Rest in Peace, Roland Burris
Ah, vindication.
Yesterday, I felt like I was the only one criticizing the Roland Burris pick for Roland Burris (as opposed to Blagojevich having the gall to make an appointment in the first place).
Today, the truth about Burris and his planet-sized ego is coming out.
Some fun links:
Burris already has his grave site, complete with a massive memorial.
The Chicago Sun-Times documents Burris' belief that he is divinely directed to hold office.
Burris makes my point for me on MSNBC.
You have to read pretty far into this one for the payoff. Burris is described as friendly and honest. But he's also quoted as saying Barack Obama wouldn't have been possible without Roland Burris.
Friendly and honest, he may be. But he's still a putz. And one who has been repeatedly rejected by the voters of Illinois.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross posted at Dagblog.com, where Prophet has been counting down the top 10 albums of 2008. He made it just under with wire with his 3, 2, and 1 picks.
Democrats will fiddle while the country burns.
"We Stopped Burris! We Stopped Blago! Hooray For Us!"
Meanwhile the forces of evil (racism, sexism, homophobia and xenophobia: aka the Republican Party) celebrate while Reid and Obama form a circular firing squad. Brilliant politics. Just brilliant!
December 31, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously.
December 31, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, by all means, let's put more unqualified idiots into high office. Because that will be certain to solve all our problems.
December 31, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Glancing over his wikipedia entry, I'd assume he's minimally qualified for the role http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Burris. So if you are calling him an unqualified idiot, just remember it could be worse. He could be Caroline Kennedy. Compare their life achievements and experience and there's no question he's more qualfied. Not that Caroline Kennedy is an idiot, but she is certainly not as qualified as other choices Paterson could make.
December 31, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Smokes looks cute in that hat.
Burris might be minimally qualified, but we don't have to wonder what the voters of Illinois think of him because they've already told us. They've rejected him every time he's run for office since (and including) 1994. He ran in 1995, for Chicago mayor, in 1998, for governor, in 2002, for governor. The voters don't want him. It's nice that so people who may or may not live in Illinois are so willing put an agenda above the public will. It's why I love living in a democracy.
Yes, I'm being snotty. But I really can't stand it that Burris is achieving some kind of lifelong dream in spite of the democratic process--not because of it. There are plenty of minimally qualified candidates for office. That's why we vote, for crying out loud.
Blagojevich tried to give the seat to Congressman Danny Davis first. He's more than minimally qualified, he's been elected repeatedly by the people in his district, AND he's African American. Davis said no. Because Davis didn't let his ego get in the way of reason.
December 31, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay - I took a gander at Danny Davis and agreed - I would MUCH prefer him. But if Blago has not been convicted of anything (which at this point he hasn't) and is still governor, it's his decision to make. As long as Burris wasn't paying someone off, he should be seated. I honestly don't think the fight to stop his appointment is going to be successful in the courts. And it's a waste of time to have a whole drawn out legal wrangle over something like this. We let Lieberman keep his chairmanship, and we take a stand on this crap? The last thing we need is more party infighting is what we want right now. Just seat him, he's a good democrat & a placeholder. He'll vote party line and you Illinoseans can have their Senate seat back in 2010.
December 31, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and I'll update tonight with the picture of Smokes with her Happy New Year 2009 crown :)
December 31, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those are rational arguments. But he's not a placeholder. There is no way on God's green earth that Roland Burris will walk away from the senate after two years. So, there will be a huge primary fight against a seated senator. The last time it happened, Carol Mosely Braun was so bloodied by the primary (and by her atrocious record in the senate), Peter Fitzgerald won the general and Illinois had a crappy republican senator for six years.
So yeah, Burris might vote the right way now. But we'll still need that seat in 2 years and we might not keep it.
December 31, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 31, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn ... got my quote blocks switched.
December 31, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually any appointment is NOT representative democracy. Blago is still the governor, convicted of nothing and Burris was never alleged to have been part of the pay for play Senate scandal. Yes, we got punked by Blago and he gave an eff you to the Senate and Obama before leaving. But do we really want to drag out this circus any longer?
Step back and think if one senator for Illinois is more representative than two. Not to mention being without another dem vote we may need to pass Obama's stimulus package early since the GOP is already throwing up potential obstacle signs)? Let's be honest - I don't see the Senate or Illinois Sec of State winning a legal battle here. He's there for 2 years when the people will get their say & I sincerely doubt he'll be elected. There's no question of where he stands on the issues or his commitment to public service - he's obviously very, very willing to serve. We have better and much more important battles to fight than this one.
December 31, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you misinterpret Burris' political standing in the eyes of Illinoisans. I don't think he lost the contests he was in over the past number of years because he was particularly disliked. Quite the contrary. He is very well liked and, I think, respected by the Illinois electorate overall. He did lose several races, but those were races he was unlikely to win in any event given the field, etc... and in none of them (as far as I'm aware) was there any really "anti-Burris" sentiment.
Also, I think that while it is entertaining for people to criticize Burris' future gravesite, it isn't really a legitimate criticism of him nor is it an unusual ego that erects such memorials. The comments I see about this seem to come from people who have never been to a major cemetery before. Tens of thousands of people with the means to do so build such memorials for themselves and family members all the time. It isn't unusual in any way and he actually is a historic figure in Illinois. As far as the Burris memorial goes it is frankly a pretty modest one. The wealthy often erect substantial mausaleums for themselves and family members with elaborate artwork, etc... Few of the rich who do this actually have any claim to fame other than their wealth. Burris, on the other hand, actually is a notable figure in Illinois politics having been the first black statewide elected official in the history of the state. And I'm pretty sure that wasn't the only first in his career either. He actually did open up opportunities in the political system for many black candidates, officials, and legislators by succeeding at the polls the many times he did so. Just because Blago picked him doesn't mean Burris is a bad guy, poor choice or "minimally" qualified.
So my bottom line is this: go ahead and criticize Burris if you want to, but do it about things where the criticism is legit, not just cheap shots and give the man his due before showing such disrespect for his long and fairly impressive career in Illinois politics.
January 1, 2009 4:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know I'm late to this particular party, but for the record...
It has been my experience that no elected official puts reason above ego except where it is expedient to do so.
Davis rejected the seat because he didn't believe it was worth the hit he'd take. I'd wager dollars to doughnuts that "the public good" weighed not one ounce on his decision. That's not a *bad* thing, as the #1 imperative of a politician is generally to get re-elected.
January 15, 2009 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know you're right, but at least most of them have the good sense to attempt to hide their massively-self-interested megalomania. And also, mostly they are realists above all else. Burris is just a inflated gas bag ego-maniac jerk. Who is also now a senator. I wish Illinois luck.
January 17, 2009 1:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's really funny.
But as far as Obama goes - it's not a very humble thing to say but he's not entirely wrong. Harold Washington probably deserves more credit, but Burris is one of the many figures who made Obama a possibility in the historically racist city of Chicago and state of Illinois.
This info doesn't necessarily dismiss his ability to serve as a legislator, but it does make me concerned that he wouldn't be a friendly place-holder.
Add to that the reason why he lost in 1998 (he called his opponents "non-qualified white boys") and yeah, I do have concerns.
But ego doesn't mean incompetent or corrupt. And the Senate needs to prove corruption or gross incompetence in order to justify not seating him, don't they?
December 31, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's my point. Not that Burris' position as the first African American to hold statewide office in Illinois didn't break a barrier. But his probably supposition that he's the only one that could have broken that barrier. He's an egomaniac and he would not be a good senator.
December 31, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Probable supposition. Stupid typos.
December 31, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
They don't have to prove it, they have to reach a consensus over it (2/3s I think).
December 31, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I got a good chuckle out of the Burris Crypt. He sure as hell doesn't want you to miss out on any of his many accomplishments. I believe if you do good enough things, others will notice and build you a memorial. If you have to build it yourself, its kind of sad.
December 31, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's another good one:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/brown/1356401,CST-NWS-brown31good.article
December 31, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Orlando you are one angry woman at times. You finally convinced me and Obama does not want this to happen either..with all due respect to your "dumber".
December 31, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not angry. Just determined :)
December 31, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you on this one. It seems his primary qualification is that he stepped up AFTER all of the really appropriate choices ceded that under the circumstances supporting Blago was an inappropriate thing to do.
Burris is acting as a distraction from the really awful things Blago has been caught red handed. His role is to help keep Blago in office and provide cover for the governor's behavior. IMO this makes Burris an accessory after the fact, taking personal profit from illegal acts.
December 31, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Burris was a true political pioneer in post-Daley Illinois. While not a visionary neither was he corrupt. Until now.
From here on he carries the Blagojevich stink wherever he goes.
It's a shame.
December 31, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the news, I forget which channel, he is supposed to have pulled the race card, suggesting that was why people opposed him. Absurd! pathetic! There must be a better option.
January 1, 2009 3:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seems to me the real issue is racism. Who gives a damn about a tomb? The coordinated smear campaigns about Burris having a so-called ego problem sound like a back-handed way of saying "uppity". Seems like Harry Reid would rather keep a certain congressional chamber lily-white than allow a legitimate and qualified minority appointee due process. With the president-elect pulling so many appointees from the Senate, Reid and his ilk better reconsider their positions or at least learn how to count.
January 1, 2009 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can only speak for myself, since I haven't coordinated with anybody, and I can assure you that my distaste of all things in the Land of Burris has exactly zero to do with the color of his skin.
January 1, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pardon me, that comment was blatantly racist. Are you in the habit of making these types of insinuations? I think they suck whatever the color employing them may be.
I happen to be 'minority' and the truth is, it disgusts me more to hear it from one of 'my own.' They ought to know better.
If anyone of any color worked harder than Orlando for Obama then, I haven't met them. You owe the woman an apology. I'd get on with it.
January 1, 2009 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, bwak. But it's okay. I understand these issues are charged and I can understand how someone who doesn't have any sort of first-hand knowledge of Burris and his history could see it that way.
