Comments on: Dems consider seating Burris if he promises not to run in 2010

By: Kriss-ATL

Kriss-ATL — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 03:09:05 +0000

He should sit down. What does he want, a bigger pension?He should be ashamed of himself. As an accomplished politician can't he just continue to to serve his state ? He is old! I guess he doesn't have a big enough forum in his state, and his ego needs that power so he is prostituting himself to gain it. It's not about race. In fact, how racist is it when Obama had that seat and was elected decisively? Wake up and stop drinking from the crazy juice jug! The Lord did not ordain this, or he would have confirmed this with others.

By: Taxpayer / voter / citizen

Taxpayer / voter / citizen — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:29:04 +0000

That can't be legal, can it? It certainly isn't moral.

By: Don't do it

Don't do it — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:29:18 +0000

He is way too eager, do a special election like with Emanuel's seat

I think Burris is acting this way because it is his last shot at 71yrs of age

By: FreeNLovIt

FreeNLovIt — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:03:40 +0000

He's lying Jesse White said the same thing, telling us he is going to be a one-term Secretary of State. To this day, he is still there. We had to pay license plate fees because of Him. In addition, electric rates went up (not his fault). All these politicians in IL sleep with lobbysts. WE need term-limits.

I remembered my Aunt came to visit me and she laughed at our roads. She told me that we pay too many taxes and our roads are horrible.

By: chuck

chuck — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:58:30 +0000

To CHANGE IN AMERICA. Learn the English language, then learn to type it. Your post was wacky and unintelligible.

By: Tom

Tom — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:43:23 +0000

There is no story here. Everyone in Illinois knows that Burris will never be elected to public office again. He has tried several times and has lost badly. All the man talks about is himself. This is a money grab and he is already wasting taxpayers money by flying to Washington when he knew he had no shot of being seated.

By: Greg Davis

Greg Davis — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:36:27 +0000

Burris would not get a lifetime pension. You have to serve in the Senate for at least 5 years in order to get that.

By: Mike Dallas

Mike Dallas — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:31:26 +0000

Yes Obama stepped in this one.

He should have done the same thing as in the past which has served him so well and stayed out of the Senate's business, since he is no longer a member.

Cuz, it is the law that the Burris will be seated it will just take a lawsuit to make it happen.

With Obama being a lawyer I would have thought he would known that.

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:31:13 +0000

If he were so tainted wouldn't he just lose in a primary. These are supposed to be our best and brightest?

By: mary, colorado springs

mary, colorado springs — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:29:26 +0000

Mr Burris is wrong for accepting the Senate seat in the first place. He should have declined until the mess with Blogjeivich is cleared up, and there would be no question of his elligiblity and seating with his tellow senators. He's anxious to get in and I can understand that but until there is no problem with his acceptance, he should stay where he is. All the antagonism generated by his acceptance now will only cause ill feelings on both sides.

By: BUSH BEGONE, AND NOW 75% OF AMERICA AGREES, FINALLY!

BUSH BEGONE, AND NOW 75% OF AMERICA AGREES, FINALLY! — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:22:37 +0000

"Members of Congress are not eligible for a pension until they reach the age of 50, but only if they've completed 20 years of service. Members are eligible at any age after completing 25 years of service or after they reach the age of 62. Please also note that Member's of Congress have to serve at least 5 years to even receive a pension."

Some folks on this thread need to educate themselves before mouthing off.

Or are you just repeating dittohead sound bites from Lush Limprick?

By: BB

BB — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:22:11 +0000

Oh, it's Bash. She's good at gossip.

By: Nebraskan

Nebraskan — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:19:16 +0000

If they ban him from running for the 2010 election, what incentive would he have at all to just not become totally corrupt, and uncooperative during his 2 year term?

By: Nebraskan

Nebraskan — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:16:19 +0000

I will be very upset with the Dems if this is indeed what is going on. What if he wants to run and the people want to elect him in 2010?

There is a very thin line between exchanging a senate seat for money and exchanging a senate seat for the promise of a vacant senate seat in 2010. Do the Dems not realize the hypocrisy in this?

By: Libs be dopes

Libs be dopes — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:13:25 +0000

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH,

Democracy and the Democratic Party in action!

By: willie

willie — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:11:54 +0000

Are they crazy? Who are they to decide what Burris does with his life? Voters have always been the decision makers in any election, why must that change now? This is a lousy request. Burris must not buckle in to this.

By: Chicago Girl

Chicago Girl — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:09:42 +0000

As a citizen of Illinois, I don't care to have Burris as an interim Senator, or as a future Senator. He's a loser. He's run for Mayor of Chicago, Gov. of Illinois and Senator. He's lost everytime. A special election is needed in order to let the citizens elect a Senator. Why should we have to settle for someone who didn't have the dignity to turn down an appointment from Blago?

By: earle

earle — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:01:38 +0000

if the man is so unethical to take the position in the first place what makes you think he would keep a promise.

By: LIP

LIP — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:57:05 +0000

Burris: "Of course I won't run in 2010, if seated now".
2010: Burris claims he was distracted by a honking horn and didn't hear and thought they said "Burris, please run in 2010".
2016: Burris serves his state well and retires filthy rich like all smart Senators.

By: Jenny

Jenny — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:54:12 +0000

Looks like I called it right from the very beginning, when I said Burris and Blajoavich knew something the rest of us didn't: a deal had been struck with someone in advance of the announcement, someone who had the power to get Burris into the position even while the Feds were investigating Blajoavich...can you say Obama.

And people thought it was going to be a new way of doing things in Washington...the new way is merely changing the players; not the backdoor shenanigans

By: Switched to Dem

Switched to Dem — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:54:08 +0000

Molly, I don't think there would be a primary because he would be the incumbent therefor the dems would be stuck with him against whoever the repubs primary produces. A good idea is to have any seat that is filled by appointment rather than the voters of the state can be seated but must go through a primary at the next election cycle no matter what. That should be law and would solve a lot.

By: Mary T

Mary T — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:53:12 +0000

Burris as interim until 2010...that has been my hope since Blagojevich named him. For all of you "but he wasn't elected" people out there...governor appointments to mid-term openings ARE THE LAW. Also, speaking as an Illinois resident, if we held a special election, none of the likely candidates is a clear choice at this point. We could have six candidates, none with a majority of the vote. You'd have to take someone who won with 30-40%, or you'd have to have a run-off election. All of it would take a long time and cost a lot of money at a time when Illinois is in grave financial trouble. We'd "elect" someone by summer...but we'd then have another election in 2010, just a year away. The special election thing is A BIG WASTE OF ILLINOIS TAXPAYER MONEY. Let Burris be interim and bow out in 2010.

By: Mary T

Mary T — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:51:11 +0000

By: Rick

Rick — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:47:56 +0000

The democrats are going to have to make a deal on this one or Blago will blow the whistle on some of The Great Obama's dirty laundry.

By: magella

magella — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:42:11 +0000

What a dumb idea. Let him be seated and prove himself. If we want even a remote chance of him playing a useful role in the Senate, why take the incentive to try hard and perform well away from him?

By: Rob

Rob — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:41:39 +0000

H-ROD January 5th, 2009 4:12 pm ET - You are right. If Blago's pick had been white, then all of the African-American people who are demanding Burris be seated would be protesting saying that Blago's pick shouldn't be seated, Blago should be impeached, then the new gov could pick (an African-American). Question: If a black person who works hard, on his own, and doesn't play the race card is considered an 'Uncle Tom', what do you call a black person who accepts an appointment from a corrupt, dishonest politician and then throws race into the mix when people don't want him seated? Well, I mean what do you call them besides an Illinois Democrat?

By: TCM

TCM — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:38:50 +0000

H-Rod, are you kidding me? If this guy was white, the media wouldn't cover it...how about, if Obama wasn't black, he wouldn't be president? He received more courting and favoritism than any politician has ever received. Blag's a criminal...take off the blinders.

By: Peace Out!!

Peace Out!! — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:37:34 +0000

TO–Stef January 5th, 2009 3:15 pm ET
Sure he'll "agree". Just like Obama "agreed" to use pubic campaign finance money***PE Obama did not sign any agreement RE the use public campaign finance money***

By: Joyce

Joyce — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:35:54 +0000

Hey, H-Rod. Try as you may, this is not a racial issue. The statement was made prior to his appointment that nobody appointed to the senate by Blagojevich would be seated. They did not refer to race in that statement, so nobody, purple, green or plaid would be seated.

Also, are you aware that one of Burris' stumbling blocks is that the Secretary of State Jesse White is refusing to sign the necessary paper admitting Burris to the senate. Mr. White is black, so explain how that is racially motivated.

Mr. Burris wants the full lifetime pension that he will receive as senator. This is greed. And as a resident of Illinois I do not want my taxes to be paid for a senator that is not duly elected.

By: Rob, Ohio

Rob, Ohio — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:32:50 +0000

Wow. So the Democrats want to do the right thing and not seat him...they're holding to their ideals and understand that....oh wait...okay, if we can make a DEAL with him, maybe it's okay.

The choice either has integrity or it doesn't. How can people feel like bargaining about it makes it okay? And how DARE you Democrats accuse Republicans of lack of integrity when this is so amazingly out in the open????

By: Chicago Red

Chicago Red — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:30:48 +0000

the Senate Democratic leadership is allowing Roland Burris to be seated in the Senate as long as he agrees not to run in 2010.
**They are allowing him to be seated ,because legally they can't block it Reid to do his resarch before opening that puss **

By: bob j

bob j — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:30:41 +0000

burris so far is free and clear of scandals the guy is sqeekly clean i say seat him with no condtionsafter all as an amerian he should be able to run for any office checkmate to the il gov

By: Kathy

Kathy — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:29:26 +0000

Gotta love the Dems!

I see the circus in Washington will continue...no matter who is in the oval office.

By: Nanochristmas love

Nanochristmas love — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:25:45 +0000

Martin – You "thought this would stop now that Obama is president"... seriously dude, you are one heck of a fool for believing that. Have you not noticed that since Obama became president-elect he has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he does NOT represent "Change"?? Do you not see that? Appointing dozens of old Washington standards to his cabinet and administration left and right... yes that's change all right.

Wake up.

By: max (NY)

max (NY) — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:25:36 +0000

@ Stef
Why can't you people open your stinking mouth without call on Obama's name. You are so pathetic. Go brush your teeth before calling Obama's name so that you don't leave dirts from last year meals on it. Gosh!

By: Paul, VA

Paul, VA — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:23:28 +0000

Reid is a wimp. Kick Burris out and kick Blagoboy in jail. Grow a spine Congress, come on.

Reid needs to go.

By: Connie Striper

Connie Striper — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:23:16 +0000

The democrats are all wet here. Blago has not been convicted of any crime and may never be. The dems are trying now to back away from outright denying Burris entry into the Senate chamber. Go, Burris, and protect your American Constitutional rights against those stupid liberal democrats.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:22:14 +0000

Martin January 5th, 2009 2:57 pm ET
>>>>>I thought this kind of stuff would stop now that Obama is >>>>president.

Yea,, right Martin. You actually believed that?

Obama got elected, I accept that, and hope he does well.
BUT, that is exactly the problem, people fell for the god allmighty theory surrounding Obama which the media pushed. Way too many people actually believed this man could change Washington and the world.
CHANGE to BELIEVE in is what we heard.
Again, I hope Obama make this country better, even if he did not get my vote, but I honestly feel there will be a lot of people sitting around about two or three years from now saying,,, Well gee whiz,,, he is not the god we thought. Not much has changed in Washington.

By: H-ROD

H-ROD — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:12:29 +0000

HELL TO THE NO , DON'T PROMISE ANYTHING THE MAN IS STILL GOVERNOR AND STILL HAS THE RIGHT TO PICK WHO HE WANTS IF THIS MAN WAS WHITE HE WOULD NOT BE GOING THROUGH THIS FRAGGANACKAKLE BULL, YOU HAVE TO SEAT HIM AND THATS THAT!!!

By: Harriet Michel

Harriet Michel — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:11:57 +0000

Typical of the Democratic leadership to throw down a guantlet then backup in the name of "compromise". PE Obama, after supporting Reid's position, is now left exposed. Roland Burris' hubris will deliver him an honor he could never earn. Shame on him and shame on the Democrats for being such jellyfish!

By: PA

PA — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:10:46 +0000

The idea of allowing Roland Burris to be seated in the Senate as long as he agrees not to run in 2010 is not in my opinion a compromise but rather a political gester to save face or an inane idea that apparently no one could trump hence decided to use!

In my opinion, it's inanity at it's best, serving no purpose and having no sensible foundation or reasoning. Surely among the many educated, experienced, professional, members one would expect better.

By: Concerned Democrat.

Concerned Democrat. — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:09:32 +0000

Burris was LEGALLY nominated and as such IS THE SENATOR of Illinois and should be seated.

ENOUGH of THE CORRUPTION and WHEELING AND DEALING!

This is why so many Democrats are starting to get disillusioned.

First we have Gov. Blago and all the dirty Chicago Politics

Then we have Rangel who Pelosi has yet to address properly

Then we have the New York Senate seat who Harry Reid and the Kennedys are trying to manipulate.

Let's hope Governor Patterson puts New York first and tells the Kennedys NO! New York should be more important than the Kennedy name. After all this is a Democracy not a Monarchy.

Enough is Enough!

The Burris appointment was legal so they need to seat him and focus on Rangel who has become a liability as well.

By: REAL-EYES

REAL-EYES — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:09:14 +0000

You can bet the devil is in the details. This is a shame. You can best believe they don't want another African American too close to the presidency.

By: Bill, Streamwood, IL

Bill, Streamwood, IL — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:06:16 +0000

If Roland Burris is qualified and did not "buy" his seat from Gov. Blago, then he should not have any restrictions. After all, he was legally appointed by a governor, who despite all the fuss, is innocent until proven guilty. If it is determined that Burris cut some sort of deal with Blago, then he should be removed and prosecuted.

The "option" of seating Roland Burris if he promises not to run in 2010 is so pathetic and political, one might have thought the idea came from across the aisle.

For all their indignation and bluster, the Democrats are showing that they are exactly the wimps we were afraid they might be.

By: earle,florida

earle,florida — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:05:09 +0000

Absolutely amazing, a triumph for the democratic system? Is ths country missing a few achronyms at the end US-SR! This is disgusting,appalling,incomprehencable,just to hard to believe,...

By: Ellison F.

Ellison F. — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:04:40 +0000

They should seat him, with no strings, another Dem can run againt him in 2010 that how a free country work hah good old boys system. It bit you in the butt.

By: DW, NY FOR OBAMA '08

DW, NY FOR OBAMA '08 — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:02:27 +0000

This was the only way Burris would have become a Senator (handed to him). Apparently, he has never been able to win anything he ran for. Let him have the two-year seat. Then, he'll have to give up the seat when it's won in the next election.

By: Eve

Eve — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:01:48 +0000

Virginia, the mess was fully underway long ago – unless of course you have been living in a lap of luxury. Too bad that Obama has been handed the pooper scooper.

By: Skip, a black man

Skip, a black man — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:00:36 +0000

It is a sad day!

By: john

john — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:55:13 +0000

Martin, a few logic fallacies here.

1: Obama isn't the president yet.

2: The governor is still the one with the power to appoint the new senator so the senate can't simply ignore one of their peers. Remember he hasn't been charged yet.

3: Since the seat is vacant the new senator is appointed by the governor. This happens all the time he would not have been elected by vote any way. The problem here is that the governor is corrupt and doesn't have much credibility.