Jan 08 2009

Democrats And Media On Senator Burris: “Never Mind”

Published by at 8:55 am under All General Discussions


Talk about your major screw ups. It is only now just dawning on the Democrats, and their liberal media puppets, that they are not all powerful and beyond the law and can decide the guilt or innocence of someone. We have laws and courts for those matters. We The People are beginning to see with much more clarity (and ever less ties to anyone one party) that political leaders play games for personal benefit. They all do. Some go to extremes and others just dabble in their egos. The thinking behind the Democrats’ reactions to Illinois Governor Blagojevich’s selection of Burris to be the replacement Senator for the seat being vacated by President-Elect Obama is one of those painfully clarifying moments.

AP does an extraordinary job of emphasizing how dumb this whole sequence of events has been, in a lame attempt to make it seem like a simple mistake instead of the Clouseau level blunder it has been:

Eight days ago, Obama and Senate Democratic leaders saw Blagojevich as so politically damaged that they announced they would reject anyone he appointed to finish Obama’s term. Every Democratic senator signed a letter to the same effect.

Privately, key Democrats now admit they miscalculated from the start. They spent this week trying to backtrack and save face.

They had overstated their legal powers to block Burris’s appointment, they said, and failed to foresee the ability of Burris—a little-known Democrat with no apparent ties to Blagojevich’s misdeeds—to make himself a sympathetic figure in the national media.

Knowing an incumbent senator can be hard to beat in a party primary, Senate Democrats had hoped to postpone acting on Blagojevich’s choice until if and when the governor was replaced, making it possible to put a more potent campaigner in the Senate seat.

Meanwhile, the legal basis for opposing Burris came under greater scrutiny. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., had signed the letter opposing Burris’s appointment, but on Tuesday, the day Burris got turned away from the Capitol into a cold rain, she had a new view.

“Does the governor have the power, under law, to make the appointment?” she asked rhetorically. Yes, she answered, no matter how many accusations are lodged against him.

What we have here, as I noted yesterday, are Democrat Senators trying to circumvent the laws of the land. The laws clearly state Blagojevich has the legal authority to name Obama’s replacement. The Constitution protects Blagojevich’s civil rights until proven guilty in court of law of a crime – something that has not happened. 

So these supposedly completely plausible efforts to override Illinois state laws and our Constitution and our federal laws in order for the Senate to hand pick their preferred candidate exposed a very nasty side of DC. When did the Senate become a club that determines who can join? Is it clear to everyone that the selection process for club membership begins in the primaries when party big whigs determine who can run?

Are other Governors and states being ramrodded into making choices acceptable to Club Ego (i.e., the Senate) first, leaving what is best for the state or its people as simply a facade? I still think there should be legal investigation into what was clearly an organized effort to circumvent our laws and undermine the will of the people. It’s not as if I am making this up – these jerks are admitting to the media they wanted to control the selection process. This is how the AP tries to circumvent the obvious:

Obama, Reid and Durbin are lawyers and among the nation’s highest-achieving politicians. Now, however, their initial comments seem unusually tone-deaf.

They were more than tone-deaf. They are all lawyers and know the law, which they openly attempted to skirt. When politicians claim another politician is dirty why are they still surprised the country won’t buy that at face value? I mean, we all know how pure and good politicians are, right?

37 responses so far

37 Responses to “Democrats And Media On Senator Burris: “Never Mind””

  1. kathie says:

    The dems are so high on their own power they think, like Obama, they can change the world into the new Nirvana. They know the answers to everything and they are going to single handily prove it to all of us. I hope they will take responsibility for the world they will create.

  2. GuyFawkes says:

    Hmm. Project much, kathie?

  3. WWS says:

    Are you happy with trillion dollar deficits as far as can be projected, Guy? Do you – does anyone? think that this country can possibly have any positive economic future as long as that’s the plan?

    And what’s the exit plan, since even the most ardent supporters admit we can’t do this forever? Here it is – we hope the economy recovers under the stimulus (it won’t, but that’s the hope) and then as soon as it recovers raise taxes massively to pay off the deficit. Except guess what – as soon as we raise taxes we plunge straight back into deep recession and have to start the deficits all over again.

    And I know that Rep’s and Dem’s are both in on it. But Obama’s going down in history as the man who presided over the destruction.

    There is no way out of this conundrum, and everything Obama is going to do only makes it worse.

  4. GuyFawkes says:

    Have you ever taken a course on macroeconomics, WWS?

  5. bill says:

    Well yes, but then there is this tiny little matter of the biggest payoff to your voters in history, the gigantic crap sandwich trillion dollar pork bill now weighing down the table.

    After the huge success with the first two wastes of money in huge quantities, you would think people would get it by now.

  6. Robohobo says:

    “I still think there should be legal investigation into what was clearly an organized effort to circumvent our laws and undermine the will of the people.”

    The greatest open theft of public funds is taking place openly right now. There is nothing we can do short of what is truly unthinkable to stop it. The VRWC tried to tell ya’ll, but you would not listen. If it is true that the people get the government they deserve I hope ya’ll enjoy the $hit sandwich.

    The best I know is:

    Throw The Bums Out in 2010
    Vote against the incumbent. Lather, rinse, repeat for a few cycles.

    It is also funny some guy with the nom du plume of Guy Fawkes defends the government theft under the guise of macroeconomics! As ‘V’ said: “Governments should be scared of their people.” (Or some such) We have to get away from the idea that we cannot print the money we need. Sometimes that is the best medicine. I do know the dolts in DC sure as hell don’t know.

  7. Whomever says:

    Of course the BO team does not know what it is doing. No one can know the consequences of this “bold” economic recovery plan. The leaders have to ‘act like’ they know because that is what people expect in a leader – but they do not know. One might have taken a course in economics, but no one has taken a course in future history. Time will tell if BO is the Pied Piper – or not.

    There is a difference between being passionate and being ad hominem. I trust everyone reading this knows what ad hominem means. (Guy – you might want to review it.)

    So far, we know that the $$$$ plan is “bold” because BO uses that word over and over and over and over again to describe it. We also know that he continues to call welfare by the name of “tax cuts,” presumably to hide that it is welfare. What else do we know? We know he’s now added that he’ll give “tax cuts” to businesses that have failed, not only individuals who are failing rather than to people and businesses that have successed. What other facts do we know?

    Oh, sorry, this was a thread on Burris. Did the Dems, led by BO, screw this up? No question but that they acted hastily, politically, and stupidly. They screwed it up. Blago won that round.

  8. GuyFawkes says:

    I do have to ask – why were none of you so worried about deficits these last 8 years?

    When Bush took office, the national debt was $5 trillion.

    When he leaves, it’ll be nearly $10 trillion.

    So, he managed to run up as much debt by himself, as all 42 Presidents before him combined.

    And it’s only now that you all suddenly care about the deficit, when the money is going to be spent by a Democratic administration? Gee, how convenient.

  9. Rick C says:

    We were less concerned for a couple of reasons. One is that the total GDP looks to be around $70 trillion during that period and secondly a lot of the over spending would not be continuing spending. For example, we all knew the war would end and so would the war spending.

    One of the major problems with Obama’s plan is that this spending will all build a constituency. Then it will be hard to scale back. I would be much more comfortable with a stimulus plan that consisted of all permanent tax cuts rather than this “infrastructure” boondoggle.


  10. GuyFawkes says:

    “infrastructure” boondoggle, eh? Well, sure – God forbid we fix some roads and bridges, improve public transportation and provide thousands of jobs for the middle class.

    Instead, let’s give more tax cuts to the rich, and corporations! It didn’t work the first time, so it’ll be sure to work now!

  11. KauaiBoy says:

    Isn’t amazing at how our tax dollars which are supposed to go for roads and bridges among other things are now all of a sudden being spent on such things—-and BHO will be given credit for this discovery. I would bet that if the current waste in government were properly addressed, we could easily divert money to these needed projects—albeit at the expense of a lot of “bridges to nowhere”. Gotta love the blind ignorant liberal devotion to big government—-learn to take care of yourself and be held responsible for your actions.

  12. Terrye says:


    Talk about projecting. When Bush took office the country was going into a slowdown thanks to the dot com. The surplus was smoke and mirrors.

    When revenues dried up the debt started to rise. If there had not been an attack on 9/11 the push to reorganize the government and expand the military would probably not have happened. As it was the military was in need of some infrastructure rebuilding of its own. The Democrats can talk about Bush and spending all they want, the deficit was only 153 billion when they took control of the Congress in 2006 and when Bush did veto a spending bill, they over rode it. They treated every freeze in government as if it were a cut and Bush always ask for less in the budget than Congress ended up spending. And they are the ones who spend. Presidents can not do that. That goes for Obama too. He will only get this money if and when the Democratic controlled Congress gives it to him. And if they are not worried about that debt, why should the rest of us be worried? Right?

    As for this issue of Burris…Obama is supposed to be some hotshot law prof. Either he is not that well versed on the subject or he tried to pull a fast one. Take your pick.

  13. Terrye says:

    And I have a question about those jobs. Are they going to be hiring people directly or giving money to private companies. The states already have their own highway depts and there are all sorts of private companies that get hired to work on state and federal projects. Are these people going to be federal employees? Because if they are, is that fair to the private companies that will have to compete with them.

    I live in the country and in areas like this it can be hard to get broadband. ATT is my local carrier. Will the government give them billions to lay fiber optic and then let them bill me? Or is the drive to expand broadband all about relaxing regs? Personally I find the idea of giving federal money to huge communications corporations to be kind of troubling. I just do not get how this is supposed to work.

  14. The Macker says:

    “Instead, let’s give more tax cuts to the rich, and corporations! It didn’t work the first time, so it’ll be sure to work now!” –

    • The rich pay the taxes
    • The rich invest
    • “Corporations” are the vehicle for collective action.
    • It did work. It brought us out of the “Clinton” recession.
    • It always works. It returns money to the productive actor.
    • Government expenditures are about 15% less efficient than private and slower.
    • Your dumping on Bush is not worthy of response.

  15. kathie says:

    Huge solar project in California, 6 months from completion has been stopped because they found a red squirrel nest, the squirrel in on the endangered species list. This is the story of projects.

    The country collects $43 billion dollars each year from gas taxes. That money goes for Federal projects and state projects for building roads, bridges, etc. So where is that money. Well it has gone for shoring up other budget demands that our Congressman have decided on. So why is it that we need billions more for those very same people to decide on how it is spent.

    Bush gave a $700 billion loan. This new $700 billion is going down a sink hole and our children will pay for it for the rest of their lives. Just like giving people who couldn’t pay for their homes, we are now giving to people who need a job, but are they trained for that job? Never mind, it is a way to help from the bottom up.

    I guess giving money to car makers is a good idea, only if anybody would buy the car they make.

    I think the fastest way to get the economy moving would be to give those who create jobs a tax cut, so we can be competitive and some other tax breaks. But a democrat can’t do that because they hate the very same businesses that they hope will create jobs.

    I wonder do you call that thinking an ideology?

  16. kathie says:

    One other thing I would like to add…….if we had another terrorist attack after spending this huge amount of money…..then what do we do?

  17. Mike M. says:

    If, Kathie? IF?!

    Not if. When.

    The only questions are the timing, location, and butcher’s bill.

  18. GuyFawkes says:


    I would love to answer all of your questions – I wish I knew the answers myself. But since you are asking about bills that have not even been proposed yet, alone passed, I really can’t say. Pay attention over the next 30-40 days, and we should know.

  19. GuyFawkes says:


    Excellent question. Of course, one would also have to ask the same question if we had been attacked over the past 4 years. If we decided to start a third war – where would the troops and the money have come from?

  20. ivehadit says:

    By the way, for those who know absolutely nothing of which they speak on this subject: Tax cuts brought RECORD REVENUES to the US Government. Record. Fact.
    And they brought about a fantastic economy: records highs in the stock market, tremendous wealth accumulation FOR THE AVERAGE AMERICAN with a 401K, with lower UNEMPLOYMENT than the previous administration which had the dotcom boom to bolster its sails…and of course, this was done while prosecuting A WORLDWIDE WAR ON TERROR, a completely new enemy that sought to bring down our financial markets…but alas, we didn’t need that enemy. We had the democrats Dodd, Franken, Raines, Johnson, Schumer, imho, to wreck havoc on the Free Markets.

    Keep yapping…the grave is getting deeper and deeper as the awareness that the shoes that must be filled today are QUITE ASTOUNDINGLY LARGE.

    And, frankly, the United States of America has taken on enemies much larger in the past and won and will do so now…regardless of the cost we ALWAYS PROTECT our freedoms. America the Beautiful is worth the sacrifice…and worthy of our love and loyalty.