I know all politicians, regardless of demographic characteristics, have mountain-size egos. Burris' problem is that his leads to delusional inflation of his own importance. I take offense that he was gleeful in accepting what he couldn't get through democratic means and I worry about what he'll do to attempt to on to that seat in 2010. Plus, I have a genuine and long-standing dislike of the guy. I'm pretty sure I've disclosed that before now. If not, I think it was fairly obvious in my comments.
January 1, 2009 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
To refuse to seat Burris based on "a genuine and long-standing dislike of the guy" is immaterial. Ever heard of "the rule of law"?
January 2, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I've never heard of "the rule of law." Would you please explain it to me in excruciating detail.
There are many more reasons than my own dislike of Burris for him to be a poor choice for senator. My dislike of him stems from these reasons. If we're going to have a discussion, let's at least have a civil and honest one.
January 2, 2009 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
"They ought" instead of "we ought"? Such an interesting choice of vocabulary for someone who purports to be a minority. You expect me to apologize for speaking the truth? I think not.
January 2, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stating that Burris has a "planet-sized ego" doesn't seem very civil when the man hasn't even been accused of any criminal or unethical activity but will probably be physically barred from taking his legitimately appointed seat in Congress. Skip the snark. Either you believe in due process or you don't. Apparently, implied guilt by association only applies to individuals whom you dislike.
January 3, 2009 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fine, I'll skip the snark. Why don't you provide some reasons you think Burris will make a good senator.
January 3, 2009 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Below is a list of currently elected officials from the Illinois State Senate, State House, and US Congress. Any of them would be better than Burris.
The criticism of Burris' critics for being racist baffles me just a little bit. I haven't heard anyone arguing that Blagojevich should have appointed Burris because there are more qualified white candidates. He shouldn't have appointed Burris because the President-Elect, the Illinois statewide office holders, the Illinois State Senate, the Illinois State House, and the people of Illinois did not want him to. The Burris selection is a defiant move and, frankly, I am pretty sure that the governor and his allies are cracking themselves up over it.
My criticism of Burris is that, despite the fact that he called the allegations against the governor appalling just a couple of weeks ago, he was perfectly willing to accept this appointment. Burris knows full well the public perception of the appointment. He said that everybody he talked to prior to accepting had only positive things to say about the appointment. That would lead me to believe he talked to his wife. Did he make a call to Obama? Did he make a call to Durbin? Did he consider the public opinion or public perception? No, of course not. He's Roland Burris. He was divinely directed to the senate.
There are plenty of elected officials that I dislike. But I don't have contempt for too many of them. Burris is a joke, and not a very funny one.
I've read that he's marginally qualified, that he's a really nice guy, and that he's squeaky clean.
If he was such a good guy, why did he let Rolando Cruz sit on death row for years despite the confession of another man to the killing for which Cruz was convicted? Rolando Cruz who sat in jail, sentenced to DEATH, because Burris didn't want to look soft on crime while running for governor. That's really nice.
Burris doesn't care that he's part of a political side show that is going to take energy and effort away from what the Senate's priorities should be. Burris doesn't care that the people of Illinois would rank him far down the list of their preferred candidates. Burris doesn't care that his appointment may wind up costing the democrats a senate seat in 2010. In fact, I'm sure Burris hasn't even considered this option because he's probably already reactivated his PAC to raise money for his campaign.
Now, we're stuck with him and we're stuck with all the drama that comes with him. There are many, many candidates for that seat--African American candidates--who are at least as qualified as Roland Burris. Blagojevich picked Burris because he calculated it would cause the most uproar, because he calculated that he could use the appointment to argue for his innocence, and because he knew that somebody would accuse critics of Burris of racism, which would make it all the more convoluted and dramatic.
The whole thing makes me sick.
Here's the list. I've put an asterisk next to the ones who I believe have been in office for ten years or more (but I don't know all of them well, so I might miss some).
Illinois State Senate
*Emil Jones
*James Clayborne, Jr.
*Rickey R. Hendon
Mattie Hunter
Kimberly A. Lightford
James Meeks
Kwame Raoul
*Donne Trotter
Illinois State House
Annazette Collins
Marlow H. Colvin
*Monique D. Davis
William Davis
Kenneth Dunkin
Mary E. Flowers
LaShawn Ford
Esther Golar
Careen Gordon
Deborah L. Graham
Constance A. Howard
Elga L. Jefferies
Charles E. Jefferson
David E. Miller
Milton Patterson
Al Riley
*Arthur Turner
Eddie Washington
Karen Yarbrough
Also, Illinois has three current Congressmen who are African American.
US Congress
Bobby Rush
Jesse Jackson Jr
Danny Davis
January 3, 2009 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Burris and Blago. Two peas in a pod, it would seem!
B & B ..... Bread and Butter (full of nuts!)
January 3, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice list but you're not the governor. When you have non-delegable statuatory duties, let us know.
January 3, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only salient point that you've made is that you think people who criticize Burris are racist. If you can comment on the merits of the Burris appointment, please do. If not, please stop talking.
January 3, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does crow leave an aftertaste?
January 23, 2009 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink