AP: African American Pastors To Ask Burris To Resign

The wheels are coming off for Roland Burris:

A Chicago minister tells The Associated Press he and other black pastors who previously supported U.S. Sen. Roland Burris now plan to ask him to resign. The minister spoke Thursday on condition of anonymity because a meeting with Burris hadn't yet been scheduled. He says the senator can no longer serve effectively.

< Politico's Mission Statement | President Obama And PM Harper On NAFTA >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Burris has such a monumental ego... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by byteb on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 06:56:54 PM EST
    I wonder if the pastors' pleas will fall on deaf ears.

    Probably depends on who the pastor is (none / 0) (#9)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 07:06:57 PM EST
    or pastors are. I guess I'm just cynical, but this intervention by ministers seems strange. Do the churches control Chicago?

    I admire this group of clergy for (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 07:15:22 PM EST
    speaking out.

    No. Not even God (none / 0) (#11)
    by oldpro on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 07:23:21 PM EST
    controls Chicago...if there is a god, that is.

    The Hoffas and the Daleys control Chicago.

    With help.


    Obama has a lot of control now (none / 0) (#12)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 07:30:35 PM EST
    in Chicago, and I would bet that the ministers have been asked to front this, to try to make Burris just go away.

    That's because the Senate may be most reluctant to expel the only African American in the Senate as BTD suggests will come.

    I would bet on censure, unless more comes out.  Of course, the way this has been going -- the Chicago Way, all the way -- more will come out.


    So Priests get to judge who should (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by tigercourse on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 07:47:24 PM EST
    and should not be Senator? I don't support Burris but this is ridiculous. I hope he laughs in their face.

    I guess we'll see who wears the (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 07:48:22 PM EST
    hierophants in this dispute.

    Did you just fall off the turnip truck? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 07:48:21 PM EST
    Or are you really this clueless on the political power wielded by African American pastors?

    Actually both. I am clueless and I did (3.67 / 3) (#16)
    by tigercourse on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 07:50:31 PM EST
    just fall off the turnip truck. Believe me, I've seen first hand in the primary how powerful every level of the AA political machine is. That doesn't mean I have to like it.

    THe "AA political machine" (3.50 / 2) (#36)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 08:11:08 AM EST
    This machine plus the Jews control the world, don't you know (snark).  I think you need to take a history lesson or just go into a urban area to see how powerful and influential this group is.  

    It was a primary (a battle between politicians) please let it go.


    Are you denying that African Americans (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by tigercourse on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 09:57:49 AM EST
    are very powerful in the Democratic party? Really?

    Don't tell me to take a history lesson if you are going to deny basic facts.


    These Particular AA Ministers (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by daring grace on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 01:33:17 PM EST
    seem to be trying to wield their influence as former supporters of Burris.

    And, yeah, I can imagine places where Democrats get elected with little or no AA support. There are places with insignificant AA populations that elect Dems to local offices and to congress.

    So, in that sense there are Dems for whom the 'power' of AAs in the party is irrelevant to their own election or re-election aims. Really.


    Yes they get voters to the polls on election day (2.00 / 1) (#45)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 10:47:40 AM EST
    I guess you have a problem with that if many of them didn't support your candidate in the primaries?  The Black church is great as long as they go along right?  

    Stop fighting a fight that is over, and stop attacking an institution that 1)is saying we don't want this guy representing us and 2)has done amazing things (and still does) to move this country forward.


    When did I ever say that I have a problem (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by tigercourse on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 12:47:02 PM EST
    with AA's having power in the party? It was never even implied anywhere. I don't think the "Black Church" or any other church is great under many circumstances. I don't give a damn who the priests support, just like I don't give a damn who the Pope or Rick Warren supports.

    And the fight to lessen religious control over political life is never over. And Burris doesn't represent the church, he represents the citizens. If the people don't want him, that's fine. If the Church doesn't want him, I don't care.


    Historically, churches ... (none / 0) (#61)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 02:22:17 PM EST
    were used by AA's for organizing politically, because it was one of the only places they could safely meet in large numbers.

    Talking about the NATIONAL (none / 0) (#62)
    by jondee on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 03:18:44 PM EST
    Democratic Party?

    I dont see many indicators from the Clinton Administration that AA's are particularly "very powerful" in the Democratic Party.

    Or do you mean "very powerful" when compared to the almost no-power-at-all they wield in the GOP?


    How about unions? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 08:06:03 PM EST
    Or interest groups?

    Should they have a say?


    Unions deal with workers rights (none / 0) (#19)
    by tigercourse on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 08:21:30 PM EST
    to collectivley bargain. Interest groups represent specific issues and people in an attempt to shape political agendas. Religious leaders represent the very ethereal concept of the soul and it's destination in an afterlife. They also show up at funerals and weddings for a fee, say a few words and swan off. Their opinions are about as meaningful as palm readers and DJs.

    African american religious leaders (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 08:34:26 PM EST
    are something different, as you must know.

    SCLC? You heard of that I assume?

    This is getting absurd.


    SCLC actually founded (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 08:44:22 PM EST
    by lay workers -- especially the great Ella Baker -- as much or more than ministers.  Little known, though, because the history books give all the credit to the man of the cloth who brought it publicity aka MLK.  

    That's just a detail, of course.  The role of the minister in the African American community is so central and goes back much farther -- often because they were the first literate or at least schooled members of the community.  

    The founder of the first black newspaper in this country was a minister -- and thus, the community found its voice.  The pulpit and the press have been so intertwined for almost two centuries that no one ought to take these ministers lightly.

    All that said, this may just mean that the race is on to replace Burris at the next election, as it signals that he will not have the leadership of the community behind him.  Whether it can have impact now is to be seen (but I'm betting that more will come out to shift this again, anyway).


    What I mean to say, I guess (none / 0) (#23)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 08:49:41 PM EST
    is that there's less separation of church and state in some of the AA community than in the pagan outposts of a lot of others of us.:-)

    The coolest non told story (none / 0) (#46)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 10:51:51 AM EST
    Of the civil rights movement that I know of is that it was a 16 year old girl who started the fight that later turned into Brown vs. Board of Education.  

    You mean the Kansas family (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 10:59:12 AM EST
    the Browns?  The daughter was much younger, from photos I have found.  I'll have to look into her age (maybe 16 by the time it got to SCOTUS?).

    Fascinating thing I find about the case is that it was not Southern but Midwestern -- also the site of the first lunch counter sit-down strikes and other activities before Greensboro.  But the media wanted to make it a story about the awful South, and they made the most of MLK and others to take the focus off the problems in their own backyards. . . .


    The midwest and north (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by CST on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 11:09:38 AM EST
    Were home to most of this country's "sundown towns".

    The dynamic of racism in the South was very different from the north.  In the south, it was "keep them in their place".  In the north/midwest it was "keep them out".  That's a big part of how most black people ended up in the cities in the north during the great migration (they were mostly farmers before). But we tend to ignore that part of history.


    You've read the book Sundown Towns? (none / 0) (#64)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 10:22:09 PM EST
    It's quite a read -- and the website continues the project, as people report more such towns in past.

    Always surprising to me, too, is how many people don't realize that the worst race riots, for a century now, were in the Midwest -- where the Great Migration had such great impact.


    Ah, you mean the Prince Edward (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 11:07:51 AM EST
    county case in Virginia that was one of the many merged into Brown v. BOE.  Got it -- and thanks for reminding me of it; I've bookmarked info to get back to it. . . .

    Interesting, re this thread, that the 16-year-old girl was the daughter of a major local civil rights leader -- a minister, of course. :-)


    Her major relationship (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 12:14:43 PM EST
    Is that she is the niece of Vernon Johns who was the the trouble making preacher that the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church got rid of so they could control the the young Martin Luther King Jr.  It is amazing how all these people were connected.

