1. - wndycty - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 10:49 am:

   Rich thanks for the GROUND RULES, I think the need for GROUND RULES when we discuss race (not just on CapFax, but period) illustrates how far we still need to go in our ability to discuss race and that is why AG Holder’s statement was necessary, seriously thanks.

   As far as Burris, I initially wished for Obama’s replacement to be an African American placeholder (either Burris or Danny Davis), HOWEVER once Rod was busted it became less of priority for me because whoever he selected would be tainted.

   I feel that SOME of the backlash that Burris is facing is racially motivated, however racism is not the primary cause of Burris’s problems. It was bad judgment in accepting the appointment from Rod and bad judgment in the way he executed and followed up his testimony to the House impeachment panel.

   In 2010 I hope we have a few African Americans (not just one), as well as a couple more Hispanics elected to the US Senate, HOWEVER the voters of Illinois are not obligated to elect one (if an African American or Hispanic emerges as the best candidate in Illinois, great). Wouldn’t be great to see people of color elected to the Senate from other states?

   I would like to see Burris resign but I am not a big fan of extraordinary efforts to remove him. So I think we should just focus on other priorities in Springfield and Washington, move on and both parties should focus on nominating the best possible candidates for US Senate in 2010.




2. - Captain America - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 10:51 am:

   I think Burris’s appeal was for all practical cases race-based in the 2002 Governor’s race and whenever it was he ran for Chicago mayor. Burris’s candidacy resulted in Blago’s primary victoy over Paul Vallas.

   I think a sustantial number of African-American voters would support Burris in a primary, but I don’t sense that there would be an African-America rebellion/backlash against Democrats if Burris were defeated in a primary.




3. - VanillaMan - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 10:56 am:

   ”I have never in my life, in all my years of being elected to office…

   Never start a sentence with these kinds of phrases as they are almost always wrong.

   With his Mr. Whipple demeanor, Senator Burris has always appeared as a kindly little man. He was at the right place at the right time for Illinoians to elect to it’s statewide offices. The Senator’s natural risk-adverse handling of his jobs made his career successful.

   But he is mediocre. Always has been. Rarely a leader. If not for his Taj Rolando’s walls of accomplishments, could you name three things he did to make Illinois a better state? Three? He was in statewide office for years, can you come up with at least three?

   Neither can I. And that was his legacy until his soul-selling moment with Former Governor Blagojevich. Mr. Pleasant Mediocrity was revealed to have an unsatiable ego. Lord only knows why!

   He can play any game he wants. But when he does, he merely continues down a path different from the one he found success with over these many years. Voters do not like this Roland Burris. We’ve endured his mediocrity because of his appearent harmlessness. Now that he is causing harm, all we have left is his mediocrity.

   He has to go ASAP.




4. - Anon - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:01 am:

   Why do the democrats continue to puke all over themselves on this matter. Why not just let Roland continue to serve out the term. If the senate ethics panel determines that he did something wrong, let them take action. I dont think it serves the party any good to continue to call for his resignation. Let the republicans continue to beat this drum. When 2010 comes, they will have no ideas other than “I’m against Roland Burris,” and voters will choose those with a plan to help Illinois.

   Let it go dems — move on.




5. - wordslinger - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:01 am:

   Regarding the pastors, I’m a true believer in the First Amendment: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, separation of church and state. Two hundred years plus, it’s still radical, enlightened and practiced virtually nowhere else on the planet.

   If pastors and churches of any stripe want to inject themselves directly into politics, that’s their right. But in my mind, you no longer should have a tax-exempt status for your church properties and business interests.

   How you go about savings souls is your business; politics by any definition, is everyone’s business, and you can play by the sames rules as everyone else. Only fair — I mean, you already have God on your side, right?




6. - Rob_N - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:03 am:

   I don’t know about other people who oppose Burris, but I’ve demanded he resign not because he’s purple or orange or fuschia or whatever color he is. Rather, he was appointed under a tainted process, should never have been accepted by the Senate because of the process, but now that he has been sworn in his “clarifications” have served only to make everyone more aware of just how tainted the process surrounding his appointment really was.

   That said, Ald. Lyle has a short memory…

   “We don’t want the seat to be denied Roland under circumstances not applied to someone else,” Lyle said.

   …Burris’ primary opponent Giannoulias has had hare-brained accusations about mob ties and Rezko ties lobbed at him for years.

   This has nothing to do with being anti-African-American or anti-Greek…

   It has to do with ethics and records.




7. - Levois - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:03 am:

   “He hasn’t done anything that’s indictable,” said Rep. Bobby Rush

   This isn’t helping him. In fact nothing anyone has been trying to do since he was appointed to his seat has helped him. I’m not sure this man will survive an election in 2010 so why don’t those who insist on having a black senator just put forward someone who can win next year and be done with it!




8. - steve schnorf - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:04 am:

   My logic node just can’t compute how being picked by Gov Blagojevich taints Sen Burris. A reasonable assertion might be that “Blagojevich was a corrupt person, therefore everything he did is tainted by his corruption”, but I can’t get to some things are tainted and some aren’t. I don’t see stem cell research tainted, it stands or falls on its own merits. Same with expansion of health care for the poor, same for the way he handled the budget, legislative relations, etc. And, same for Roland Burris.




9. - Rob_N - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:05 am:

   To clarify, if Burris or Giannoulias have done nothing wrong in relation to the accusations against them, they have plenty of opportunity to explain.

   And the voters will let them know whether or not their explanations are acceptable.




10. - J boogy - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:11 am:

    As an African-American, I get really annoyed that many people in the media seem to imply that we all feel the same way about Burris. All of this race card playing and the whole “them against us” mentality is really outdated. African Americans see what is really going on just as much as any other racial group.

    And I get tired of “us” all being exploited and manipulated by African-American politicians (like Burris) just so we can vote for them. Just because we are the same color does not mean we will always agree politically. If you bring up slavery I am not going to want to automatically vote for you. Come on, it’s not that easy.

    I get so frustrated when I see that same group of Black ministers on the news in Chicago. They are treated as though they speak for every person with brown skin but that is far from the truth.

    Many of the African-American politicians are focusing on the fact that there is not much diversity in the U.S. Senate. But for goodness sake, we just elected the first Black president! President Obama did not play the race card to get elected and look how well it worked out for him. He did not have to fight for his seat. The people overwhelmingly elected him because they thought he could do a good job – not because of his skin color. True progress takes time.




11. - wndycty - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:13 am:

    Being picked by Blago taints Burris for some simple reason, it makes Burris controversial. Let’s pretend Rod didn’t appoint anyone, and Quinn came in and appointed Burris, do you really think folks would be under the scrutiny he is under now? He would have had his detractors but not like he does now. The US Senate would have welcomed him with open arms and you know it.




12. - Speaking at Will - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:16 am:

    This so infuriates me. I cannot comment on this post with anything thoughtful, or worth while. Reading this simply makes me angry to the point that I….. well. Nevermind.




13. - the Patriot - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:17 am:

    Rolland is smarter than people give him credit for. He got in the Senate because of Race. Had Blago appointed a 72 year old white male from Evanston, no way the Senate caves.

    Like it or not, the political reality of our nation right now is that you Can Not under any circumstances attack a person of color(sorry, not sure what the politically correct term is these days). Rolland knows this. Durbin, Reid, and Obama caved on Burris because of race and now they have to live with it.

    Personally I don’t see spending the money on a special election. We went two years without a Senator, what is another two. One more seat won’t make a difference for either party.

    Stick with it Rolland, you are the only one who can keep the idiots in Springfield from flushing another 20 million on a special election. For that reason only he should hold out.




14. - Redbright - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:17 am:

    If we have a special election and a Republican is elected –as the Dems fear—will that person vote against the Obama initiatives (a la Kirk in the House)? How is that going to be a strategy of success for the real election in 2010?

    It would probably increase Democratic strength in IL to have a negative-nabob Republican in office for 2 years just to remind everyone why they haven’t been elected recently.

    And a special election [which I don’t support due to the $] is better for incumbents like Giannoulias and Kirk since they don’t have to give up their current day job to run. Maybe that is where the underground push is coming from.




15. - Louis G. Atsaves - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:21 am:

    This whole ‘race card’ debate swirling around Burris right now shows that those who felt that race would no longer be a factor or severely minimized as a factor post Obama election were a bit naive.

    Clearly, everyone has a long way to go on this issue. And I mean everyone.




16. - wordslinger - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:24 am:

    –Like it or not, the political reality of our nation right now is that you Can Not under any circumstances attack a person of color–

    Yeah, I’ve noticed that with Obama :) Are you kidding? You must not get Fox or pick up Rush. Plus, everyone and their brother has said Burris is a liar who should resign.




17. - Excessively rabid - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:24 am:

    Things that have little to do with Illinois are in the background of this discussion. Blacks look at the Senate and see 99 whites, some of whom have serious ethical or political problems. All this criticism of Burris seems unfair even if it’s accurate. Here’s my issue: there have been four black Senators ever. Three of them have been from Illinois. What about the rest of the country? Surely California has a black person who would be better than Barbara Boxer. What about New York? Or Georgia? Mississippi? Time for some more change, here and elsewhere, but in the mean time we’re stuck with Roland for the next two years and may as well get used to it. I disagree with the pastors but I do respect their sensitivity on this issue.




18. - grand old partisan - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:25 am:

    I’m confused by Alderman Ed Smith’s statement that the Quinn’s calls for Burris to resign are an effort to “dictate to us what should go on in our community.” After all, the “community” Burris represents is the state of Illinois – right? And Pat Quinn is the Governor of Illinois – right?

    Oh – I see. Burris is not really the Senator from Illinois – he’s the Senator from the African American community.

    Great. Does that mean I can get a refund on the portion of my federal taxes that normally would go towards paying the salary of our state’s Class 3 Senator and office staff – since he’s not really even pretending to represent me anymore?




19. - 47th Ward - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:31 am:

    Steve Schnorf,

    Here’s the tainted issue for me, and yes, it applies mainly to the Burris appointment: Because Blagojevich set out to consider only how the appointment would meet his “Legal, Political, Personal” criteria, he excluded many otherwise qualified and capable candidates from even being considered.

    Then he appointed Burris from a small pool of “acceptable” candidates. In other words, there were many other candidates, including African-American candidates excluded simply because they wouldn’t play ball with the Governor. Because of that, the entire appointment process under Blagojevich was tainted.

    As for race, like many others, I really resent being accused of racism when legitimate issues are raised against a candidate of color. Neither skin color nor ethnicity nor gender should matter. Whatever happened to the content of one’s character as the only criterium that is relevant?




20. - steve schnorf - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:37 am:

    The Governor has been alleged to have said that every decision would be subject to the “Legal, Personal, Political” test, not just Roland Burris.

    Roland Burris-controversial, yes; under scrutiny, yes; tainted by Rod Blagojevich, I think not.




21. - wndycty - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:40 am:

    Steve simple question. Explain to me how if Rod didn’t appoint Burris but Quinn did this would be just as controversial.




22. - 47th Ward - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:43 am:

    ===Roland Burris-controversial, yes; under scrutiny, yes; tainted by Rod Blagojevich, I think not===

    I respectfully disagree. I would argue that Burris is controversial and under scrutiny precisely because he accepted Blagojevich’s appointment. Therefore, he is tainted by Blagojevich.

    He could have said no, Steve. He knew accepting the appointment would be controversial. Like Danny Davis, he could have simply declined. Who knows, perhaps Gov. Quinn might have appointed him anyway.

    The entire process was tainted under Blagojevich. The acceptance of the appointment, ergo, taints the appointment. If Blagojevich picked me and I accepted it, I would be tainted too.




23. - bored now - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:43 am:

    rich: the portion of the chatham blog post that included the email from delmarie cobb to lyle has been deleted. lyle’s email remains.

    if you happened to grab the entire post (before it was edited of its offending cobb email), i’d love to see it posted here…




24. - Sacks Romana - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 11:45 am:

    Burris should have never been confirmed to the Senate for many, many reasons. It’s hard to tunnel all that anger into just Burris though, when Durbin, Reid, and others were against his appointment, then for it, and now are calling for his resignation. His “corrected” testimony basically confirms what almost everyone thought from the beginning, that an appointment by Blagojevich was going to be tainted, if not border-line criminal.

    All that being said, with the moved up primary, 2010 is rapidly approaching, and I think a special election would be a ridiculous circus, not to mention the cost, which we all know we can’t afford.

    This ultimately isn’t Burris The Egomaniac’s fault for doing what an egomaniac does. It’s all his enablers’ (Durbin, Reid, heck, even Obama if you remember) fault for trying to move things along too quickly, and sweep the awful appointment under the rug. Let them live with it. I’m fine with Burris being the pariah of the Senate and Illinois for less than two years. It’s far less than what we lived with before, and Burris isn’t really in a position to actually screw up our state or federal government. The scandals have dried up any sliver of political power he might ever have gotten, and turned him into the placeholder everyone wanted the candidate to be anyway.




25. - Hope - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 12:01 pm:

    The Burris saga is playing out unresolved tensions in the community about Obama becoming president. December 9 and the subsequent Burris appointment created an opportunity for the reassertion of the old-style racial dialogue that had been eclipsed by the Obama campaign.

    The Burris appointment and Bobby Rush’s incendiary language lit the match, but anything could have ignited it. It was bound to happen.

    Toward Obama there is a complex and unresolved local mixture of jealousy, feeling slighted and old wounds from campaigns past. Just note who did and who did not go to Washington with him (or if there already, got asked to join the cabinet) — starting with the members of the Black caucuses in Springfield or City Hall. They are all still here.

    Obama represents a newer style. And it’s hard for some older people to understand it or feel included by it. It’s a style that rewrites old narratives. He says “Look what the American dream has brought us.” They say, “Not me!”

    Burris’s manner of dealing with race is a style that older folks, in particular, are comfortable with. He reinforces that nothing has changed with Obama’s election, and reminds them, as Rush put it, that only “recently” were African Americans being barred from entering the schoolhouse door on the sole basis of racial animus. Ipso facto, that is the reason (white) people wanted to block Burris from the Senate and now want him to resign.

    The Burris saga is like the controversy over the ghastly chimpanzee cartoon — both remind the older folks that there is still a lot of racism in America; both stir sixties racial rhetoric, anger and protest, which is the comfort zone of the oldsters. Instead of Hope, this zone is about NoHope, lots of doubt, and lots of anger.

    Burris gives them an opportunity to vent; Obama does not.

    To see how a younger, very different thinking, generation of African Americans are thinking about Burris, check out Ta-Nehisi Coates’ blog — he’s at The Atlantic.




26. - Six Degrees of Separation - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 12:03 pm:

    there have been four black Senators ever. Three of them have been from Illinois.

    What about the two black senators from Mississippi (Sens. Revels and Bruce) during Reconstruction? I guess MS has done more of its part than any state except IL to promote diversity in the Senate, albeit this was under the Northern “occupation”.




27. - transplant - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 12:05 pm:

    Racially motivated requests for Burris to resign based on a possibly tainted appointment by Blagojevich? Has anyone actually seen Kurt Granberg? He’s very white. Should the Swede’s get on tv and take up Granberg’s cause?




28. - Hope - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 12:06 pm:

    @Jboogy: Yes, yes, yes. You a Coates fan, too?




29. - Irish - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 12:08 pm:

    Hope - Very nice comment. One thing that came to my mind as I read your comment was, could some of this not wanting to accept that race issues could be solved be a fear that if race became a non issue these people would no longer be in the limelight and relavent?




30. - Hope - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 12:18 pm:

    @ Irish: I’m not so sure about the whole limelight thing but I think redistricting (discussed here a week or two ago) is very much part of this.

    Most African American legislative districts have majority minorities. I recall one legislator totally freaking out in 1991 that his district was going to go from 98% African American to 96%. Oh, the unfairness! he wanted to throttle Madigan.

    Thus, representatives from these districts have a distinctly racial lens and take on most issues.

    Obama spoke to everyone not just the black community, as they do. I recall flying across the country shortly after the election and looking down on farms and countryside and mountain towns and thinking, This is Obama’s America.

    But that is NOT the America of the older folks who are still fighting battles from the sixties.




31. - Gregor - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 12:28 pm:

    This has never been a question of black or white, but of green. And fricking gold. It is about greed and corruption, which knows no color lines. This was never about Burris’ skin, it was about his soul.

    The race game is a delicate one to play in times when that community is most likely to first feel the pain of cuts in state-run social services, just in terms of proportions served. Just saying that a more enlightened self-interest for them might be to align with Quinn instead of against him, and work towards putting in a better guy or gal that can do the job for everyone, rather than vaguely hint at getting perks for just his own “community”. When you’re a senator in DC, your whole STATE is now your “community”, Roland.




32. - Amy - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 12:34 pm:

    this may be one of the few places where we can have a discussion about Roland, race and Illinois politics without being shut up by tribalists and users. many who are silent are guilty of using the African American community. so i’m not surprised that there is a level of anger from some in that community. they are used to being used and they only have one African American Senator in the U.S. Senate.

    but that’s not a problem that should trump ethics. or criticism. if that’s the case, then we should have an Irish only need critique Mike Madigan. or experienced a Serbians for the ethically challenged governor festival.

    I actually don’t blame Quinn for moving on to the fiscal health of the state. Burris said he’s not leaving, Quinn cannot force him. But the legislature probably can give us a referendum on Burris (if he wants to run) by scheduling that special election. so, with every bit of my Irish in me, please Mr. Madigan and Mr. Cullerton….get with it and take some action!




33. - Cubs Fan - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 12:37 pm:

    I don’t see the point. I don’t care about cost because I tend to agree that there shouldn’t be a price for Democracy. What I have a problem with is the timeline. There is no way that this race could be added to the upcoming April elections. After all, we couldn’t add corrected language for the Con-Con referendum nearly two months before the November election and a judicial order. So, that leaves us scheduling the election when? May? June? Later than that? What about court challenges which are sure to come? The length of that process could push this whole thing back even further. At some point which I believe has long since passed, we have to admit that it’s simply not worth the headache.

    On another note, I’m concerned about the average voter’s interest. Take the special election in the 5th CD for example. The coverage and buzz is abysmal at best. Even with the scandal surrounding Burris, I don’t know that the average voter would be energized enough to take much notice. They are programmed to deal with politics at certain intervals and don’t want to hear about it in the off season.

    Now, here’s the part that I truly fear. A low turnout and crowded field could favor Burris if the AA community does in fact come out in force. Burris’ PR firm is laying the groundwork for that fight now. If you think Illinois is the laughingstock of the nation now, can you imagine the fallout if Burris won a special election designed to replace him?

    He has no power or ability to do damage where he’s at right now. The media will tire of this scandal as they do with all others, and we will “quietly” be able to take care of this in November 2010. I don’t think Burris deserves the seat, but I question whether a special election will in fact remove him.




34. - wordslinger - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 12:39 pm:

    Hope, very good analysis.

    There was a somewhat similar dynamic in play when Harold was elected mayor. The old-school machine hacks stuck with Byrne, then became more Harold-than-Harold after he won. But the resentment and yearning for the old days were always just below the surface.




35. - South Side Mike - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 1:15 pm:

    Excessively rabid,

    I’m sure that Sens. Martinez, Menendez, and Akaka would be surprised to find out that they are white, and that the two Reconstruction Senators from Mississippi (Revels and Bruce) don’t count as black Senators. Now, that doesn’t mean that the Senate is a bastion of diversity, but Roland is not the lone fighter protecting the world against a monolithically white Senate, either.

    I also don’t think there is a goal for an “acceptably diverse” Senate either. I don’t care whether the Senate (or the House, for that matter) is made up of all Asians, all Hispanics, all blacks, or all whites if it contains intelligent, dedicated persons who truly work for the greater good of all United States citizens regardless of their race.




36. - Say WHAT? - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 1:32 pm:

    People are just sick and tired of politicians who treat them like they are stupid. Saying whatever benefits you at the moment and using absolutes that mean absolutely nothing make Roland Burris look like a self absorbed, self serving man who will do whatever it takes to keep a position he obtained in a way that seemed murky at best. We must get back to Governing Illinois, But I don’t think we can until Burris steps down.

    Sometimes race must be discussed, however there are times when it is used to get ones way. I often think during those times of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and how disappointed he would be to see people use the issue to obtain a goal or grab power. His stance cost him his very life. When a politician uses the race card, it takes away from the seriousness the issue deserves. We all need healing from the divisiveness of our past. We don’t need more division. Very sad.




37. - Captain Flume - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 1:59 pm:

    == People are just sick and tired of politicians who treat them like they are stupid.==

    Which people are sick and tired, the Democratic regulars or the Republican regulars? Or that inconsequential rabble who claim neither party?




38. - Say WHAT? - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 2:05 pm:

    =====Which people are sick and tired, the Democratic regulars or the Republican regulars? Or that inconsequential rabble who claim neither party?=====

    Captain, I don’t ask which party they are with. That would be improper. I just listen to them in their frustration.




39. - steve schnorf - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 2:29 pm:

    The Romans gave the citizens gladiator battles and other spectacles to divert them from urgent issues of the moment.

    Quinn is doing exactly the right thing. What’s the upside for him in continuing to push on this? He just pi___s off his strongest base constituency more and more while quickly making himself look weak to those who might support his efforts, because he can’t enforce them.




40. - steve schnorf - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 2:33 pm:

    Say What: politicians treat citizens exactly as the citizens want: that’s how they get re-elected. And, citizens get exactly what they deserve.




41. - Ghost - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 2:45 pm:

    steve schnorf,

    Your logic makes a flawed assumption, namely that it is only because blago made the appointment, with nothing more, that makes it tainted.

    In full form, Blago made the determination that only those who provided him some type of incentive or pay to play would be considered. It was identifed that Burris appears to have played a role in getting Patti a job (one of blagos consideerations). Further, Burris denied that he was asked or agreed to raise or provide money for the position. After the fact, we learn the Burris agrreed to fund raise for blago for the position, but discovered he could not successfully deliver becuase no one wanted to support the gov. So the “tainted” process required exchanges of fundrasing for a job, and Burris took steps to deliver. that Burris was unable to come up with his promised fundraising means only that he failed to cary out his promise, not that he did not try to pay for his seat.




42. - 22skidoo - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 2:45 pm:

    Levois, I think you’ve got the best idea yet. I agree that Burris is going to be unelectable in ‘10, and by his own statements he’s dead set on running. The Blago link, and his own age, and his mediocrity, will likely doom him. What I really wonder is how this all will then play out in the Chicago African-American community.

    Maybe the main thing to learn from the Obama election is that the race card might work in Chicago but it won’t work across the nation. For that matter, I don’t think it will work for a state-wide campaign. If Rush et. al. want to be bigger players than they are, they need to get this.




43. - Redbright - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 2:49 pm:

    Don’t forget that the Urban League’s Cheryle Jackson has said her hat is going in the Senate ring.




44. - Excessively rabid - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 3:45 pm:

    SSM et al, sorry for omitting reconstruction. I don’t think it makes much difference in the way the ministers see the Senate. Hispanics, native Americans, or women notwithstanding, it looks whites-only to them. When you’re a double digit slice of the population, you feel entitled to representation even if it’s Burris. I’m not saying that’s right or that Burris belongs in the Senate. Just appreciate that along with the cynicism and opportunism shown by some, there remains a deep sense of injustice that won’t immediately go away just because Obama is President.




45. - Amy - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 4:47 pm:

    Hispanics are 15% of the population, African Americans 13%, women 50% at least. The African American community has a deep sense of injustice and a better sense of how to play it.
    Others need not to learn the play but need to state the inequity.




46. - steve schnorf - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 6:19 pm:

    Ghost, I completely agree that Burris or any other official can taint themselves with their own behavior, which appears to me to be most of what you are saying. I was commenting only on the question of how his appointment by Gov Blagojevich could taint Burris but not other things (good or bad) that the Governor had done.




47. - Anonymous - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 7:48 pm:

    ====================
    The Romans gave the citizens gladiator battles and other spectacles to divert them from urgent issues of the moment.
    ====================

    Yes, there’s alot of that going on right now (e.g., “Dancing the Recession away…conga lines….).

    At least in Rome–for a while, anyway–the gladiator fights and other forms of similar “entertainment” were funded by private individuals.

    Oy.




48. - this voter will remember - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 8:18 pm:

    Plain and simple - Burris needs to go!




49. - Ahem...The REAL Anonymous - Monday, Mar 2, 09 @ 8:40 pm:

    Ah…but then what would keep us distracted in Illinois? Et tu, Brute?

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.