Illinois: The Most Corrupt State in the USA.

Manic Moran

Not my words, that of the US Attorney after they arrested the Governor today.

I mentioned in another thread that Governor Blagojevich was in trouble, and even more unpopular than Bush. Yesterday, amongst his travails, he announced he had nothing to hide, and he invited people "Go ahead, tape my calls if you like, I've nothing to hide"

Seems, however, the FBI were already doing just that and decided they had enough evidence to make an arrest.

Where's that 'Ha-Ha!' Nelson picture gone?

NTM

Otacon

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not my words, that of the US Attorney after they arrested the Governor today.

I mentioned in another thread that Governor Blagojevich was in trouble, and even more unpopular than Bush. Yesterday, amongst his travails, he announced he had nothing to hide, and he invited people "Go ahead, tape my calls if you like, I've nothing to hide"

Seems, however, the FBI were already doing just that and decided they had enough evidence to make an arrest.

Where's that 'Ha-Ha!' Nelson picture gone?

NTM

Was watching this on BBC News yesterday. Found it funny alright that he called on people to tap his phones and they were already doing it.

One thing though, how does the US Attorney come to the conclusion that Illinois is the most corrupt state after, afaik, one corrupt person? Seems a bit extreme no? Though now I am asking myself, where would be more corrupt?

Cronus333

He is the fourth governor to be arrested in the recent past for corruption. Blagojevich succeeded a governor arrested for corruption!

In addition Chicago is the only city in America which still has a party machine working in it -in this case the Daley Machine.

Nodin

Otacon wrote: »

Was watching this on BBC News yesterday. Found it funny alright that he called on people to tap his phones and they were already doing it.

One thing though, how does the US Attorney come to the conclusion that Illinois is the most corrupt state after, afaik, one corrupt person? Seems a bit extreme no? Though now I am asking myself, where would be more corrupt?

Guardian wrote:

Over the last 30 years, at least three governors, a mayor, and a few dozen local government officials in Chicago have been convicted of criminal offences. In 1994-2004, a total of 469 Illinois politicians were found guilty of corruption - more than any other region except central California and south Florida, Slate magazine reported. Blagejovich's Republican predecessor, George Ryan, pictured, is serving a six-year sentence for racketeering, fraud, bribery and money laundering. Political scientists attribute the corruption to machine politics and one-party rule in Chicago

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/10/illinois-governor-rod-blagojevich-bribes

Interesting to note that a steady stream of arrests and convictions deters them not at all.

Otacon

Forgive my ignorance

Nodin

Otacon wrote: »

Forgive my ignorance

Not at all. If he said "Chicago" out straight it would have been more obvious. And I only happen to recognise it because of reading up on Richard Daley and the irish connection there a while back. Its such a vast country the cities alone are almost worlds unto themselves. If anything its a reminder of how we're a mere drop of piddle in the great piss bucket of humanity.

Manic Moran

Here's the complaint. (warning, near 80 pages of evidence!)

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/pr/chicago/2008/pr1209_01a.pdf

NTM

Black Swan

With all the corruption talk, I would have thought that the largest city (Chicago) in the so called "most corrupt state in the USA" would have also made the most dangerous list, but apparently not. But you still won't catch me alone riding the L at night there, even if it's not on the list!
Source: http://www.statestats.com/cit05pop.htm#500,000+

Now I did notice that San Jose was number one safest for its population category. Must be cause Manic Moran lives there?;)

To claim that Illinois is the most corrupt state, does this suggest that there is a ranking of the 50 states in terms of corruption? If so, I wonder where Alaska is ranked, with Republican US Senator Ted Stevens drawing a lot of recent press? Does Illinois have a CBC hat?

"He is the highest-profile lawmaker to be indicted in an Alaska political corruption investigation that began in 2004 and has resulted in seven convictions. Before the federal probe started, emboldened legislators in Juneau had worn baseball caps with the initials "CBC," which stood for "Corrupt Bastards Club."

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/29/AR2008072901416.html

It would appear that there is some dispute as to which state of the 50 is most corrupt? Is North Dakota competing with Illinois for the number one spot? I guess it depends upon whom is asked?

"BISMARCK, N.D., Dec. 11 (UPI) -- North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem said Thursday that a USA Today report that called his state the most corrupt in the nation is flawed.