    Vernon Johns is one cool dude.  One of those genius self taught guys.


    Not every African American who takes (1.00 / 1) (#24)
    by tigercourse on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 08:51:10 PM EST
    a correspondence course at BaptistChurch.com is Martin Luther King Jr. Yes, I get it, preachers are powerful in the AA community. I'm just saying that it's ridiculous that after all the crud Blago and Burris pulled, it's the say so of a bunch of leeches that is supposed to make the difference.

    It's about political support (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 08:54:40 PM EST
    You focus on the wrong detail.

    You're probably right. (none / 0) (#26)
    by tigercourse on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 08:59:38 PM EST
    "A bunch of leeches"? (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 09:11:29 PM EST
    Do not confuse a few with the many.

    Nonsense (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by daring grace on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 01:47:39 PM EST
    In a very real sense (and even more in AA communities than others) churches and ministers are at the core of daily life.

    Not just in an "ethereal" way relating to the soul, but in very tangible ways relating to day to day experiences. Churches in urban settings have long been centers for all kinds of secular support and community identity.

    That makes their opinions very relevant--if you're interested in hearing from their communities, that is.


    Not Just AA Pastors (none / 0) (#55)
    by squeaky on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 12:45:22 PM EST
    Rick Warren et al are also very influential.

    Were the wheels ever on Burris' bus? (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 10:33:47 PM EST
    I mean, didn't anyone notice that all the lug nuts had not been put back on?

    Burris is now channeling Blago, saying that despite what has been revealed, he didn't do anything wrong.  And I get the distinct impression he knows that if the Dems could be rolled to let him into the Senate, all he has to do is hold firm and they won't be showing him the door.

    Rollover Dems are no match for Chicago politicians.

    That's the truth. (none / 0) (#29)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 10:37:44 PM EST
    And so is what he says: He didn't do anything wrong, by Chicago Roolz.  

    Therefore, what I don't get in this (none / 0) (#30)
    by Cream City on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 10:44:29 PM EST
    is not about what Burris was thinking.  This is a man who has not really been out of Illinois or far from Chicago before.

    But what the heck was Obama thinking?  He had to know that, with his too-early resignation, this would turn into a Chicago-style free-for-all, as it has.  And Obama is this worldly guy, growng up in lots of countries and lived in a few states in different parts of this country, and he knew D.C. by now (even if he never had been to the Lincoln Memorial 'til now . . . I find that astonishing:-).  He had to know the sort of pol that would play in Peoria and in D.C.

    The thing to do, Chicago-style, is to get it all arranged before bailing.  And that Rahm does not seem to have quite done so, either -- I just don't understand it.  Too busy vetting all those Cabinet members who sailed through confirmation?  Uh, well, no.  Too busy setting up smooth sailing for the stimulus bill?  Uh, no, again.  I really, really hope for our sakes that it wasn't because of being too busy planning the inauguration parties.


    You ask "What was Obama thinking ... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by scribe on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 01:52:35 AM EST
    knowing this would likely turn into a Chicago free-for-all?"

    I suspect that it was something along the lines of "Oh, boy, is this greaaaat!" or "This is going to be fun."  

    I believe that, to the extent he cared about how this turned out, he was fully comfortable with the way it has turned out and is turning out, in the sense that one who sits on their sofa and watches through the living room window as a multi-car pileup happens outside is comfortable.  

    In other words, he knew these knuckleheads were going to:

    (a) be true to themselves and remain knuckleheads,

    (b) act in a knucklehead manner,

    (c) do a good job  

    (1) of taking each other out in their knuckleheadedness, and

    (2) of

    (A) providing entertainment for the chattering classes (if you're reading this, you're a member), and

    (B) giving him time and breathing space (particularly vis-a-vis the TradMed, by keeping it occupied with nonsense) while he was building his administration to get some things done, by the sheer buffoonish entertainment value of their escapades, and

    (3) making himself look even better (in his "No Drama Obama" t-shirt and O.P. shorts) by comparison, and

    (d) likely all wind up in jail, giving him both
    (1) some law-and-order street cred against white collar idiots and

    (2) inocculate himself against charges of "partisanship" (not that the charges won't be thrown) when the inevitable criminal cases against some Republicans over the last 8 years have to get filed, b/c he and his defenders will be able to point to all the Democrats already in trouble as Exhibit A (titled "Non-partisanship in Prosecutions and Career Destruction of Politicians") and

    (e) ultimately leave the field clear for him, because even if these knuckleheads somehow don't wind up in jail, their careers as politicians will still wind up as flaming wreckage grinding to a halt.

    Actually, this was one of the more easy pieces of political jiujitsu out there, and one that was coming about as subtly as a freight train.  He just had to stand out of the way and let it happen.

    And he did.


    I've started to think of Obama (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 06:51:29 AM EST
    as being perpetually on the sidelines, and more than a little detached from what's happening on the field.

    Maybe that's because it's easier to tell which direction to go in, or which side he should be on, when he isn't in the middle of the fray - I don't know.

    I will never understand why he resigned so quickly; sticking around - as Hillary did - might have allowed the process of naming his replacement to have gone a lot differently than it did, and avoided the whole thing with Dems taking a stand they couldn't maintain, and omce again looking foolish and weak.

    But I'm not sure Obama really thought about anyone but himself; gee, what a surprise.


    As to why Obama resigned so quickly (none / 0) (#35)
    by scribe on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 08:09:11 AM EST
    I suspect it was for two reasons.  First, precisely to allow this sort of chicanery to unfold, explode and burn most of the way through itself prior to his having to push some legislation through.  Second, to be serving only one master at a time, as it were.  

    Can you imagine trying to get the stimulus bill passed (where, b/c of Senate rules, a 3/5 majority was needed) at the height of the Blago press frenzy?  Think back to early December:  for a while there it was all Blago, all the time.  The bill would still be bundled up, if not defeated outright.

    Moreover, he knows these people from being in Illinois politics, and knows whence they come and how they will behave.  Everyone in the public "knew"[1] that Blago was presumed dirty and it was public knowledge he was under investigation by Fitz.  Even I - no maven on Illinois politics - smelled "Blago's trying something funny with Obama's seat" the minute Valerie Jarrett was announced as out of the running for it.  That was before Blago's arrest.  I recall emailing someone with one of those "just thinking out loud emails" that asked whether they thought (as I did) that Blago was trying to auction Obama's seat.  One has to wonder just how much more detail those on the inside in Illinois politics "knew" about Blago and his machinations....

    The second - two masters - issue, is more traditional.  Remember, he started the day dafter the election with having Harry Reid bringing Lieberman back off the ledge with McCain, and on schmoozing everyone on the Hill.  In addition, he had to start putting together his appointments - from the WH staff out.  I get the feeling he is not as much of a delegator as were, say, Reagan or Bush The Second, and wants to have a lot of decisions run by him.  I also get the feeling he wants to kick things around in whatever group of advisors he has around him.  Those things take time - a lot of time - and that was time which could not be spent on things like making sure Mrs. Jones from Peoria got her Social Security checks and Mr. Smith from Evanston got an answer about why he couldn't import parrots.  Or all the other constituent service things a Senator has to do.

    Also, by resigning early, he took himself out from under the leadership of the Senate - he didn't have a lot of seniority - and made clear he was not involved (outwardly or in public, at least) in devising how the leadership and organizing resolutions for the current Senate would be reached.

    HRC is an entirely different case.  If you'd have paid attention then or remembered now, you would have noticed that the minute Obama named her as SecState designate, there was a bum's rush to get Caroline Kennedy named as her replacement.  "Oh, wouldn't it be so wonderful to get another Kennedy in the Senate", "Oh, if only her father could see this", and you heard all the other lines that were used to pitch her candidacy.  No vetting at all.

    The fact is, Caroline Kennedy would have been Bloomberg's Senator.  He was behind pushing for her to be in that office, he was behind most of the press pushing her, and he stood to benefit most by her being there.  And he, as it turned out, stood to benefit most from her relative inarticulacy because the people of New York would have looked at her, come the next election to fill that seat and said "no.  She's nice, but ineffectual."  And Bloomberg or someone he controlled would have waltzed into the seat.

    HRC's delay gave Patterson a chance to let the foam subside and the truth come to the surface.  It appears he had 14 people who expressed their interest and whom he had vetted to one degree or another.  Could he have handled the decision better?  Sure - but that's not HRC's fault.  He fumbled the ball on how to make the decision and tell the disappointed office-seekers, but he didn't make the wrong decision (I think Gillibrand will be an excellent Senator, BTW).

    Moreover, HRC had every reason not to resign early.  Clinton Derangement Syndrome was still there.  Recall that immediately upon her designation the Rethugs in the Senate were promising to make a mess of her confirmation hearings.  Recall that even after her impressive showing in the hearings, a couple Rethugs (Diaper Dave Vitter, IIRC was one of them) voted against her, not because of her record, but because of her husband's.  And because of her husband's charity.  

    That was while she was still in the Senate.  If they had voted her down, she would remained a senator and able to block their pet projects and bills.  They knew she would have exacted revenge and, with the seniority she had accrued, had the juice to make it stick - not only in the Senate but also with the Admin.  

    If she had resigned prior to the committee and Senate votes, she would have been powerless to do anything on losing and have been out of the Senate.  The other senators would have instantly recognized that.  The Rethugs would have been handed a golden opportunity to both remove HRC from their midst (at no cost to themselves and something they could trumpet to their HRC-hatin' base while simultaneously waving her comeback as a threat to their base's parochial interests) and to hand Obama the huge shiner of another "failed" nomination[2].  Recall there is nothing the Rethugs want more than to have Obama fail.  They admit it is their only way back into power.

    After going-on 20 years of some of the most vicious personal attacks anyone in American politics has ever taken, do you think HRC knows the Rethugs' game?  I do.

    So, HRC played them.


    [1]  In that intuitive way one (particularly us lawyers) know someone is trouble or not, a liar or not, and so on.

    [2]  I don't think the nominations of Tom Daschle and others which have "Failed" are really failures, regardless of what the media says.  Daschle was perhaps the most egregious example of someone who, by virtue of his relative closeness and assistance to Obama, had to get a cabinet nomination.  But, at the same time, he was deeply tied into the lobbying revolving door and would not have made a whit of difference for regular people, but would have made a lot of money for Pharma.  By setting (and seeming to enforce) high standards of personal conduct for appointees, Obama managed (intentionally or not) to both do "right" by Daschle and keep him out of the cabinet.  Was he good, or just lucky?  I dunno.  


    I agree that comparing (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 08:39:33 AM EST
    Obama's situation to Hillary's is an apples/oranges thing, but I guess I was looking more at how Hillary waiting until she was confirmed to resign gave the process of naming her replacement more time to settle; I'm pretty sure we'd be calling Caroline Kennedy "Senator" had Hillary resigned the moment Obama nominated her to his Cabinet.

    Of course, that would have given the Clinton-haters the chance to tank her nomination AND have her out of the Senate at the same time, so it was never an option for her to resign early.

    The real problem, of course, was Blago; any appointment by him was fated to be tainted, at least at the time it fell into his lap.  

    Part of your comment confused me; the matter of the stimulus bill, which I don't think made an appearance until after Obama was inaugurated - looking at Thomas.gov, it looks to me like the bill was introduced on 1/26/09.  He may have been working on it prior to that time, but whatever was going on in December with Blago might only have had an impact on the stimulus bill if the controversy had still been raging on January 20th and thereafter.

