DOWNLOADS: (904)

PLAYS: (470)

Embed

By lying about his ties to the ex-Governor, Roland became a national embarrassment and that was too bad. Blago got his laugh at the expense of the people from the state of Illinois.

Embattled Illinois Sen. Roland Burris planned Friday to say he won't run for a full term in 2010, making official the end of a short Senate career clouded by the circumstances of his appointment by disgraced former Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

In prepared remarks obtained by The Associated Press, Burris said he was bowing out of the 2010 race because of the burden of raising money to pay for a campaign.

"I was called to choose between spending my time raising funds, or spending my time raising issues for my state. I believe that the business of the people of Illinois should always come first," Burris said, according to the prepared remarks.

The WaPo runs down the aftermath:

Burris had refused to make any commitment about his future plans until today although his ever-changing story regarding his relationship with the disgraced former governor and his non-existent fundraising during the first three months of the year led savvy strategists to conclude he would not (or could not) run.

The race had passed Burris by with speculation centering on whether or not Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan (D) would run. (She decided against doing so earlier this week.)

With Burris formally out of the race, the Democratic slate is likely to come down to state Treasurer Alexi Giannnoulias and Merchandise Mart CEO Chris Kennedy. Republicans face the possibility of a primary of their own with Rep. Mark Kirk in the race and Illinois Republican Party Chairman Andy McKenna weighing a bid.

While Burris's retirement has little practical impact on the race -- for the reasons mentioned above -- it does save the White House and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee a potential headache since they would almost certainly not have supported Burris in the primary, a move that could have led some in the African American community to question the party's motives.

To his friends he'll always be remembered as a Senator.

DOWNLOAD (378)

PLAY (201)

Tom Geoghegan was on Fox News with Greg Jarrett yesterday, talking about the lawsuit he's filed to force a special election to fill Barack Obama's Senate seat and force Roland Burris to stand aside:

If the General Assembly or the U.S. Senate Ethics Committee isn’t prepared to unseat Sen. Roland Burris, labor lawyer and 5th Congressional District candidate Tom Geoghegan is ready to take on the fight.

At a press conference at the Dirksen Federal Building this morning, Geoghegan -- along with co-counsels Scott Frankel, Rob Cohen, and former alderman Marty Oberman -- announced that he has filed a suit in federal court against the state of Illinois and Gov. Pat Quinn seeking a special election for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama.

The plaintiffs claim that neither former Gov. Rod Blagojevich nor Quinn issued a “writ of elections to fill senate vacancies” as required by the 17th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Currently, Illinois follows a legal proviso in the amendment that allows the governor to “make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislatures may direct.” Geogeghan and his colleagues are not suggesting that Burris’ appointment was illegal—rather, it represents a temporary placeholder until the state could marshal the resources to hold a statewide election. (Geogeghan first laid out this argument in a New York Times op-ed published a few days after Burris’ appointment in January.)

Speaking to a large assembling of reporters, Geoghegan outlined three purposes for the suit: to “end the embarrassing stalemate” that is the Blagojevich-Burris charade, to establish rules so the people can vote for their elected officials, and to assure that the government is conducted by the rule of law. “This is why I went to law school” he said. “And the Constitution exists to make sure the democratic rights of the people are secured.”

Jarrett worries that whatever publicity gains Geoghegan might be making with this suit may well be offset by more mundane considerations:

Jarrett: Let me get one more in here because we're running out of time. There's a group of African American aldermen, they're vowing to help black voters punish any politician who seeks to remove Burris. That would include you. Does that strike you as a racially motivated threat?

Geoghegan: Greg, I am a labor lawyer, and I also bring civil-rights cases. I'm a civil-rights lawyer. My view is that both white and black and all citizens of the state of Illinois want to stop political corruption. That's the issue here. It's not a matter of race, it's a matter of enforcing the people's right to vote.

You know, if we want the right to recall elected officials, we at least ought to have the right to elect our senators directly.

Jarrett: Well, Tom, these black aldermen are going to come after you. You know that, because you're trying to get rid of Roland Burris, albeit in a very, very legal way. And they're going to come after you.

This seems overheated to me, but then, I'm not from Chicago. In the meantime, it never hurts to go help out progressive heroes like Geoghegan.

Just when you thought this was all put to rest.

Senator Roland W. Burris of Illinois acknowledged in documents made public Saturday that the brother of former Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich sought campaign fund-raising help from him in the weeks and months before his appointment to succeed Barack Obama as the state’s junior senator.

Mr. Burris said he provided no money to Governor Blagojevich’s campaign in response to the brother’s request.

The disclosure was different from Mr. Burris’s earlier descriptions, including one under oath, of his conversations with those closest to the former governor. It raised new questions about events that preceded Mr. Burris’s unusual appointment in late December and prompted some Republican lawmakers in Illinois to immediately demand an inquiry into whether Mr. Burris committed perjury.

Roland, Roland, Roland....

(via CNN)

I was writing a post earlier called "Free Roland Burris" because Harry Reid has turned this whole episode into a bad joke and an embarrassment, but it now looks like he will be seated and fast.

CNN's Dana Bash is reporting that Roland Burris will finally be seated after she read a few statements from the Democratic leadership in the Senate (haha). Even Dick Cheney will be there swearing him in. It was pretty cold to leave him standing in the rain last week after it was apparent that this was the only card left the Dems had left to play.

So the national joke is finally coming to an end.

Susie Madrak says:

It's not as if they had a choice. There's really no legal basis to deny him the seat:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Illinois senior senator and Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin said Monday that the Senate would accept the credentials of former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris.

The Secretary of the Senate has determined that the new credentials presented today on behalf of Mr. Burris now satisfy Senate Rules and validate his appointment to the vacant Illinois Senate seat. In addition, as we requested, Mr. Burris has provided sworn testimony before the Illinois House Committee on Impeachment regarding the circumstances of his appointment," the two said in a statement.

"We have spoken to Mr. Burris to let him know that he is now the Senator-designate from Illinois and as such, will be accorded all the rights and privileges of a Senator-elect," the statement said. "Accordingly, barring objections from Senate Republicans, we expect Senator-designee Burris to be sworn in and formally seated later this week. We are working with him and the office of the Vice President to determine the date and time of the swearing-in."

DOWNLOAD (188)

PLAY (170)

In today's episode of As The Stomach Turns, Harry Reid signaled at this morning's presser that he's leaving open a door for Roland Burris to walk through.

After a 45-minute meeting this morning between Burris, Reid and his lieutenant, Sen.Dick Durbin, Reid said Senate Democrats would wait to see if the Illinois Supreme Court would order Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White to sign Burris' appointment by Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

I think we can probably count on the Illinois Supreme Court informing Jesse White he has to sign the appointment. Which leaves Harry Reid holding a nice stinky bag of crap.

If it's any consolation, the public agrees with Reid that Burris' appointment is tainted and he shouldn't be seated. That will make it tougher for Burris to win the seat in two years, but that's the price Rod Blagojevich is making us all pay. Including Harry Reid.

Meanwhile, Reid is saying he expects to keep leading the Senate for a good long time. All he's really doing is making an argument against seniority and incumbency, because he has done nothing to demonstrate he's worthy of leading the Senate. Especially not recently. As Jane says, I'd sure like to play poker with Reid -- and I usually make a habit of never playing against guys from Nevada.

Roland Martin thinks Democrats just need to suck it up and accept that Burris is the selection. I suspect he's right.

DOWNLOAD (152)

PLAY (186)

Roland Burris makes his stand in defiance of Harry Reid today.

MSNBC's Chris Matthews talks it over with a panel including Howard Fineman, Pat Buchanan, CNBC's John Harwood, Brian DuBose of the Moonie Times, and Ann Kornbluth of the WaPo, and it's unanimous: Reid really doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.

Being a right-winger, DuBose clearly relishes this mess:

No, the conservatives don't have to cause any havoc here. The Democrats are doing a fine job themselves. Pat is right -- Harry Reid has put the Senate in a very precarious legal position, constitutionally. They have no constitutional authority to not allow Burris to take his rightful seat in the Senate. Now, they could expel him for reasons that they come up with if they seat him, that's a much better position to be in. But by barring him from the door they put themselves on a path towards legal suicide with the Supreme Court, if Burris decides to go that route. They have no legal standing to stop a representative of a state -- which is what the Senate is, representatives of states in their entirety -- they have no legal position to stop him from representing that state, as he is duly bound to do, appointed by a governor who is in power. It's -- it's case closed. He is the senator. Period.

DOWNLOAD (187)

PLAY (168)

MSNBC analyst Jim Warren, discussing the Rod Blagojevich-Roland Burris mess, sounded a deeply cynical note yesterday on Hardball with Chris Matthews and Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times. Cynical, but probably right:

Warren: And one vision you didn't -- along with, you know, Lynn's vision of what might happen tomorrow, one we should have that would make us slightly dyspeptic, is that of Rod Blagojevich back there grinning like a Cheshire Cat, because -- the Saturday Night Live caricature aside, the bipartisan animus toward him aside, the likelihood that he will be indicted aside -- he has every legal right to do this. And I think he has pulled one over on Harry Reid and Dick Durbin. And Harry Reid is left looking like some parent huffing and puffing and warning his kid that there's gonna be big punishment unless he does what he says, and then the kid doesn't stop doing it, and then Harry Reid doesn't have anything left to go to, unless what? He's going to send it to the Rules Committee? And Chuck Schumer, head of the Rules Committee? Who wants Al Franken seated ASAP because Minnesota's gotta have two senators on that floor as quickly as possible. Boy, I think Blagojevich has really played this in the most cynical but adroit of ways.

Sweet goes on to suggest that Reid may cave if Burris agrees not to run in two years, but then Warren appropriately notes that Burris doesn't believe he has anything to negotiate.

I'm not sure why Burris needs it explained to him that Blagejovich himself tainted the process of selecting this Senate seat by his own actions and words, and that anyone he chose would be similarly tainted. It's kind of sad, really.

Let's just say that this is not an auspicious start to a Senate career, much less a Democratic defense of that seat. A better man would not have let himself be so tainted. Hell, even Danny Davis -- who hasn't enough sense not to take part in coronation ceremonies for Rev. Moon -- thought better of this.

Roland Burris may believe he has the legal right to this seat. But politically, it's another story. The voters of Illinois have no reason whatsoever to believe that he was chosen with their best interests in mind, because they have very good reason to believe Blago was only looking out for himself. They have no reason to believe otherwise now. This selection was Blago's, and because of that, it will always be about Blago.

Burris may force himself upon the Senate, but he may want to savor his two years while they last.

DOWNLOAD (130)

PLAY (210)

Our old pal Jane Hamsher was "Muckraker of the Day" on David Shuster's MSNBC program yesterday, talking about Harry Reid and how he's managed to bollox the Blagejovich-Roland Burris situation. Apparently she's managed to upset the Village applecart a bit with her critique. Good on her.

DOWNLOAD (93)

PLAY (184)

Conservatives have a gift for pretending the obvious isn't there. Take Brit Hume yesterday for example. He gets all worked up -- even angry-seeming -- over the terrible injustice being done to Rod Blagojevich and Roland Burris.

Why? Because the prosecutor is Patrick Fitzgerald. Seems Hume harbors a grudge from one of Fitzgerald's previous prosecutions ...

It's all wrapped up in defense of Blago's selection of Burris to fill Barack Obama's Senate seat:

Hume: Why is it that he's thought to be under a taint? He's thought to be under a taint because an accusation has been made against him, not yet an indictment, by a prosecutor --

[Crosstalk]

Hume: -- Against Blagojevich, not against him -- by a prosecutor who for all of his success in court, has a propensity, as we saw in the Scooter Libby case, to say things in news conferences that he ultimately chooses or is unable to prove in court. That is all we have. We have his say-so.

Someone was saying on the air the other day, 'Well, we have the tapes.' No, we don't have the tapes. All we have is quotations from the tapes by the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, and it's not at all clear when we'll see them, what they'll show, what the context was or anything. This man is innocent until proven guilty.

That's all a stirring and noble defense of Blago, but Hume doesn't seem to realize that the breadth and depth of the case against the Illinois governor involves a great deal more than just those tapes and just the Obama Senate seat matter. And really, do we need to spell out that any selection in which there is an appearance of impropriety in the process is tainted, especially when it involves the sale of the selection?

But I gather that if you live in RightWingLand, it's difficult to imagine why anyone would consider the selection of Roland Burris tainted. After all, criminal complaints laying out a politician's desire to corruptly sell off federal appointments -- hey, that's ordinary. Routine! Everyone does that!

Is it something in the water that conservatives drink, or what?