," as it's called -- despite it being taught for years now -- is appalling.  I have witnessed how media  misstatements of such studies change elections.

    Parent

    USA Today - Gallup (none / 0) (#56)
    by jbindc on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 02:32:23 PM EST
    says 51% oppose, but when you look at the numbers, 27% say to seat him and 1 in 5 have no opinion.  +/- 3%.

    Dead even.

    Link

    Ah, at last -- note the date (none / 0) (#60)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 03:02:59 PM EST
    which I could not find in the link above in this post.  (Journalists also drive me nuts with vagaries like "a new poll.")

    January 5 was before the Senate debacle this week, replayed on teevee many times, of a black man being turned away at the door, as it were, of our Capitol.

    It would be useful to see a poll conducted since.

    Parent

    I.e., most Illinoisans opposed, past tense (none / 0) (#61)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 03:05:31 PM EST
    is how the header of this post ought to read -- most Illinoisans among those polled at some unknown point for a "new" poll . . . unless someone else can find a date in BTD's link that I missed?

    Parent
    Um (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 03:13:07 PM EST
    you really have lost all credibility to me.

    Parent
    Understood, as I share the sentiment. (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 03:27:08 PM EST
    Then it would be nice (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 03:32:05 PM EST
    if you would depart from my threads please.

    I have had enough of you.

    I request you stay out of my threads.

    BTW, the Gallup poll polled Americans. Try reading the story sometime before you comment.

    Parent

    First, I know that's what it said (5.00 / 0) (#77)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 03:44:48 PM EST
    and I made a distinction in my comment between the Gallup poll of Americans and the link you gave to some "new" but undated poll of Illinoisans.

    As for the rest, fine.  I still can do what I mainly come here to do, which is to see what the good commenters worth following here -- those who did not come over to the new board -- have to say.  

    I will miss engaging with them, but if your decision is to continue to close down discourse on a blog -- well, it's an odd thing to do, considering the purpose of a blog.  But I do hope you stop before shutting down too many more, as there is so little to learn from those who only agree with you with deep discourse ranging from the sycophantic "heh" to the dismissive "meh."

    Parent

    When you engage in intelligent discourse (none / 0) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 03:55:17 PM EST
    that will be something new as compared to your recent commenting.

    Even now you do not acknowledge your errors - clearly you were trying to compare the Gallup results to this poll - even though the respondent pool was different.

    And even when doing that, you ignored the actual findings - which are in line between the polls.

    Many persons here have commented disagreeing with my analysis, both on the law and the politics. But most have tried to argue the points honestly and fairly. In my view, you have not.

    And this is not the only issue.

    I want my threads to be an oasis for honest intelligent discussion.

    Some commenters are known not to do that and most folks in the threads have learned to ingore those who do not do that.

    You have a lot capital to expend due to your long history of good commenting, both here and at daily kos. you have abandoned your prior approach for months now, in my view.

    You now state quite openly that you think I have no credibility. Given that, I see no reason for you to participate in my threads.

    I have always been strict in my threads. I will continue to be. The last few months, your commenting has simply not been fair, honest or intelligent in my view. I am not happy to have you commenting in my threads at this time. It is with great regret that I judge the downward trajectory of your participation here, at least in my threads. It gives me no pleasure, but I am calling it as I see it. And acting in a way that I think promotes good, honest intelligent discourse in my threads.

    Are you the worst commenter in my threads now? Probably not, but your comments are conspicuous in that we came to expect and get much much better from you. The contrast between how your previously commented and how you do now is striking. to me, you have become a standard issue dkos commenter, and that is a shame.    

    Parent

    FWIW, I'd rather see CC stay. (5.00 / 5) (#85)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 05:12:56 PM EST
    She's well informed on numerous topics.


    Parent
    Ha, good litigator trick (none / 0) (#80)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:34:21 PM EST
    with the low blow, from one who ought to know as a standard dkos diarist for years.

    But there is that pesky problem of evidence, with so much incorrect here.  Whatever; it's not worth it.  Back I go to the former posters here who gave up on such nonsense and nastiness.

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:36:15 PM EST
    Join the "former posters." That's what I asked. thank you for respecting my request.

    Parent
    So (none / 0) (#62)
    by jbindc on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 03:06:15 PM EST
    if the numbers between the polls match up, not much has changed between pre-Senate debacle and post-Senate debacle.

    My guess is most people don't care one way or the other.

    Parent

    Excuse me (none / 0) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 03:33:04 PM EST
    Your point is valid of course but can I just indicate something to you? Americans is not the same as Illinoisans.

    Parent
    To clarify (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 03:40:32 PM EST
    Gallup polled the entire country, the poll  cite in this post is a poll of Illinois residents.

    Parent
    Fair point (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by jbindc on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 03:41:37 PM EST
    But this poll was conducted by the Glengariff Group, whose CEO planned the inaugural events for former (Republican) governor John Engler  and who donates money on a regular basis to Republicans.  Do you think he may not like Blago or have a bias?  I don't know.

    I'd be interested to see the +/- on this poll and the questions asked before stating emphatically that a majority of people in Illinois don't want Burris seated.

    Parent

    Do you think (none / 0) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 03:43:47 PM EST
    anyone likes Blago? Poll skepticism is fine.

    But I do not see the angle you seem willing to adopt in this poll.

    It may be flawed, we did not see the questions, but it seems unlikely.

    Parent

    Let me add you have no qualms stating (none / 0) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:02:49 PM EST
    emphatically "51% +/-3% means about half the people don't want him seated (depending on the date the poll was taken). Which means about half want him seated or don't really care."

    That is simply dishonest. According to the poll you cited (Gallup) 27% want him seated but you pretend that means half want Burris seated.

    That is the type of false argument I do not want in my threads. Tell me you do not believe the poll and I will respect your point of view.

    Parent

    I don't believe ANY of these polls (none / 0) (#83)
    by jbindc on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 04:58:14 PM EST
    Too many people have opinions on this that don't really know what's going on.

    Parent
    Dead heat? Sheesh (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 03:12:29 PM EST
    Some of you are unbelievable.

    A 24 point spread amounts to a dead heat?

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by jbindc on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 03:22:15 PM EST
    51% +/-3% means about half the people don't want him seated (depending on the date the poll was taken).

    Which means about half want him seated or don't really care.

    Parent

    75% do not want him seated (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 03:30:07 PM EST
    or do not really care.

    See how stupid it is?

    Please. I want intelligence in my comment threads.

    Parent

    OT: Donna Smith from Sicko live blogging... (none / 0) (#65)
    by lambert on Sun Jan 11, 2009 at 03:20:51 PM EST
    ... live blogging on single payer now*

    (She's also from the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee.)

    NOTE * 4PM EST.