    Or am I not understanding your points there?  Sorry, it's Friday and my brain is more or less fried.

    Since Blago was not convicted on the impeachment and removed from office until January 29th, and Obama could not have waited until that time to resign, the issue of appointing Obama's replacement was always going to fall into Blago's lap (well, if the Illinois legislature had moved more quickly, it could have fallen into Quinn's lap, but that's not what happened).  

    Maybe Obama should have resigned when he decided to run for president... :-)


    You express confusion, viz.: (none / 0) (#42)
    by scribe on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 10:01:06 AM EST
    the matter of the stimulus bill, which I don't think made an appearance until after Obama was inaugurated - looking at Thomas.gov, it looks to me like the bill was introduced on 1/26/09.  He may have been working on it prior to that time, but whatever was going on in December with Blago might only have had an impact on the stimulus bill if the controversy had still been raging on January 20th and thereafter

    Assume, for a second, that Obama resigned later rather than earlier.  In that instance, Blago would not have had to have started the auction for the senate seat until later. I recognize that he would have been up against something of a deadline to complete the bidding, at least insofar as the bidding would have included (as in Burris' case) fundraising for Blago, in that some Illinois statutes regulating fundraising would have kicked in on January 1.

    Then, think back to how the criminal case against Blago got started:  i.e., in a hurry.  Fitz moved because the wiretaps he'd gotten indicated a serious scheme to sell the Senate seat was afoot (along with a lot of other chicanery).  It would seem he deemed it more appropriate to move criminally before Blago was able to complete the auction rather than have a Blago appointee in office when the case against Blago started and have that appointee become corruption-tainted by virtue of the charges against Blago.

    All that press furor would be erupting now, and would have been erupting for a while (likely from the time the appointment was made) and would have been a drag on Obama's (and the country's) getting the stimulus package through.  It would have been a huge diversion.  

    As it is, Blago is out of office and Burris is on his way out.  Blago was impeached and removed prior to the stimulus coming up - and his story was out of the way.  Burris' story (about fibbing to the Illinois legislature) came up after the stimulus bill went through.  Again, no diversion.

    One big thing at a time.


    You keep addressing what HRC (none / 0) (#37)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 08:34:36 AM EST
    was thinking, which was not the question -- that she had to await her confirmation was clear, for all of the obvious reasons you note (and more).  

    I disagree with those portions of your essay that do address the question -- i.e., what Obama was thinking -- but thanks for the entertainment, as in terms such as "knuckleheadedness."


    Anne brought up HRC, and (none / 0) (#43)
    by scribe on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 10:02:48 AM EST
    I thought it both a useful comparison and explanation to answer her comment in the way I did.

    It's easy (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 08:43:26 AM EST
    He didn't want to have to participate in the whole stimulus bill as a Senator. This way, he could play the benevolent leader who was taking charge of the economy, instead of going on record as a Senator. This was evidenced by the fact he felt it was more important to keep a debate scheduled than to get involved with the debate on TARP.

    Besides, my guess is, since he has always looked to the next higher job up the chain, he was just eager to get to the trappings of President-Elect, and was not interested in doing the job he was being paid for.


    in a word, yes. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by cpinva on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 12:00:23 AM EST
    I wonder if the pastors' pleas will fall on deaf ears.

    of course, the last time i checked, perjury is still considered a crime, in some quarters. lying under oath would be exactly that, whether committed in person, or via affidavit.

    that would be the issue, intrepid, not his fundraising efforts. it seems, no matter how many times this is explained, some people just don't seem to get it.

    or intentionally choose not to. you make the call.

    It's not over til Jesse Jackson, Jr. (none / 0) (#1)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 06:47:17 PM EST
    is the new Senator from IL.

    Danny Davis you mean (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 06:51:19 PM EST
    Do you think this will be over in a matter (none / 0) (#4)
    by ThatOneVoter on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 06:54:26 PM EST
    of days or weeks? just curious.

    Will Burris resign now? (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 06:56:19 PM EST
    Personally, I think not. Burris won't resign.

    But expulsion seems more and more likely.

    another option is an early special election, but given the cost, less likely than folks think imo.


    I don't understand having a special election (none / 0) (#20)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 08:28:00 PM EST
    How can that happen?  He is the duly seated Senator whose term is not up.  How can the governor, or whomever, just call for a special election because they feel like it.

    I think an expulsion is just going to distract and the Dems don't want that.  If he doesn't resign, I don't see them doing anything, short of planting a naked dead boy on him.


    The Dem Governor and Repubs in Illinois (none / 0) (#60)
    by daring grace on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 01:56:08 PM EST
    are all promoting legislation that would enact a special election sooner than the one scheduled for next year.

    Maybe even in May, with primaries in April...




    Do you really believe he will resign? (none / 0) (#7)
    by vml68 on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 06:59:02 PM EST
    He obviously knew all of this was going to come out soon enough and yet he went ahead and took the position. When you want something this badly, once you get it you don't give it up without a big fight.

    I do not (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 07:00:04 PM EST
    I think he will be expelled.

    It will take a few months.


    For once, BTD, you and I agree (none / 0) (#33)
    by scribe on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 01:57:50 AM EST
    I think it will be very entertaining theater, and predict that it will only come after much deep-thought and moral wrangling Kabuki and also after the Illinois courts get around to indicting Burris.

    What I would love to see is how Holy Joe Lieberman is going to square the circle of his moralizing in 1998-1999  with how he deals with this.

    I suspect no one in a position to get an answer will bother to ask, but it would nonetheles be quite entertaining.


    If Burris is indicted for (none / 0) (#51)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 11:12:40 AM EST
    perjury in Illinois, then maybe he would be expelled.  

    Otherwise, a primary challenge may be the only way to get him out before the general election.


    Ah... (none / 0) (#52)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 11:18:17 AM EST
    But weren't there liberals and many others saying perjury and obstruction of justice (about an adult relationship) should not be a reason to kick out a sitting president?  So, perjury about asking folks for campaign contributions (especially when no money was given)is a more serious crime than perjury about s_ex?  I thought lying was lying....

    Um (none / 0) (#57)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 01:16:37 PM EST
    Pretty sure your logic gets an F here.  Those who argued that Clinton's lies about sex were not a good reason for impeachment were obviously not arguing that perjury NEVER matters.

    I seriously doubt whether you, or anyone, believes that "lying is lying" in the sense that no lie is any more serious than another.  Sure, lying to your kids about Santa Claus is just as bad as cheating on your taxes, I'm sure that's what you believe.


    I saw this article earlier... (none / 0) (#2)
    by vml68 on Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 06:50:17 PM EST
    and thought of posting a link on the open thread. But I figured you would probably have a thread up soon enough and you didn't disappoint..... :-)!

    Chicago Trib calls for it, too (none / 0) (#40)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 09:54:18 AM EST
    and offers other ways out in quite a strong editorial today, "the Silence of the Dems," naming names -- including Obama as the champion of ethics in state politics, as well as Durbin, Daley, and on down -- in addition to extensive top-of-the-page (online) coverage.  Plus a Kass piece that is spot on, as usual, on the hypocrisy of the Chicago Way.

    Interesting to see which Chicago pols get plaudits for calling for the ouster of Burris -- and one offers an interesting interpretation of the Constitution as a way to do so.

    LAT also calls for Burris to resign. (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 10:36:22 AM EST
    The Chicago Way (none / 0) (#48)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 11:00:18 AM EST
    Gov. Quinn is too (none / 0) (#54)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 12:24:09 PM EST
    He is also asking Burris to resign.

    Rep. Jan Schakowsky (none / 0) (#63)
    by Blowback on Fri Feb 20, 2009 at 09:45:39 PM EST
    Rep. Jan Schakowsky for Senate, IL.