bmags Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 http://www.propublica.org/article/burris-1...lion-pal-090209 Nothing really hard hitting, but, considering how much I loathe this man, I wouldn't mind if the teeth of the story are found and it takes him down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 You hate Burris? Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted February 9, 2009 Author Share Posted February 9, 2009 Because he accepted the Senate nomination and acted like everyone was crazy for thinking that was a big deal. Because as long as he's around Blago still has a legacy. Because he is so arrogant he thinks that he deserves things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Eh outside of that whole political sideshow, there really isn't much any other reason to hate him. I mean, he's 72, do you think he was going to not accept the Senate seat? Who wouldn't? Those that would are a small minority, it's not everyday you have an opportunity to be a senator, those windows are rare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted February 9, 2009 Author Share Posted February 9, 2009 I can't hate a 72 year old who acted completely selfishly and betrayed the trust of his constituents? That makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Betrayed the trust of his constituents? When? How does he betray it if he never has it in the first place, for reasons he can't control? Anyone who's running for elected office is acting out of self-interest. Anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 12:10 PM) Anyone who's running for elected office is acting out of self-interest. Anyone. Even when their earning power in the private sector would be significantly higher for most positions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 03:12 PM) Even when their earning power in the private sector would be significantly higher for most positions? We'd really be getting into semantics if I tried to argue that. But just watch any given politician campaign, see the way they talk and the way they act and react (x10 if you're talking at the national level). Of course they're acting out of self-interest. They want to get elected, so they do what they have to do. Why's it any different if you're taking an appointment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted February 9, 2009 Author Share Posted February 9, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 08:10 PM) Betrayed the trust of his constituents? When? How does he betray it if he never has it in the first place, for reasons he can't control? Anyone who's running for elected office is acting out of self-interest. Anyone. Are you kidding? If he wanted it so bad, and his years as a mediocre AG who killed innocent people on death row were so great and attractive to become a senator, why not wait for Blago to be impeached then ask PQ for the nomination. But instead he gave this gov. that we all hated, had embarrassed the state, by accepting, gave that gov. more of a platform, more of a voice, and more of a legacy. It isn't that hard to figure out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 03:17 PM) Are you kidding? If he wanted it so bad, and his years as a mediocre AG who killed innocent people on death row were so great and attractive to become a senator, why not wait for Blago to be impeached then ask PQ for the nomination. But instead he gave this gov. that we all hated, had embarrassed the state, by accepting, gave that gov. more of a platform, more of a voice, and more of a legacy. It isn't that hard to figure out. I actually don't really care about your reasons for hating him, I just wanted to know why because it strikes me as odd that him accepting an appointment by Blagojevich in and of itself is enough for people to despise him. I guess. We'll find out what people think of him in 2010. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 02:21 PM) I actually don't really care about your reasons for hating him, I just wanted to know why because it strikes me as odd that him accepting an appointment by Blagojevich in and of itself is enough for people to despise him. I guess. We'll find out what people think of him in 2010. I read somewhere recently that Senators are re-elected at a ridiculously high rate no matter how good or bad they're perceived to be. Somewhere around 94% if I recall correctly. Just look at Ted Stevens. EDIT: I was referring to the number of times Stevens was re-elected. Almost forgot he recently lost. Edited February 9, 2009 by BigSqwert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 02:10 PM) Betrayed the trust of his constituents? When? How does he betray it if he never has it in the first place, for reasons he can't control? Anyone who's running for elected office is acting out of self-interest. Anyone. Government pension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted February 9, 2009 Author Share Posted February 9, 2009 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 09:35 PM) I read somewhere recently that Senators are re-elected at a ridiculously high rate no matter how good or bad they're perceived to be. Somewhere around 94% if I recall correctly. Just look at Ted Stevens. EDIT: I was referring to the number of times Stevens was re-elected. Almost forgot he recently lost. Stevens was considered a very good senator for how much money he got for Alaska and influence he had for such a small state in terms of pop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 02:17 PM) Are you kidding? If he wanted it so bad, and his years as a mediocre AG who killed innocent people on death row were so great and attractive to become a senator, why not wait for Blago to be impeached then ask PQ for the nomination. But instead he gave this gov. that we all hated, had embarrassed the state, by accepting, gave that gov. more of a platform, more of a voice, and more of a legacy. It isn't that hard to figure out. Interesting point of view. Obviously here in Texas I do not get the gory details. Didn't he have to be confirmed by the same group that impeached the Governor? I thought he showed a lot of courage to face that group as Blago's pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted February 9, 2009 Author Share Posted February 9, 2009 fine line between courage and obliviousness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 03:25 PM) fine line between courage and obliviousness Burris was not oblivious to the potential battle he was getting into. I go with courage on this one. And I really don't think he enhances Blago's legacy in any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 03:25 PM) fine line between courage and obliviousness He's more on the latter. Trust me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 9, 2009 -> 09:29 PM) Burris was not oblivious to the potential battle he was getting into. I go with courage on this one. And I really don't think he enhances Blago's legacy in any way. Not oblivious that there was a battle, oblivious to why. "I'm clean, I'm old, I did a completely mediocre job, what's wrong with me taking the seat from a criminal the entire state is waiting with baited breath to leave?" Oblivious. Stupid. Mediocre. Burris '10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 QUOTE (bmags @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 10:13 AM) Not oblivious that there was a battle, oblivious to why. "I'm clean, I'm old, I did a completely mediocre job, what's wrong with me taking the seat from a criminal the entire state is waiting with baited breath to leave?" Oblivious. Stupid. Mediocre. Burris '10 I thought he had to be confirmed? Blago got to pick and that was the only step? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 08:58 AM) I thought he had to be confirmed? Blago got to pick and that was the only step? It's complicated. The Constitution gives the Senate the right to determine the winner of an election. But that would be a senate seat not coming from an election, it's coming from an appointment. In other words, if the Dems wanted to make a stand, they may have had grounds, but it would have tied things up for months until the Supreme Court got a chance to decide exactly how that clause would apply in that case. Aside from that though, there was no official confirmation hearing that the person had to pass. Blago could have appointed anyone he wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 QUOTE (Texsox @ Feb 10, 2009 -> 04:58 PM) I thought he had to be confirmed? Blago got to pick and that was the only step? what balta said. Legally their hands were tied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts