Obama starting to show true colors

dellinger63 · #1 01-08-2009, 10:55 AM

Only a week ago, Obama, Reid and other Democratic leaders were adamant that they'd block any Senate appointment made by tainted Illinois Gov. Rod "Dead Meat" Blagojevich, who has been charged with trying to sell Obama's seat to the highest bidder.

Their statements back then were stern and inflexible, invoking the honor of the Senate and how they'd never let an allegedly corrupt governor put his greasy paws on their august dignity. Those statements weren't bland. They were so tough they had hair on them. More hair than Blagojevich, even.

Don't let them fool you. Once IL was polled and it was determined there was a good chance a Rep would win a 'special election' the wagons were circled around this golden thing known as a senate seat tainted or not

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...6293839.column

SniperSB23 · #2 01-08-2009, 11:04 AM

What exactly does this have to do with Obama? The Senate has no real choice. The Constitution requires them to seat him so there is nothing they can do. The guy has done nothing wrong, he just got appointed by a scumbag constitutionally.

gales0678 · #3 01-08-2009, 11:08 AM

no question steve you are right on the number

where is dick durbin - he called for a special election as an alternative to blago's choice on day 1

like you say once the dems realized they could lose a special election , they did a total flip - flop

my aunt who voted for obama , kerry and gore even admitted this to me when i questioned her

gales0678 · #4 01-08-2009, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

What exactly does this have to do with Obama? The Senate has no real choice. The Constitution requires them to seat him so there is nothing they can do. The guy has done nothing wrong, he just got appointed by a scumbag constitutionally.

scott - the gov can appoint anyone from ILL (including Scavs) but until the state secretary certifies it he can't be seated , legal actions have begun it could be a lnog drawn out court fight

the dems LED BY Obama pointman Durbin floated the special election idea right away - when a poll was taken which showed the republicans could win , the dems did a complete flip flop and called it off

if the meida has any guts they will ask obama about this right now today

dellinger63 · #5 01-08-2009, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

What exactly does this have to do with Obama? The Senate has no real choice. The Constitution requires them to seat him so there is nothing they can do. The guy has done nothing wrong, he just got appointed by a scumbag constitutionally.

Did you read the article? Hint phone call to Reid (while on vacation)

hoovesupsideyourhead · #6 01-08-2009, 11:21 AM

classic..oh snap its a brotha..hes ok now..and by the way ..blagos ok with me
[please dont rat me out to the feds]..

jwkniska · #7 01-08-2009, 11:21 AM

it's also just kinda convenient that Blago's wife just ended up on the board of directors of a company..... that's owned by Burris's business partner.

that was reported on the local news here yesterday.

SniperSB23 · #8 01-08-2009, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Did you read the article? Hint phone call to Reid (while on vacation)

How exactly was the Senate supposed to stop the Governor of Illinois from acting within his constitutional rights? Had he appointed someone dirty they could have acted but he didn't. All their talk ahead of time was posturing when in reality they had no power to stop Blago.

As for the phone call, I'm going to need a little more evidence than this guys word or some anonymous source. And really then the only thing I'd care about is if Obama truly said "I did not have phone contact with that senator, Harry Reid, never, ever" when he had just been in phone contact with him. I could care less if he wants this guy seated since there is nothing that can be done to prevent him from being seated and the longer it drags on the longer rightwingers are going to be writing articles like that one.

SniperSB23 · #9 01-08-2009, 11:34 AM

Actually, from re-reading it, it looks like the writer has cleverly wrote the piece in a way that appears to attribute a quote to Obama that he never said by writing a paragraph that could be taken as sarcasm. So I have no problem then whatsoever with what Obama did.

dellinger63 · #10 01-08-2009, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

How exactly was the Senate supposed to stop the Governor of Illinois from acting within his constitutional rights? Had he appointed someone dirty they could have acted but he didn't. All their talk ahead of time was posturing when in reality they had no power to stop Blago.

As for the phone call, I'm going to need a little more evidence than this guys word or some anonymous source. And really then the only thing I'd care about is if Obama truly said "I did not have phone contact with that senator, Harry Reid, never, ever" when he had just been in phone contact with him. I could care less if he wants this guy seated since there is nothing that can be done to prevent him from being seated and the longer it drags on the longer rightwingers are going to be writing articles like that one.

problem is Kass is no right winger. The IL House is stalling (don't want to hear the wire taps etc) when they should begin impeachment hearings and Blago should be stripped of his powers. Hell what does he have to do? Rape or murder someone on camera?

SniperSB23 · #11 01-08-2009, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dellinger63

problem is Kass is no right winger. The IL House is stalling (don't want to hear the wire taps etc) when they should begin impeachment hearings and Blago should be stripped of his powers. Hell what does he have to do? Rape or murder someone on camera?

We're agreed on that. I just don't buy that it is Obama's fault in anyway and I don't think when everyone was threatening to not seat anyone that Blago appointed they didn't anticipate that he'd actually appoint someone qualified and completely removed from the scandal.

jwkniska · #12 01-08-2009, 11:44 AM

committee vote today, full house vote supposed to be tomorrow just said on cable news... and they picked up on the board appointment of blago's wife to burris's business partner

SniperSB23 · #13 01-08-2009, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwkniska

committee vote today, full house vote supposed to be tomorrow just said on cable news... and they picked up on the board appointment of blago's wife to burris's business partner

When did that happen? If it was recently then that solves all the problems, they have enough grounds to go for expulsion even if he gets seated and it is a bonehead move by Burris.

jwkniska · #14 01-08-2009, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

When did that happen? If it was recently then that solves all the problems, they have enough grounds to go for expulsion even if he gets seated and it is a bonehead move by Burris.

don't know the exact date, but was within last couple months. Also, Burris is in Springfield testifying in front of the committee today.

Also, the congress can keep him out, as they have the right to not seat anyone (the crap about the sec of state's signature is a bunch of crap... even with it, they can refuse to seat him).

SniperSB23 · #15 01-08-2009, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwkniska

don't know the exact date, but was within last couple months. Also, Burris is in Springfield testifying in front of the committee today.

Also, the congress can keep him out, as they have the right to not seat anyone (the crap about the sec of state's signature is a bunch of crap... even with it, they can refuse to seat him).

On what constitutional grounds?

jwkniska · #16 01-08-2009, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

On what constitutional grounds?

they have the right to not seat anyone they deem unfit to serve...
ex: throwing out Traficant, cooked congressman from Cleveland that eventually got put in jail. they tossed him out of the House by refusing to seat him, even though he won the election fairly.

SniperSB23 · #17 01-08-2009, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwkniska

they have the right to not seat anyone they deem unfit to serve...
ex: throwing out Traficant, cooked congressman from Cleveland that eventually got put in jail. they tossed him out of the House by refusing to seat him, even though he won the election fairly.

On what basis is Burris unfit to serve?

AeWingnut · #18 01-08-2009, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

On what basis is Burris unfit to serve?

he bought a senate seat

SniperSB23 · #19 01-08-2009, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AeWingnut

he bought a senate seat

If that turns out to be the base then he's gone, no question. But without that there is nothing they can do to prevent him from joining the Senate.

jwkniska · #20 01-08-2009, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

On what basis is Burris unfit to serve?

appointed by an indicted gov that's soon to be impeached. taints it from the beginning. it doesn't matter if Burris is unfit... since the process includes Blago, that's it. If Burris would later get appointed by someone else, or would win an election, then go right ahead and put him in, but thru Blago, he should never be allowed on the floor.

Also, the only reason Reid said that it's on Jesse White, sec of IL, is that they brought up the race card with him when they didn't seat him.... that way Reid doesn't end up on Jesse Jackson's racist list and puts it on a black guy, so they can't use the race card with White. White's signature on it means that he, on behalf of IL doesn't endorse him. Means nothing to whether they seat Burris or not, which is totally up to the leaders of the house of congress he'd be in.