Burris: Jimmy Carter Told Me I'll Make a Great Senator
Roland Burris just held another fascinating press conference, in which he voiced his optimism about becoming a Senator after some initial questions are cleared up.
Burris also said he spoke on the phone with Jimmy Carter, who told him, "When you're in the Senate, Roland, you will make a great Senator."
"And I said, 'Thank you very much, Mr. President,'" Burris said with pride.
He also talked about the process that led to his appointment, having encouraged supporters to write to Rod Blagojevich and urge his appointment after he had announced that he wanted it. At that point, he invited a supporter at the back of the room to stand up. The supporter then said how proud he was to have known Burris, and how many signatures he lined up from people to ask for Burris' appointment.
....then two trained bears appeared at the podium and started juggling
January 7, 2009 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL! After watching Burris over the past week, I simply can't figure out why he never made it out of the primaries the last five times he ran.
{SNARK}
January 7, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would love to know who initiated the phone call.
January 7, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
As someone who lives in Illinois, all I can say is
(inarticulate groaning and head-banging sounds).
January 7, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
This guy is so friggin' embarrassing. For his own good -- not to mention dignity -- he really needs to stay away from the cameras and microphones.
January 7, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
He reminds me of your in-law's nephew, you know, the "challenged" one at the Christmas party who's just a little too tall for his bluejeans and a little old to be coming up to everyone with a handful of tinsel saying "look! it's shiny! I can spell 'bathtub'!"...
*sigh*
January 7, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
and Billy made a heckuva kid brother too. Killer Rabbit be damned, full nuclear subs ahead.
January 7, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
All of this is entertaining and weird, yes. But the fact is that in the appearances I've seen of his, his argument with regard to his appointment has been simple and, frankly, unassailable:
a) His appointment by Blagojevich, however unattractive politically, is perfectly legal and binding;
b) Noone has made a credible accusation of corruption against him (Burris, that is); and
c) Illinois deserves two Senators for what is probably the most important session of Congress in generations.
(Note that Burris himself has avoided any racial, or other political, arguments.)
In the end, all this other stuff doesn't matter. The Senate is, has been, and will always be full of lesser lights, and Burris won't be the dimmest bulb in the lot. If they can get him to promise not to run in 2010, great. If not, the Illinois Dems need to get their act together and make sure they nominate someone better. In the meantime, there's no real legal or moral case for not seating him.
January 7, 2009 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. The appointment is tainted by a legitimate concern of impropriety on the part of the governor. It seems to me that the returns and elections clause exists precisely for the reason of blocking questionable prospective members in cases like this.
And I don't think Powell is important here. So long as there are no mala fides shenanigans, I don't see why the courts would overturn the judgment of the Senate -- or, quite frankly, even entertain a suit.
January 7, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's an interesting thought; I'd merely point out that you seem to be in something of a minority here -- Reid's legal reasoning seems so far to be limited to the lack of an S.o.S. sig, and that's been rejected today by the S.o.S. himself...
Yes, there is "legitimate concern" about impropriety on Blago's part, but is there credible evidence of impropriety with regard to Burris specifically? Lacking that I'd think Reid et al would be on shaky legal ground; essentially they'd have a compelling political argument, but not much of a legal one, and to allow them to reject Burris on that ground would mean they have essentially unlimited discretion -- a dangerous and dubious precedent.
I still think, unappetizing as it is, swallowing hard and seating Burris is the better option both legally and morally (and fwiw there's a decent political argument for seating him now rather than letting the story fester for weeks and months to come).
January 7, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink