« Democratic Senators Not Fond of Obama's Tax Cuts ... | Home | Harkin Fears "Trickle-Down" Stimulus »
Burris: Reid And Durbin Never Asked Me Whether I'll Run In 2010
Here's an interesting moment from Roland Burris' testimony today before the Illinois House impeachment committee: While he was being grilled by GOP state Rep. Jim Durkin, Burris was asked whether he gave Harry Reid and Dick Durbin an answer yesterday about whether he was running in 2010.
His response: The question never came up.
In addition, Burris revealed that he had been "running" for this seat for quite a while, having spoken with a former Blago aide and indicating his interest in the seat even before Barack Obama was actually elected President.
He also said that he never offered any quid-pro-quo to Blagojevich about the appointment, nor was he aware of any deal being made on his behalf by anyone else.
Advertisement
Primary challenge, primary challenge, primary challenge.
January 8, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The is Blago's FU to the other candidates for not playing ball and to the Dems for hanging him out to dry.
January 8, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The question doesn't need to be asked.
Under normal circumstances, Burris would not even consider running in 2010, for several reasons.
(1) The appointment, while legal, has the stench of Blago all over it, which is why Danny Davis declined it when offered.
(2) Burris is 71.
(3) Burris hasn't won a statewide PRIMARY - never mind general election - in 20 years, and has badly hurt his political brand in the process.
(4) There's a strong Dem bench in Illinois, and a number of people are eyeing that seat.
Now, under normal circumstances, I would bet dollars to doughnuts that Burris wouldn't even bother trying to run in 2010.
However, this is the same guy who tried to beat a very popular Republican incumbent governor (Jim Edgar) by making race an issue. (Fun fact about that race: the mayor of East St. Louis at the time, Gordon Bush, actually endorsed Edgar. If a Democrat can't get the endorsement of THAT city's mayor, s/he is completely screwed.)
Then, Burris tried to beat Richard Daley in Chicago using the same tactic. That mayoral race permanently blew up what little political credibility Burris hadn't already spent in the Chicago area, which you must do well in to win statewide.
Impossible to know what he'll do in 2010, but given his willingness to tilt with very large, well-armed, and heavily uparmored windmills in the past, I'd say there's a chance he'd try to run again...which would make his sixth failed bid since his election as Illinois attorney general.
January 8, 2009 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
excellent Don Quixote reference. And it looks to be very fitting to Burris. I think he legally should be seated--he's done nothing wrong--and Blago seems to have thought this through. No matter what happens in the impeachment vote tomorrow (!?!), I think Burris is going to be in there.
2010? Well, we will see. He's been the ultimate opportunist in all of this so far. I wouldn't rule him out yet.
January 8, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Burris didn't win the primary in 1994--Dawn Clark Netsch did.
But more to the point of the post--Burris didn't just approach a former Blago aide, but Lon Monk who is Lobbyist #1 in the Criminal Complaint.
And he did so while talking to Lon if Lon had any extra work he could throw Roland's way. Lon's only big draw as a lobbyist was being close to Blagojevich so that pretty much means work brought in by reputation of being close to Blagojevich.
January 8, 2009 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
In your rush to "correct" an "error", you missed this part of the post.
Obviously, Burris didn't win the '94 primary, and this quote just as obviously makes it clear that this was understood. But he was aiming all of his guns against Edgar, and part of his problem was that he largely ignored Netsch, who rallied in the closing weeks of the primary to get the nomination.
As far as talking to Lon Monk, who cares? Hell, Burris could've talked to Blagojevich himself about the seat. If there's no proof of wrongdoing - and Burris is not involved in Fitzgerald's investigation - then all of that is a whole bunch of nothing.
January 9, 2009 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink