Corruption

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.

NEXT: Private Benjamins

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Oh, come on!

    Harry Reid? Waffle?

    That’s unpossible.

  2. I really think it is impossible to actually lose a fight with Harry Reid.

  3. Maybe he should say something about Alan Colmes’ mother.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. Reid insisted “there’s clearly legal authority for us to do whatever we want to”

    Based on the well-established “Divine Right of Congresspersons.”

  8. 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?

  9. That’s why President-elect Obama agreed with us that Mr. Burris is tainted

    Sounds like racist codewords to me…

  10. Hmm… it cut out my sarcasm XML tags…

  11. Yo, fuck Harry Reid.

    Also, “tainted”? Are you trying to summon the Urkobold?

  12. 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/

  13. 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?

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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?

  17. It’s baaaaaaaaaaack!

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. The GOP needs to chill out. There will be a real, actual scandal people will care about with Obama someday.

  21. Yeah, well, you know where the URKOBOLD’s originial summoner is from?

    That’s right: Chicago.

    So…there you go.

  22. Dammit, it’s a fight between Democrats. I just can’t figure out what to do.

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. Senator Dupre.

    I’d be like, look dude, do you really want the earmark?

    You know what I mean?

  26. 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?”

  27. 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?

  28. Lets not impugn Ms. Dupre’s character I mean, she’s a whore*, not a politician.

    *Relaxation Therapist

  29. 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?

  30. 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.

  31. 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.

  32. 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.

  33. THE PREFERRED TERM IS EJACULATION ENABLER.

  34. “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.

  35. I’m happy to have a Senate seat unfilled. In fact, if 51 or more Senate seats could remain unfilled, that would be fantastic.

  36. 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.

  37. 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.

  38. 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.

  39. John,
    Were Illinois Dems really that concerned about a Republican winning Obama’s seat? Really?

  40. 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.

  41. 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?

  42. “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.

  43. 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.

  44. “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?

  45. 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?

  46. John,
    The Kennedys are smart?

  47. They can primary Burris, with Obama (who would be popular in his home state) would endorse his primary opponent and destroy him.

  48. On second thought, I should probably avoid saying never. However, guilt by association usually doesn’t decide elections.

  49. I think Burris would rather have a face-saving exit rather than face a humiliating primary defeat.

  50. 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?

  51. 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.

  52. “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.

  53. “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.

  54. 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.

  55. 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.

  56. They can get a black primary opponent for Burris.

  57. 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.

  58. 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.

  59. 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?

  60. 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.

  61. “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.

  62. 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.

  63. 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.

  64. “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

  65. 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.

  66. It’s a shame a few bad apples have to spoil it for everyone.

  67. Reid insisted “there’s clearly legal authority for us to do whatever we want to”

    Looks like John Yoo found some contract work.

  68. I would totally vote for Otter for president.

  69. Obviously they should just appoint the “keeping a well-stocked refrigerator will get you many women” guy.

  70. 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?

  71. 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.

  72. 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.

  73. 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.

  74. cunnivore,

    When was the last Republican elected to the Senate from Illinois?

  75. “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!

  76. 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.

  77. 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

  78. joe, Obama replaced a Republican when he won in 2004. So, 1998 was the last time the GOP won a senate seat in IL.

  79. So the answer is, since the late 1990s, Illinois has been a deep blue state.

    A decade.

  80. yes, joe, a decade. That doesn’t mean eternity.

  81. 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)

  82. 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

  83. 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.

  84. 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.

  85. 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.

  86. 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.

  87. 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.

  88. 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…

  89. Awsome, another true Progressive visits the board. Welcome Hugo!

  90. A Republican hasn’t won Illinois at the Presidential level in nearly 21 years. That’s a long time.

  91. BDB, that’s five elections, two of which (’96,’08) were national landslides for the Dem.

  92. 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.

  93. Would you say California is not a blue state then? It went Republican last in 1988, too.

  94. Close!? Gore won IL by double digits!

  95. 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

  96. In what universe?

    Duh.

  97. What a sniveling useless bag of crap. Why is he in the party’s leadership again?

    Kind of answers itself, no?

  98. 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?

  99. We need Hugo Chavez, or someone like him, in charge of the Senate.

  100. I personally think that spoof troll identities should be proprietary to the original spoofer.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.