The article Thursday reported North Dakota had the highest rate of public corruption convictions in the nation from 1998 to 2007. Legal Newsline reported that the Republican attorney general took issue with the story."

Source:
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/12/11/AG_takes_aim_at_state_corruption_rankings/UPI-88811229016021/

Manic Moran

You do have to admit, there is something of a difference in scale between a bunch of school board supervisors abusing travel money and a sequence of State Governors conducting scams and extortions.

NTM

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

You do have to admit, there is something of a difference in scale between a bunch of school board supervisors abusing travel money and a sequence of State Governors conducting scams and extortions.

Perhaps what we need is a corruption meter that we can stick in each state and thereby measure the volume and magnitude of corruption, establishing how rank each is? Lacking such a mechanical device, then a formula with a valid and reliable system of weights and measures of corruption, to where corruption both small and large can be accumulated and assessed, factoring in state population and other socio-economic-cultural demographics for comparison purposes?

For example, would we have to take into account the substantial differences in state population size between Alaska 683,478 (2007 estimate) and Illinois 12,852,548 (2007 estimate), rather than just count the raw number of corruption convictions per year? If the old adage that "power corrupts" has any merit, increasing size of population may be correlated with both increasing number of corruption convictions, as well as an increasing number in terms of severity of corruption? Perhaps a per capita ratio could be developed, to where one convicted corrupt US Senator from Alaska (e.g., Ted Stevens) is equivalent to (how many proportionately?) corrupt US Senators from Illinois (or governors, etc.) over time? And population size is only one factor, among many, before we could arrive by rigorous, scientific measures that were both valid and reliable for the rank-ordering of 50 states on corruption?

*cough!*

Rented Mule

Otacon wrote: »

Was watching this on BBC News yesterday. Found
One thing though, how does the US Attorney come to the conclusion that Illinois is the most corrupt state after, afaik, one corrupt person? Seems a bit extreme no? Though now I am asking myself, where would be more corrupt?

As someone who was born and raised on the southside of Chicago, and grew up within gthe constructs of Democratic machine politics, it would not surpirse me of this accusation.

If jom Edgar had not resigned as Governor, this should have been three consecutive Illinois governors that would have been/will be sent to prison.

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley is the next one in line to fall. He has been running unchecked for years now.

Manic Moran

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

For example, would we have to take into account the substantial differences in state population size between Alaska 683,478 (2007 estimate) and Illinois 12,852,548 (2007 estimate), rather than just count the raw number of corruption convictions per year?

Slate is on it.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2206523/

According to data collected by Dick Simpson, a political scientist at the University of Illinois at Chicago, more than 1,000 public officials and business people from Illinois have been convicted in federal corruption cases since 1971. Of those, an astonishing 30 were Chicago aldermen; that's around 20 percent of those elected to the City Council during that period. If Blagojevich ultimately goes to prison, he will become the fourth out of the last eight governors to wear stripes, joining predecessors George Ryan (racketeering, conspiracy, obstruction), Dan Walker (bank fraud), and Otto Kerner (straight-up bribery). If he gets assigned to the U.S. penitentiary in Terre Haute, Ind., Blagojevich could become the first governor to share a cell with a predecessor.

(A full 20% of Chicago city councilmen? Note that that doesn't count all crimes, only corruption convictions, and a Chicago City Councilman is probably more of an impact than a Bismark School Boardsman)

However

But don't count Louisiana out. According to statistics compiled by the Corporate Crime Reporter, it was No. 1 for the period between 1997 and 2006, with 326 federal corruption convictions. That's a rate of 7.67 per 100,000 residents. Illinois had 524 convictions in the same period, but with a larger population, its rate was only 4.68, which puts it an embarrassing sixth

(And rightfully so. Louisiana is the other state commonly associated with corrupt politicians)

The four in between were Mississippi (2), Kentucky (3), Alabama (4) and Ohio (5).

Speaking of corruption investigations, this week it was announced that the Feds were doing one now in New Mexico: Apparently a questionable company (CDR) which made large donations to some of Richardson's political action committees happened by coincidence to also get large contracts from the State.

And the House Ethics Committee has announced its expansion of its investigation of Charles Rangel for something they're investigating.

Got to admit, the Democrats timed that lot bloody nicely. After the election, but so long before the next election, everyone will have forgotten them.

NTM

The Mad Hatter

Olbermann did a 25 most corrupt US politicians over the last couple of Countdowns. Nixon's only number 20...

Part one

Part two

Anyone know why YouTube tags aren't working atm?

Pocono Joe

Believe it or not... Blagojevich’s campaign for Governor ran on a message of CHANGE and REFORM?

And Notice how many people from the political machine of Chicago and Illinois Obama is appointing to his administration? Hmmmmmmm.

Can you say “Change You Can Bid On”

JohnMc1

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Believe it or not... Blagojevich’s campaign for Governor ran on a message of CHANGE and REFORM?

And Notice how many people from the political machine of Chicago and Illinois Obama is appointing to his administration? Hmmmmmmm.

Can you say “Change You Can Bid On”

Its like Ebay and the "Buy It Now" function. I think Obama should come clean now. For a guy who claims to want to be open and transparent he plays dumb alot when something like this pops up. The problem for Obama is the longer this drags out it might effect his chances for re-election. While the wire-taps cleared Obama himself it has yet to be revealed what Rham Emmanuel's part in this.

Manic Moran

In the meantime, pay-to-play still seems to be a consideration. This time against Kennedy/Schlossberg.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/12/25/2008-12-25_lack_of_donations_to_city_state_dems_may.html

Lack of donations to city, state Dems may hurt Caroline Kennedy's bid for Senate
<snip>
Some say Kennedy, who is worth at least $100 million, missed an opportunity to curry favor among Democratic pols to establish herself as a serious political player as she lobbies Gov. Paterson for Hillary Clinton's Senate seat.

I seriously hope this woman doesn't get the seat.

NTM

JohnMc1

Manic Moran wrote: »

In the meantime, pay-to-play still seems to be a consideration. This time against Kennedy/Schlossberg.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/12/25/2008-12-25_lack_of_donations_to_city_state_dems_may.html



I seriously hope this woman doesn't get the seat.

NTM

I don't know how they cannot call that the same thing Blagovich is in trouble for. Saying she didn't donate enough to the Dem party is the same thing as trying to sell Clinton's Senate seat.

oscarBravo

I can sort of see the parallel, but surely you can't be comparing Kennedy to Blagojevich? Isn't it almost the inverse?

JohnMc1

oscarBravo wrote: »

I can sort of see the parallel, but surely you can't be comparing Kennedy to Blagojevich? Isn't it almost the inverse?

While Kennedy is not the same level of scum like Blagojevich the idea of not appointing Kennedy as Hillary's successor because she didn't donate enough to the Party is the same as what Blagojevich was trying to do.

Manic Moran

It's already fairly established that the only reason she's really being considered is that she's not a Smith or a Schlossberg or a Jones. That's a bad start. Now it's a further issue of 'Did she pay enough money?' This strikes me as being very little 'what do you know' as much as 'who did you know and how much did you give?' I mean, you can kindof see it in cases like giving the position of Ambassador to Ireland to a Kennedy, it's a pretty pointless job which can't do any damage. (I don't like that either, but it seems to be the done thing in the US) But a Senator is actually kindof important.

NTM

oscarBravo

JohnMc1 wrote: »

While Kennedy is not the same level of scum like Blagojevich the idea of not appointing Kennedy as Hillary's successor because she didn't donate enough to the Party is the same as what Blagojevich was trying to do.

If you're going to draw that sort of parallel, you really ought to draw it between Blagojevich and whomever is accused of requiring donations. As it is, you're mentioning Kennedy's name in the same sentence as Blagojevich - the implication is subtle, but there.

Black Swan

JohnMc1 wrote: »

While Kennedy is not the same level of scum like Blagojevich the idea of not appointing Kennedy as Hillary's successor because she didn't donate enough to the Party is the same as what Blagojevich was trying to do.

Well, why don't you suggest that the USA get at the real issue of campaign finance reform, and recommend passing laws that stop corporations and special interest lobbies from influencing candidates with millions of dollars in contributions, starting with the oil lobby? How much did they contribute to candidates? What does the oil lobby expect in return? Isn't this defacto buying of candidates? Is there any candidate that did not accept monies from corporations or lobbies when running for high USA office? They all do, or they would not have enough money to compete. The whole USA political system is corrupted by this. All candidates are bought and paid for, either directly or through PACs, be they Democrats or Republicans!

JohnMc1

oscarBravo wrote: »

If you're going to draw that sort of parallel, you really ought to draw it between Blagojevich and whomever is accused of requiring donations. As it is, you're mentioning Kennedy's name in the same sentence as Blagojevich - the implication is subtle, but there.

I would but we can only insult the Jesse Jackson family so much. The fact that the conman, shakedown artist reproducedand his son is a politician in the most corrupt state says it all.

Blue Lagoon wrote:

Well, why don't you suggest that the USA get at the real issue of campaign finance reform,

I am. Are you? If there were campaign finance reform chances are Obama might not have won.

oscarBravo

JohnMc1 wrote: »

I would but we can only insult the Jesse Jackson family so much. The fact that the conman, shakedown artist reproducedand his son is a politician in the most corrupt state says it all.

I'm sorry. Jesse Jackson is Governor of New York?

When did this happen?

Or are you just picking random Democrats to level subtle slurs at, without actually having to come out and accuse anyone of anything specific?

JohnMc1

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm sorry. Jesse Jackson is Governor of New York?

When did this happen?

Or are you just picking random Democrats to level subtle slurs at, without actually having to come out and accuse anyone of anything specific?

Jesse Jackson Jr was one of the people listed as trying to buy Obama's Senate seat.

Do you watch the news?

oscarBravo

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Jesse Jackson Jr was one of the people listed as trying to buy Obama's Senate seat.

Which has what, precisely, to do with Caroline Kennedy?

JohnMc1

oscarBravo wrote: »

Which has what, precisely, to do with Caroline Kennedy?

The idea of selling a Senate Seat. Nice duck there.

oscarBravo

JohnMc1 wrote: »

The idea of selling a Senate Seat. Nice duck there.

So basically it's a mud-slinging exercise. Despite the fact that Caroline Kennedy is being criticised for not buying a Senate seat, you're going to keep mentioning her and Blagojevich in the same sentence.

It's almost funny.

JohnMc1

oscarBravo wrote: »

So basically it's a mud-slinging exercise. Despite the fact that Caroline Kennedy is being criticised for not buying a Senate seat, you're going to keep mentioning her and Blagojevich in the same sentence.

It's almost funny.

"Donating money to the party"= buying the seat. They're claiming she didn't donate enough to the party so might not get it. How is what the Party said to her any different than what Blagojevich was trying to do?

oscarBravo

JohnMc1 wrote: »

"Donating money to the party"= buying the seat. They're claiming she didn't donate enough to the party so might not get it. How is what the Party said to her any different than what Blagojevich was trying to do?

So basically, you're commending Kennedy for not being a party to corruption?

JohnMc1

oscarBravo wrote: »

So basically, you're commending Kennedy for not being a party to corruption?

We're talking about the Kennedy family here. She'll just open the checkbook again.

oscarBravo

JohnMc1 wrote: »

We're talking about the Kennedy family here. She'll just open the checkbook again.

I actually laughed out loud. She's being criticised for not being corrupt enough, and you manage to turn it into an accusation of corruption against her.

I can't imagine ever being that partisan, I really can't.

JohnMc1

oscarBravo wrote: »

I actually laughed out loud. She's being criticised for not being corrupt enough, and you manage to turn it into an accusation of corruption against her.

I can't imagine ever being that partisan, I really can't.

As a Democratic supporter you should be disgusted at the notion of the Dem Party trying to sell Hillary's seat in the middle of the Blagoevich scandal. Not trying to take shots at the Conservative poster on here.

oscarBravo

JohnMc1 wrote: »

As a Democratic supporter...

I'm a Democratic supporter? When did that happen? I live in Ireland.

...you should be disgusted at the notion of the Dem Party trying to sell Hillary's seat in the middle of the Blagoevich scandal.

I don't think the party is trying to sell her seat - certainly not the way Blagojevich was blatantly and explicitly doing. I can see how it's possible to take something out of context and force a strained parallel, but I also think it's a pretty shabby thing to do.

But again, if all you care about is scoring points at any cost, keep raking.

Not trying to take shots at the Conservative poster on here.

I'm not taking shots at you, I'm taking shots at your transparent attempts to sling as much mud as you can rake up at any Democratic target that heaves into view. I find blind partisanship in equal parts funny and disturbing.

JohnMc1

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't think the party is trying to sell her seat - certainly not the way Blagojevich was blatantly and explicitly doing. I can see how it's possible to take something out of context and force a strained parallel, but I also think it's a pretty shabby thing to do.

All that time to come up with that? :rolleyes:
They're claiming they're not giving her the seat because she didn't donate enough money to the Party. You would have to be a card carrying idiot to not to see the similarities.

Its like renaming the amnesty plan the Pathway to Citizenship. Same thing just worded differently.

But again, if all you care about is scoring points at any cost, keep raking. I'm not taking shots at you, I'm taking shots at your transparent attempts to sling as much mud as you can rake up at any Democratic target that heaves into view. I find blind partisanship in equal parts funny and disturbing.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Manic Moran

So basically, you're commending Kennedy for not being a party to corruption?

I'm not condemning Kennedy for trying to buy a seat. I'm condemning Kennedy for thinking that all you really need to do to become a Senator is to change your name back to Kennedy and make a few 'phone calls, relying on the name brand alone. I mean, really.

Caroline wrote:

I was really surprised and dismayed by my voting record," she told the Associated Press. "I'm glad it's been brought to my attention.

Really? She's that interested in politics that she has no idea how often she voted?

On the other hand I'm condeming the Democrat Party for worrying about how much someone has contributed before seating them.

NTM

JohnMc1

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm not condemning Kennedy for trying to buy a seat. I'm condemning Kennedy for thinking that all you really need to do to become a Senator is to change your name back to Kennedy and make a few 'phone calls, relying on the name brand alone. I mean, really.



Really? She's that interested in politics that she has no idea how often she voted?

On the other hand I'm condeming the Democrat Party for worrying about how much someone has contributed before seating them.

NTM

She also claimed that 9/11 and Obama winning were the reasons she sought to replace Clinton in the Senate. Someone should tell her that she is 7 years too late to use 9/11 as an alleged motivation. If 9/11 really touched her she would have done something then not wait 7 years.

Dob74

Rented Mule wrote: »

As someone who was born and raised on the southside of Chicago, and grew up within gthe constructs of Democratic machine politics, it would not surpirse me of this accusation.

If jom Edgar had not resigned as Governor, this should have been three consecutive Illinois governors that would have been/will be sent to prison.

Chicago Mayor Richard Daley is the next one in line to fall. He has been running unchecked for years now.

I taught Edgar finished his two terms.
Obama will move Fitzgerald before he can get Daley. Daley's to cute to get caught.
Go Sox

oscarBravo

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm not condemning Kennedy for trying to buy a seat. I'm condemning Kennedy for thinking that all you really need to do to become a Senator is to change your name back to Kennedy and make a few 'phone calls, relying on the name brand alone. I mean, really.

...

On the other hand I'm condeming the Democrat Party for worrying about how much someone has contributed before seating them.

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm simply expressing amusement at JohnMc1's rather transparent attempts to compare Kennedy to Blagojevich.

JohnMc1

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm simply expressing amusement at JohnMc1's rather transparent attempts to compare Kennedy to Blagojevich.

If you were as intelligent as you like to think you would realize I was comparing the SITUATIONS.

Black Swan

JohnMc1 wrote: »

I am. Are you? If there were campaign finance reform chances are Obama might not have won.

I am absolutely for campaign finance reform, but it will never happen in a system that values money over its people, currently laying them off in droves during the economic meltdown in the USA, while AIG executives go to the Marriott resort in So Cal spending $400,000 in tax-funded bailout monies, $23,000 on massages. This whole materialistic mentality of blowing bailout monies and buying politicians with millions in campaign "donations" is consistent with the notion that the USA political system is corrupted.

I find it ironic that you single out Obama in your comment, as if McCain or any of the of the politicians running for high office were innocent (Republicans or Democrats). McCain may have failed to draw as much money as Obama, but he (or his PACs) still accepted hundreds of millions, so he was corrupted too, just not as successful at fund raising as Obama. Corrupt is corrupt, or are you going to suggest that McCain was only half as corrupted by special interest millions, because he got about half the millions that Obama got, which is a nonsensical argument? That's like someone claiming that they are only half-preggers (i.e., only half-corrupt). Special interests, like the oil lobby, do not give millions to candidates without expecting anything in return... So both McCain and Obama were selling their offices to special interests if elected, just not as obvious as the Governor of Illinois when attempting to sell Obama's seat.

Manic Moran

currently laying them off in droves during the economic meltdown in the USA, while AIG executives go to the Marriott resort in So Cal spending $400,000 in tax-funded bailout monies, $23,000 on massages.

Hang on, isn't that a good thing? You've got money coming back into the California economy, helping provide employment to all those Marriott employees and masseurs etc. I seem to recall that Marriott were doing layoffs as well, that should buy a bit more time for a few more jobs.

NTM

JohnMc1

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

I am absolutely for campaign finance reform, but it will never happen in a system that values money over its people, currently laying them off in droves during the economic meltdown in the USA, while AIG executives go to the Marriott resort in So Cal spending $400,000 in tax-funded bailout monies, $23,000 on massages. This whole materialistic mentality of blowing bailout monies and buying politicians with millions in campaign "donations" is consistent with the notion that the USA political system is corrupted.

I find it ironic that you single out Obama in your comment, as if McCain or any of the of the politicians running for high office were innocent (Republicans or Democrats). McCain may have failed to draw as much money as Obama, but he (or his PACs) still accepted hundreds of millions, so he was corrupted too, just not as successful at fund raising as Obama. Corrupt is corrupt, or are you going to suggest that McCain was only half as corrupted by special interest millions, because he got about half the millions that Obama got, which is a nonsensical argument? That's like someone claiming that they are only half-preggers (i.e., only half-corrupt). Special interests, like the oil lobby, do not give millions to candidates without expecting anything in return... So both McCain and Obama were selling their offices to special interests if elected, just not as obvious as the Governor of Illinois when attempting to sell Obama's seat.

The reason I mentioned Obama is because he got a ton of undisclosed money for his campaign. He found a loophole that people can give up to $200 and not disclose their identity. This is ironic because he is making he Clinton's disclose their finances.

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

Hang on, isn't that a good thing? You've got money coming back into the California economy, helping provide employment to all those Marriott employees and masseurs etc. I seem to recall that Marriott were doing layoffs as well, that should buy a bit more time for a few more jobs.

Look out Jay Leno! You have serious competition from JWM!

Pocono Joe

There are some similarities in “situations” between the Blagojevich and Kennedy scenarios. Gov. Patterson is an unknown because he is not an elected governor, he rose to the spot with the resignation of Spitzer, aka "Client-9" (D). He does not have the recognition or clout necessary to play the political game of getting necessary funding for his state - which is reeling from a policy of economic absurdity. He needs help from Obama to get desperately needed federal funds to make up a bad situation in their state’s budget. And Kennedy is Obama’s choice for the position. So if Patterson appoints (anoints) Kennedy to the US Senate, he essentially has sold the job for the good of his state. The difference here is, although similar in contempt, Blagojevich’s motives were personal, while Patterson’s were public.

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

McCain may have failed to draw as much money as Obama, but he (or his PACs) still accepted hundreds of millions, so he was corrupted too, just not as successful at fund raising as Obama.

You’re kidding right?

- - - - - - -

I considered skewering Kennedy over the “you know’s" and "um’s," like Sarah Palin was skewered here, but thought better of it... Caroline Kennedy is a good person – just not qualified for the position. I guess Conservatives just have more class.

JohnMc1

Blago ain't going quietly.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/30/blagojevich-reportedly-replacement-obamas-senate-seat/

Personally I think Roland Burris has got to be the biggest idiot walking the planet for accepting knowing full well the Dem Party will not confirm anyone Blago appoints.

Manic Moran

He wasn't likely to get it through normal channels, what had he to lose?

I like they way they brought a Black Power advocate from years past in to proclaim that if anyone didn't want to seat Burris, they were racist.

NTM

Black Swan

Pocono Joe wrote: »

You’re kidding right?

You finally figured that out after all these months?;)

JohnMc1

Manic Moran wrote: »

He wasn't likely to get it through normal channels, what had he to lose?

I like they way they brought a Black Power advocate from years past in to proclaim that if anyone didn't want to seat Burris, they were racist.

NTM

He's going to get dragged though the mud now. I'm sure the media will be ready to ask him how much he paid for the seat. He's now in the middle of this mess and more than likely end up with nothing to show for it.

Blacks playing the race card? I'm shocked :rolleyes::rolleyes: