Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Reid's Thin Reed Bends
In an interview with NBC's David Gregory on Meet the Press yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid insisted "there's clearly legal authority for us to do whatever we want to" when Roland Burris, Illinois Gov. Rod Blogojevich's choice to replace Barack Obama, tries to claim his seat. At the same time, Reid left room for a deal that would allow Burris to serve. Here is his rationale for resisting the appointment:
Blagojevich obviously is a corrupt individual. I think that's pretty clear. And the reason that he's done what he's done is to divert attention from the arrest that was just made of him and the indictment which will be coming in a few days, according to the U.S. attorney in Illinois. That's why President-elect Obama agreed with us that Mr. Burris is tainted. Not as a result of anything that he's done wrong. There's—I don't know a thing wrong with Mr. Burris.
Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution says, "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members." The Supreme Court has ruled that in this context "qualifications" are the criteria laid out by the Constitution itself—e.g., that a senator be at least 30 years old and a U.S. citizen for at least nine years. In any event, Reid concedes there's nothing wrong with Burris' personal qualifications; according to Reid, it's Burris' appointment by a governor accused of corruption that's problematic. Reid is arguing that the Senate has a right to judge the legitimacy of Burris' appointment, just as it would have the right to judge the legitimacy of another senator's election. Yet if Burris himself is clean, as Gregory pointed out, "there's nothing suggesting that the appointment was at all illegal" (that it was the result of a bribe, for example).
Perhaps recognizing that his position is legally untenable, Reid declined to say that he would press it in court and suggested that Burris might be allowed to serve after all:
Gregory: But there sounds to me like there may be some room here to negotiate and actually seat Burris?
Reid: Hey, listen, David, I'm an old trial lawyer. There's always room to negotiate.
Gregory: All right, so you're not saying no completely that he won't serve?
Reid: That's right.
Last week I said the rule of law demands that Burris be permitted to take his seat. In his column today, Steve Chapman, no fan of Burris or Blagojevich, fleshes out that argument.
|1.5.09 @ 11:49AM|#
Reid: Hey, listen, David, I'm an old trial lawyer. There's
always room to negotiate.
What the hell does this mean? If Burris gives Reid something, then
Reid might drop his objection? Isn't this a form of bribery? Either
object on a principle or give up this stupid pretence that there is
a principle to defend. Fuck Harry, fuck him very much.
BDB|1.5.09 @ 11:53AM|#
Look, the guy is such a pussy that I could probably show up at the Capitol tomorrow, proclaim myself Virginia's third US Senator, and he'd seat me. Doubly so if I said I was a Republican, that'd scare him shitless.
Ska|1.5.09 @ 11:54AM|#
Pretty sure it means that practicing law is more about being a salesman and a politician than having anything to do with respect to the law or justice. For Harry Reid at least.
|1.5.09 @ 11:54AM|#
Reid insisted "there's clearly legal authority for us to do
whatever we want to"
Based on the well-established "Divine Right of
Congresspersons."
Other Matt|1.5.09 @ 11:56AM|#
What the hell does this mean? If Burris gives Reid
something, then Reid might drop his objection? Isn't this a form of
bribery?
Change we need!
(brought to you by the wonderful machine of IL, stay tuned, much
more to come)
Either object on a principle or give up this stupid pretence
that there is a principle to defend.
There is a pretense as a result of them not wanting to look bad, it
had nothing to do with any particular principle other than the
democrat party is now going to run roughshod over everyone because
they have a majority and they didn't want a little thing like
corruption to get in the way.
As for your "Either/Or", it's so entertaining to watch them twist
about with this silliness, why would you want it to end?
Nick|1.5.09 @ 11:56AM|#
That's why President-elect Obama agreed with us that Mr.
Burris is tainted
Sounds like racist codewords to me...
Xeones|1.5.09 @ 11:59AM|#
Yo, fuck Harry Reid.
Also, "tainted"? Are you trying to summon the Urkobold?
Abdul|1.5.09 @ 12:02PM|#
Jacob,
I agree that under Powell v. McCormack, you'd be right. But Akhil
Amar and Josh Chaftez made a decent counterargument relying on
originalist principals in Slate. It's worth a look.
http://www.slate.com/id/2207754/
|1.5.09 @ 12:02PM|#
Remember those halcyon days when a certain candidate's
associations were not a legitimate issue?
It certainly didn't take the Dems long to do a 180 on the whole
"guilt by association" thing, did it?
|1.5.09 @ 12:02PM|#
The spin by the GOPers on this is just pathetic.
Harry Reid, of Nevada, not wanting to seat somebody because he was
appointed by the guy heard ranting and cursing out Barack Obama for
not playing ball demonstrates Obama's corruption. Because he's from
Chicago.
'Kay.
I guess the Rahm Emmanuel angle was a dead-end, too, so now they're
left with this. Pathetic.
Other Matt|1.5.09 @ 12:08PM|#
It certainly didn't take the Dems long to do a 180 on the
whole "guilt by association" thing, did it?
It's better still. Burris is bad because he's associated with
Blago, but Emmanuel, who is also associated, isn't, because, well,
I guess it's because he can stab a knife in a board in public and
figuratively skewer people who disagree with him. In no case, even
though Obama comes from the same political machine, should this
reflect on Obama, but again, Blago should reflect on Burris, except
that the negative reflection on Burris should in no way be
construed to being associated with his skin color.
Of course all of the previous is up for negotiation, being that
he's a former trial attorney and all.
It's freaking hilarious to see what kind of twisting they're
doing.
See, right on cue, here's joe with this kind of stuff. It's
hilarious, really.
|1.5.09 @ 12:11PM|#
Burris is bad because he's associated with Blago... but
again, Blago should reflect on Burris
Has anyone actually said this? Every Democrat I've seen talking
about this has gone out of his way to make it clear that Burris
himself is a good guy and unconnected with the scandals.
I'm sure OtherMatt will now bury us in a mountain of links showing
Democrats denouncing Roland Burris for corruption.
Hello?
Urkobold™|1.5.09 @ 12:12PM|#
MR. BURRIS MAY BE TAINTED RIGHT NOW, BUT HE WON'T BE FOR LONG. MR. OBAMA HAS OFFERED A CABINET POSITION (LORD OF COMMERCE) TO THE URKOBOLD IN EXCHANGE FOR THE REMOVAL OF MR. BURRIS' TAINT. SILLY OBAMA, THE URKOBOLD WOULD'VE DONE IT FOR FREE.
|1.5.09 @ 12:13PM|#
Remember when Rod Blagojevich appointed Rahm Emmanuel to be
White House Chief of Staff?
Me neither.
Maybe if I use the word "associated" a few more times, nobody will
notice.
BDB|1.5.09 @ 12:14PM|#
The GOP needs to chill out. There will be a real, actual scandal people will care about with Obama someday.
|1.5.09 @ 12:14PM|#
Yeah, well, you know where the URKOBOLD's originial summoner is
from?
That's right: Chicago.
So...there you go.
concerned observer|1.5.09 @ 12:16PM|#
Dammit, it's a fight between Democrats. I just can't figure out what to do.
Jay|1.5.09 @ 12:17PM|#
P Brooks-
The "Divine Right of Congresspersons" was a key plot element of
Monty Python and the Holyh Grail. Unfortunately, the holy hand
grenade blew up that section of film during editing.
Urkobold™|1.5.09 @ 12:21PM|#
THE URKOBOLD SHALL MAKE A PREDICTION: LOOK FOR OBAMA TO GO OUT OF HIS WAY TO REHABILITATE SPITZER. WHY? BECAUSE THE SPITZ KNOWS THE IDENTITY OF CLIENT NUMBER 10.
|1.5.09 @ 12:23PM|#
Senator Dupre.
I'd be like, look dude, do you really want the
earmark?
You know what I mean?
|1.5.09 @ 12:25PM|#
when i read yesterday that harry reid was "willing to negotiate" for the empty senate seat, i thought "what's the difference between that and governor blagojevich's willingness to negotiate?"
cunnivore|1.5.09 @ 12:28PM|#
Reid's strange position would seem to require that he be open to "negotiating" even if a Senator were elected in a fraudulent election, no?
Boston|1.5.09 @ 12:29PM|#
Lets not impugn Ms. Dupre's character I mean, she's a whore*,
not a politician.
*Relaxation Therapist
cunnivore|1.5.09 @ 12:31PM|#
Another question: several commentators have claimed that if Blago is removed from office, Burris' appointment becomes moot. Is that truly the case? I mean, if the president dies during a district court judge nomination hearing, does that mean the nominee is thereby un-nominated?
|1.5.09 @ 12:32PM|#
The law is the law. Blago is still governor and has the right to
appoint. The only think the Senate can refuse to seat a member for
is if he wasn't really elected or isn't qualified. Right now Bago
is the governor of Illinois and has the right appoint the Burriss.
Now if it later turns out that Burriss bought the seat or obtained
the seat illegally, then it is an ethics issue and the Senate can
kick him out. Until then, the Senate has to seat him.
Further, all of the evidence in this case indicates that Blago
tried to sell the seat. But there is no evidence that he sold it to
Burris. The fact that Bago may be a crook, and we don't know he
hasn't been convicted of anything, doesn't necessarily mean that he
took a bribe from Burriss to give him the seat. In fact it looks to
be the opposite. Blago tried to get a bribe and then after being
indicted gave the seat to someone who hadn't done anything
wrong.
The bottomline is that the people of the state of Illinois either
through election or their governor determine who their Senator is,
not Harry Reid. This guy has been appointed and he needs to be
seated. If it later turns out he is a crook, then kick him out of
the Senate. If that is politically embarassing for the Democrats,
tough shit. The people who argue otherwise are just argueing that
political expediency for thier side is more important than the
law.
|1.5.09 @ 12:32PM|#
bruce,
Blago was looking to enrich himself.
As I read it, Reid is just looking for a graceful exit from the
corner he's painted himself into.
All he wants out of this is to look like less of a dope.
cunnivore|1.5.09 @ 12:34PM|#
bruce, the difference is, when Blago negotiates with you he wants to take your money. When Reid negotiates with you he wants to take taxpayers' money.
|1.5.09 @ 12:35PM|#
"Another question: several commentators have claimed that if
Blago is removed from office, Burris' appointment becomes
moot."
No, I don't think it is. It is also important to remember that the
Illinois legislature could have taken the power away from Blago and
called a special election. They didn't do that because they were
afraid a Republican might win. If Blago is so bad, take the
appointment power away from him or impeach him. But the Dems won't
do that. Instead they are refusing to seat Burriss, an act which
appears to be blantently illegal.
economist|1.5.09 @ 12:35PM|#
I'm happy to have a Senate seat unfilled. In fact, if 51 or more Senate seats could remain unfilled, that would be fantastic.
cunnivore|1.5.09 @ 12:36PM|#
More succinctly, when you buy off a politician with your own
money, that's bribery.
When politicians buy each other off with your money, that's
negotiation.
LurkerBold|1.5.09 @ 12:36PM|#
Doesn't anybody see the blatant racism on the part of
Reid?
The Democratic Party needs to get rid of his kind and replace them
with true Progressives.
BDB|1.5.09 @ 12:37PM|#
John is correct in this. If he turns out to be crooked during
the investigation, then why not just kick him out later?
I think the real fear is Burris would be a weak statewide candidate
in 2010. The "negotiating" Reid is talking about is most likely a
pledge from Burris that he will be a caretaker and not run for
re-election in 2010.
economist|1.5.09 @ 12:37PM|#
John,
Were Illinois Dems really that concerned about a Republican winning
Obama's seat? Really?
|1.5.09 @ 12:38PM|#
Blago's mistake was he was honest and told people upfront they needed to do something for him to get the seat. Anyone here don't think the Kennedy's won't take care of Patterson when he appoints Caroline? The difference is the Kennedy's are smarter and won't say anything blatent enough to get themselves indicted.
Boston|1.5.09 @ 12:38PM|#
a pledge from Burris that he will be a caretaker and not run
for re-election in 2010.
Yeah but where is the force behind this?
|1.5.09 @ 12:39PM|#
"John,
Were Illinois Dems really that concerned about a Republican winning
Obama's seat? Really?"
The sitting Dem governor is under indictment. The Dem name is not
exactly in good standing there. And it would be a special election
with Obama at the top of the ticket to get the turnout up. Yeah,
they were worried about that. If they hadn't been, they just would
have called an election and avoided this whole mess.
economist|1.5.09 @ 12:39PM|#
Of course, there is a simple solution to all this. We can amend the constitution to allow Barack Obama to serve simultaneously as a Senator and as president. Then we amend the constitution to allow him to be elected simultaneously from different states to both houses, hold special elections, and once he holds a personal majority in the House and Senate, we can dissolve the Supreme Court and enter the sublime rule of the god-president.
|1.5.09 @ 12:40PM|#
"Yeah but where is the force behind this?"
There is none. And you better beleive Burris will run for
re-election in 2010. Why wouldn't he?
economist|1.5.09 @ 12:41PM|#
John,
True. But guilt by association has never figured too strongly into
elections. And Illinois governors are under indictment or threat
thereof all the time. Surely the good people of Illinois are used
to it by now?
BDB|1.5.09 @ 12:42PM|#
They can primary Burris, with Obama (who would be popular in his home state) would endorse his primary opponent and destroy him.
economist|1.5.09 @ 12:43PM|#
On second thought, I should probably avoid saying never. However, guilt by association usually doesn't decide elections.
BDB|1.5.09 @ 12:43PM|#
I think Burris would rather have a face-saving exit rather than face a humiliating primary defeat.
|1.5.09 @ 12:43PM|#
Economist,
Maybe so. I don't know Illinois politics well enough to say. But
what I do know is that the legislature could have called an
election, and in fact Blago asked them to do so, and they didn't.
Had they done that, this mess wouldn't have happened. Why didn't
they call the election if they were sure a Dem would win?
|1.5.09 @ 12:43PM|#
Slight correction, John: Reid's position, and that of the
Democrats in the Senate, is that they won't seat Burris without a
certification of the appointment from the Illinois Secretary of
State.
That's not illegal, because absent that certification, he hasn't
really been appointed.
This also gets around the "if he's removed, does it moot the
appointment" question: if the appointment isn't certified, there's
no appointment.
If there's a legal beef here, it's with the Illinois SoS.
|1.5.09 @ 12:45PM|#
"They can primary Burris, with Obama (who would be popular in
his home state) would endorse his primary opponent and destroy
him."
Too late for that. It has become a racial issue. Black people in
Illinois are pissed off about this. Buriss will be the only black
guy in the Senate. If he gets seated they can't cold shoulder him
and once he is there he will make some friends and be running as an
incumbant. Yeah, they will be able to beat him, but it will be an
ugly primary and make winning in 2010 that much harder.
If the sollution to this were that simple, Reid would just seat the
guy.
|1.5.09 @ 12:47PM|#
"Slight correction, John: Reid's position, and that of the
Democrats in the Senate, is that they won't seat Burris without a
certification of the appointment from the Illinois Secretary of
State."
But how can he not certify the guy? I don't see how he has a legal
basis not to. If he doesn't, Buris can sue for Mandamus and
probably win. No one wants that. I really wish they would just seat
the guy. This is really ugly and very un-necessary.
LurkerBold|1.5.09 @ 12:48PM|#
joe,
I believe the ILL SoS is legally bound to certify except in certain
circumstances that do not exist in this case.
All of this nonsense is just because a bunch of racists do not want
another black man in the Senate.
|1.5.09 @ 12:48PM|#
Anyone here don't think the Kennedy's won't take care of
Patterson when he appoints Caroline?
You mean, give him a million dollars in cash, like Blagojevich was
asking for?
Yes. I think that's a ridiculous assertion.
The sitting Dem governor is under indictment. The Dem name is
not exactly in good standing there. Huh? Did you not see the
election returns up and down the ticket in Illinois?
Ohio - now THAT'S a state where a party's brand name sucks, and you
can see it in how Republican candidates have done. Of course, that
might have something to do with the previous Democratic governor
having been removed from office and sent to federal prison.
cunnivore|1.5.09 @ 12:50PM|#
Slight correction, John: Reid's position, and that of the
Democrats in the Senate, is that they won't seat Burris without a
certification of the appointment from the Illinois Secretary of
State.
That's not what he said. He was saying that even if the SoS
certifies the appt they still have the power to refuse to seat
Burris.
|1.5.09 @ 12:52PM|#
John,
Please name a black person in Illinois.
Seriously, do you have any evidence for the assertion that "black
people in Illinois are pissed about this," other than the fact that
Burris and numerous right-wing pundits have declared it to be
so?
But how can he not certify the guy? I agree, and argued
that point on another thread. (If Illinois was being flooded and
the governor's signature was requited to call out the National
Guard, do you think the SoS would refuse to certify that signature?
Of course not.) That's why I wrote that the legal beef is with the
Secretary of State, not the US Senate - at least until he is
eventually certified.
I really wish they would just seat the guy. This is really ugly
and very un-necessary.
Boston|1.5.09 @ 12:52PM|#
They can primary Burris, with Obama (who would be popular in
his home state) would endorse his primary opponent and destroy
him.
Then why have the agreement in the first place?
cunnivore|1.5.09 @ 12:53PM|#
joe,
Look at the state of the Illinois GOP post-George Ryan, after they
had held the governorship for over 25 consecutive years.
yeah, there's no danger of Chicago going Republican, just as there
was never any danger of DuPage County going Dem. Still, in the
purple areas these local party scandals are quite influential.
|1.5.09 @ 12:54PM|#
"The sitting Dem governor is under indictment. The Dem name is
not exactly in good standing there. Huh? Did you not see the
election returns up and down the ticket in Illinois?"
Then why didn't the Legislature call as special election like Blago
asked them to? Are they retarded? Or are you dellusional about the
state of the Democratic brand in Illinois? It has to be one or the
other.
|1.5.09 @ 12:54PM|#
cunnivore,
Parsing Reid's words carefully, he's said that they have the
power not to seat Burriss even if the appointment is
certified, but that they will not seat him without a
certification.
cunnivore|1.5.09 @ 12:57PM|#
If Reid is intending to hold Burris' seat hostage because he doesn't think he'd have a good shot of winning in 2010, that's a massive abuse of the Senate's power to judge elections and returns. Whatever your reading of the clause in question is, I think we all agree it's not supposed to be used as yet another tool by which the national parties control the state parties.
|1.5.09 @ 12:59PM|#
"Seriously, do you have any evidence for the assertion that
"black people in Illinois are pissed about this," other than the
fact that Burris and numerous right-wing pundits have declared it
to be so?"
ACtually I do. I work with one black person from Chicago and he
tells me that the black radio stations are going bat shit over
this. Why shouldn't they? What did Burris ever do? It stands in
real contrast to the rich white girl Caroline Kennedy getting a
spot from New York if she does. Buris is not without friends in
Chicago.
http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=104&sid=1564396
|1.5.09 @ 1:00PM|#
cunnivore,
Still, in the purple areas these local party scandals are quite
influential.
In Ohio, the Democrats could effectively position themselves as the
anti-corruption party, while the Republicans got painted as corrupt
up and down the ticket.
In Illinois, the last two Republican governors got themselves
arrested and kicked out of office, too. I think it would be a tough
sell to link corruption in Illinois with one party, they wat it was
done in Ohio.
Also, even before 2006, Ohio was a very close swing state.
Illinois, on the other hand, is deep blue and has been for a long
time.
John,
Then why didn't the Legislature call as special election like
Blago asked them to? Are they retarded? Yes.
I think it's the same reason that Reid painted himself into a
corner like this: they immediately reacted to all the wailing by
proclaiming that there's no way they're going to do what that crook
Blagojevich says, without looking a couple steps down the road.
Barack Obama (channeling Otter|1.5.09 @ 1:01PM|#
It's a shame a few bad apples have to spoil it for everyone.
|1.5.09 @ 1:02PM|#
Reid insisted "there's clearly legal authority for us to do whatever we want to"
Looks like John Yoo found some contract work.
Nigel Watt|1.5.09 @ 1:04PM|#
Obviously they should just appoint the "keeping a well-stocked refrigerator will get you many women" guy.
Reinmoose|1.5.09 @ 1:05PM|#
I actually saw this Meet the Press yesterday and I was shocked at Reid's blatant admission that he can be bought... oh sorry, negotiated with. What a sniveling useless bag of crap. Why is he in the party's leadership again?
cunnivore|1.5.09 @ 1:05PM|#
One GOP governor has been prosecuted for corruption, joe. Jim
Thompson and Jim Edgar, the two GOP governors before Ryan, both
left office on good terms.
Illinois, on the other hand, is deep blue and has been for a
long time.
Huh? They had a Republican governor from 1976-2002, and Bush's
father won IL handily in 1988, with Clinton barely winning it in
1992. It went Dem heavily in every election since 1996, but two of
those were Dem landslides nationwide.
|1.5.09 @ 1:08PM|#
cunnivore,
Massachusetts had Republican governors from 1989-2007, and voted
for Reagan twice. It's strange to think, but 1988 was twenty years
ago.
Thanks for the correction on the Replican govs, though.
cunnivore|1.5.09 @ 1:08PM|#
Reinmoose, reminds me of the time when the Senate held Bush's Iraq War funding bill hostage until he agreed to sign a version that was loaded with pork. This was of course after they'd dropped their pants and bent over for every previous war funding bill. No blood for oil -- but blood for pork is fine and dandy.
highnumber|1.5.09 @ 1:11PM|#
"Seriously, do you have any evidence for the assertion that
"black people in Illinois are pissed about this," other than the
fact that Burris and numerous right-wing pundits have declared it
to be so?"
ACtually I do. I work with one black person from Chicago and he
tells me that the black radio stations are going bat shit over
this.
Priceless!
cunnivore|1.5.09 @ 1:13PM|#
joe, IL was considered a swing state until the late 90s. Look at
political coverage from that era.
And don't even compare Weld (?) and Romney to Thompson and Edgar.
Very different sorts of Republicans.
|1.5.09 @ 1:15PM|#
My opinions line up with John's pretty much on this issue. Blago
is an arrogant corrupt piece of shit, but he is the governor and
has the right to appoint who he wants. And the faux outrage and
grandstanding by Harry Reid, Lisa Madigan and Jesse White have made
me root for Blago to make the hypocrites look like fools in the
end. (Although Harry Reid won't need much help -- that jackass has
to be one of the worst and ineffectual majority leaders I have ever
seen)
Jesse White (the IL SoS) is also a grandstanding fool who will most
like be forced by a court to have to sign/certify the appointment.
Think of the precedent that would set if the SoS could do that ---
somehow the SoS would be able to stymie the governors appointments
on a whim by refusing to sign paperwork?? That's insane.
I also think John is right that black people in Illinois are seeing
this in racial terms -- this isnt surprising considering that some
of our highest profile black dems (Rush, Davis) are making racial
noises about blcoking Burris (someone I personally don't like and
will most likely be nothing more than a placeholder -- Burris would
need a miracle to win election to the senate regardless of
incumbency) and add the fact that blago is out there alleging that
Reid asked him (pre-arrest) to exclude Davis, Jackson Jr and Rush
(all black) from consideration to the appointment
I will quibble with this though:
The sitting Dem governor is under indictment. The Dem name is
not exactly in good standing there.
The GOP name post Ryan is not any better in Illinois. The top GOP
canidates are Jim Oberweis, Joe Birkett and Judy Baar Topenka --
none of which strike fear into the hearts of the Dem machine in
Illinois. Ryan did quite a bit of damage to the GOP brand. Blago
may be corrupt, but people in Illinois blame Ryan for the deaths of
children and attribute those deaths directly to the license for
bribes scandal that he allowed to occur when he was SoS
cunnivore|1.5.09 @ 1:15PM|#
joe, Obama replaced a Republican when he won in 2004. So, 1998 was the last time the GOP won a senate seat in IL.
|1.5.09 @ 1:18PM|#
So the answer is, since the late 1990s, Illinois has been a deep
blue state.
A decade.
|1.5.09 @ 1:21PM|#
joe, Obama replaced a Republican when he won in 2004. So,
1998 was the last time the GOP won a senate seat in IL.
Peter Fitzgerald -- who replaced Carol Mosley Braun.
He was a decent guy too. He apparently hated the current GOP so
much he decided to retire after one term despite the fact that he
would have probably won re-election easily.
I believe he is the guy who reccomended Patrick Fitzgerald (no
relation) to be a US Attorney as well.
He also had a pretty high profile dust-up with Bush in the middle
of his term (although i can't remember the details of that any
more)
cunnivore|1.5.09 @ 1:22PM|#
And MA has been a deep blue state since Reconstruction*, yet
they elected Republicans recently, as you note. So maybe the Dems
do have something to fear from a special election.
* possibly exaggerating
Kolohe|1.5.09 @ 1:22PM|#
If there's a legal beef here, it's with the Illinois
SoS.
Prior to Nov 7, 2000, it would have been hard to find more than 50
people in the country who knew what a state level secretary of
state did or even who he or she was. In the ought's though, they're
in contention for the persons of the decade.
|1.5.09 @ 1:23PM|#
That doesn't mean eternity.
Nothing means eternity, cunnivore. Look at North Carolina.
Right now, and for years, Illinois is a deep blue state. It's not
even a close one.
|1.5.09 @ 1:24PM|#
So the answer is, since the late 1990s, Illinois has been a
deep blue state.
I wouldn't even say that long -- Peter Fitzgerald would probably
have won re-election -- and Obama would probably have not even run
against him.
Instead though the GOP turned to Jack Ryan who had a messy divorce
scandal. But before that scandal came to light, Jack Ryan had a
legitimate shot at beating Obama.
If Fitzegerald would have ran for re-election, one could make the
case that Obama would not be President right now.
Illinois got quite Blue during the Bush years.
cunnivore|1.5.09 @ 1:25PM|#
C-Tom, I couldn't quite remember his name, I kept wanting to say Patrick Fitzgerald but I knew that was wrong. As an exiled DuPager, I can remember the buzz around Mosely-Braun being nearly as overdone as the current Obama hype. Let's hope Obama's presidency isn't as much of a disaster as she was.
|1.5.09 @ 1:26PM|#
And MA has been a deep blue state since Reconstruction*, yet
they elected Republicans recently, as you note.
Massachusetts has been a deep blue state since 1988. They have not
elected a Republican to the Senate since, or even come close to
doing so.
One-party states often elected executives from the minority party,
to check the overwhelming legislative majority. That rarely
translates to federal elections.
Hugo Chavez in a Bathing Suit|1.5.09 @ 1:27PM|#
If Fitzegerald would have ran for re-election, one could
make the case that Obama would not be President right
now.
If only I'd known then what I know now, I would have carpetbagged
IL instead of NY...
BDB|1.5.09 @ 1:31PM|#
A Republican hasn't won Illinois at the Presidential level in nearly 21 years. That's a long time.
cunnivore|1.5.09 @ 1:37PM|#
BDB, that's five elections, two of which ('96,'08) were national landslides for the Dem.
cunnivore|1.5.09 @ 1:38PM|#
And '92 and '00 were close. So you're talking about 2004 as the only time a Dem won IL handily while not winning the entire nation handily.
BDB|1.5.09 @ 1:38PM|#
Would you say California is not a blue state then? It went Republican last in 1988, too.
BDB|1.5.09 @ 1:43PM|#
1992:
Clinton: 48.8
Bush Sr.: 34.5
Perot: 16.7
14.3 points in a three way race is "Close"? In what universe?
http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/u/usa/pres/1992.txt
|1.5.09 @ 1:50PM|#
What a sniveling useless bag of crap. Why is he in the
party's leadership again?
Kind of answers itself, no?
|1.5.09 @ 1:55PM|#
Senate Democrats, circa 2002: Fellas, I'm just not sure this country can endure a Senate leader as abrasive and confrontational as Tom Daschle. We need to pick somebody who'll take it down a notch. Let's see, who have we got?
concerned observer|1.5.09 @ 4:53PM|#
I personally think that spoof troll identities should be proprietary to the original spoofer.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245