...and the same goes for 12,419,292 other Illinoisans, as the Democrats are about to seat him.
What else is there to say? In our poll last week, a significant number of you -- about 40 percent -- saw this coming and predicted that Burris would be seated by mid-January.
All right, here's one thing I'll say. Although seating Burris is modestly unpopular nationwide, there was nobody on either side of the aisle -- in the blogs, in the mainstream media, or in the Congress -- that was really ready to take ownership of the issue and lead some kind of anti-Burris crusade. There are a lot of 'distractions' right now: Israel, Gitmo, the economy, the stimulus, the transition, the agenda, Hillary, Caroline Kennedy, Al Franken, the RNC Chair Battle, Republican retirements, Rick Warren, and of course Rod Blagojevich himself. Reid and Durbin had no reason to believe there would be a sustained public outcry if they seated Burris, and so they let inertia take hold and seated him.
1.12.2009
Roland Burris is My Senator
@ 7:08 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
163 comments
What I don't understand, is how could you ever not seat him? Election laws shouldn't only apply when we want them to.
Hey Statler, got any wine left?
Mine to. I like Burris, it's too bad he had to get the seat like this. We wouldn't be here today if he had won the Gubernatorial primary..of course he lost because Hot Rod was the money machine that he was.
I can understand the Dems seating him, but Burris must really want to be a Senator very badly to take a seat with this taint to it when it is abundantly clear his constituents do not want him, nor does the rest of the Senate. He clearly has about as much dignity as Blagojevich.
Not only that, but the Senate quickly realized that they would have to say Burris is in cahoots with Blago in order to justify tying the matter up in the Rules Committee as some sort of ethical problem. Otherwise Article I Section 3 Clause 3, and Powell v. McCormack require that the Senate seat him.
Let this topic get out of the news at last. Now onward to the trial of Blaboyevich.
It is amazing that Reid was so stupid to let it stay in the news this long only to roll over like a good puppy.
Idiot.
Yeah, Statler-- Franzia would be nice, but if you've got any Box-o-Champagne, we'll take that too! :-)
Hey, speaking of that RNC chair battle... Nate, do you have any plans to write about that? Who do you think is the favorite?
wv: fermi - primaries in France.
My Senator, too. I can't believe it came to this. The legislature; the president; the people of this state; the Senate - all think this appointment shouldn't have been made and shouldn't stand. And yet someone a guy who is OUT ON BAIL and has just been impeached - he gets to override all that? Don't tell me there's nothing anyone can do. Just because he's seated - he doesn't have to be part of the caucus, or put on any committees. He needs to be treated as persona non grata and the legislature needs to have a special election immediately. And if Mark Kirk is elected, well, that's what we get for not getting our shit together earlier.
Good! The last think we Democrats need is a circular firing squad over trivial issues. Besides, it would be very bad precedent for the Senate to exclude someone who was legally appointed. I'm glad we seem likely to put this controversy to rest. And, I'm happy to get the extra vote as well.
Well, I hope Blagojevich enjoys having the last laugh all the way to his prison cell.
I think it was inevitable as well and don't understand why Reid let this drag on and on. He's a horrible leader and I hope someone challenges him.
I look forward to the time that I never have to hear Blago's name again.
Hey, Nate, just wondering what your position is on this big Burris fiasco... Do you appreciate the fact that he's soon to be your next Senator??
Look forward to Burris spending his two years in the Senate as the lowest-ranking member of the Agricultural Waste Products Subcommittee.
The only reason Republicans won't filibuster this and keep screaming about "Democratic corruption!" now, is that they get a campaign issue out of it.
There is simply no upside to seating Burris for Reid & Co.
They are fools and cowards for not taking this matter to court. Then even if they lose they win. And if they won, they would have enabled Blago's replacement to appoint someone who could win in 2 years instead of an embarrassment.
P.S. Re: Comment moderation: IT'S ABOUT DAMN TIME! (In fact about 6 months too late. And I say this as someone who was routinely threatened by Mule-Humper with being "gutted like a fish" which is annoying).
Well, I think this resolves the issue in the short term, but don't be surprised if Burris acts the gamecock and troublemaker once the Senate begins to tackle issues. The mere fact that he allowed himself to be appointed by the most corrupt politician since Caligula says a great deal about Burris's opportunistic ethics. He may have had a decent career as a politician, but expect him to play the thorn-in-the-side role with gusto on the Senate floor.
Wow...
For the first time ever, my latest post did not appear immediately after I made it. This suggests to me that someone is reviewing the material before it goes on the website. If so, then it's about time! There's no way to successfully deal with the Mule Riders of the world other than kick them off the cliff. They can't be reformed--you might get them to settle down for a day or two but as soon as they get back into the Twinkie box it starts all over again...
He should be seated. The case against doing it is flimsy and would set a precedent for future Senates which wished to exclude members for even less justified reasons.
But if Senate Democrats are serious in viewing him as tainted (which he is) they should exclude him from their caucus. This is absolutely their right.
Nate's poll from EXACTLY one week ago today had 39% believing that Senator-Designate Burris would be seated within two weeks, with another 5% saying immediately.
The hand-writing was on the wall for Senator Reid to see plainly. Instead of accepting reality and posturing displeasure/outrage, he instead drew a line in the sand. Subsequently, he then erased the line. This was his own fault.
As for what most of us THINK about the seating of Senator Burris, we did not like it 57%-43%. Politics is the art of what is possible, not what should be. Is Senator-Designate Burris the best choice for Illinois? Who knows, but many people are displeased. However, as distasteful as the process Blague employed was, it was legal.
More important than this is the news that one of President-Elect Obama's first acts will be to order Guantanamo Bay prison closed. Surely, once again respecting the Geneva Conventions is a standard the executive branch will strive for in stark contrast to the neocon-vulcan trampling of moral standards.
Rather than an anti-Burris crusade, I'd like to see a pro-progressive candidate crusade.
Hey Nate, why don't you try and analyze the chances of Burris actually winning in 2010 because he's not really that likable, primaries are only a year away, and if another black candidate like Jesse Jackson Jr. ran then Burris in my mind has no chances of being re-elceted.
Congratulations, Nate, and to people of the great state of Illinois.
And congratulations to Crockett and Tubbs, for becoming the biggest laughing stock in Democratic Party history.
Can we seat SENATOR Franken now? Preferably before the inauguration.
Burris's political career in Illinios politics ended in 1998 when he came in 2nd place against 3 unknown white candidates- Downstate Democrat Glenn Poshard came in first. US Attorneys John Schmidt made a strong third place finish.
Either Lisa Madigan,Dan Hynes,or Jan Schakowsky will be the Democratic Nominee for the 2010 IL US Senate Race.
Pat Quinn is going to be Governor sometime next month. Lisa Madigan is the only one that can defeat Quinn in the 2010 Democratic primary.
I find myself unable to post anything on this topic without devolving into more f-bombs than a wiretap of the Blague, so suffice to say: Way to go, Harry. I'd take a Republican in Illinois III over this crap.
Caredwen
The hangover was just brutal. So was hearing that Pawlenty, once a favorite for the GOP VP position during last year's race, refuses to sign Franken's certificate. Burris has been seated, because the Dems are ready to move on and leave the electoral sideshow alone for a while, but the Minnesota GOP just refuses to let go, even when they stand a less than zero chance of winning.
I cannot help but wonder how much of this is driven by Franken's past as an Air America host. The fact that they lost probably does not sting nearly as much as having lost to a man that is famous for standing up to the GOP's superstars and showing the world how inaccurate their claims are.
I have little sympathy. By standing up to them, Franken was being responsible to the American public. If it stings, they could have avoided the mess by not lying so flagrantly. And if the American people are growing increasingly deaf to right-wing talk-radio, then it is not the fault of the people who accurately stated that there were no WMD in Iraq. It is the fault of the liars who took advantage of the shock and horror we all felt on 9/11 and used it to manipulate us for their own personal profit and power.
What should really sting is not Franken's electoral victory. What should bother them is this:
They can't control us anymore.
OT:
When I lived in IL about a gazillion years ago, there was outfit called the Independent Voters of Illinois. They endorsed candidates, mostly non-machine Democrats and Republicans running against machine Democrats. I was wondering, do they still exist? Did they fizzle out or morph into something else? Just wondering.
I still find it hard to believe that anyone would accept an appointment to anything from a governor that tainted with sleaze. It just rubs off too much... Seriously, how does Burris ever think he's going to get nominated let alone elected in two years having associated himself with the guy?
I dunno...I find it ironic, to say the least, Burris get seated (about to), while that my Senator, Senator Franken just got shot down today in re obtaining his rightful Election Certificate. It was an automatic knee-jerk action from Franken lawyers, probably due diligence to request one as soon as the mandatory 1 week wait period was up, and just as automatic a rejection by both Pawlenty (gov) and Ritchie (SoS) because there was an unresolved contest.
But still...
Burris gets seated, though the seat is tainted. Franken gets elected fair and square, and won't even get a provisional seating.
As Al said,
Q: "what do we want?"
A: "patience!"
Q: "when do we want it?"
A: "now!"
Alan Page, incidentally formed the 3 judge panel. One is a Dem appointee, another is a indie/Ventura appointee, and one is a Arnie Carlson, the last good Republican, appointee. So, it crawls forward.
FWIW,
~ Latte, now banned from the Strib site. Incredibly, I know. No explanation either.
Nate,
I think that is a good summary of the situation. Nobody is real excited to seat him, but at the end of the day, who's going to stand in the way? Sigh.
I wonder if Franken could sue to be seated and win, making the Coleman case irrelevant. That would be a hoot.
They should have seated Burris and let this run its course. He's not going to damage anything because he only has two years.
Burris will be defeated in the 2010 primary. The Illinois Democratic Party will see to that. As NK mentions, there's a deep bench to be the Chicago senator.
latte banned? cant see latte doing anything (like some here)
stupid of the strib, but for eons they always had the wrong numbers up. the strib is a little off.
I agree with Cugel.
They should have hung his ass out to dry.
Maybe the current Governor will be removed by the State Senate, the new United States Senator will do something Reverend-Wright-at-the-National-Press-Club-like and there'll be a move to expel him.
Senator-to-be Franken will have to wait for his Certificate of Election until the contest is resolved in his favor. No court is going to rule otherwise.
Nate--
Since you are now moderating the comments, please don't end up like the Huffington Post, who throws out legitimate posts wholesale but lets repetitive, silly tit-for-tat crap sail through. Their moderators consists of one blind nun and one squirrel with a dartboard.
Moderating posts is a drag, a waste of time, it kills true conversation, but it is necessary, at least here. But even more necessary IMO is that it is done responsibly. Leave the real conversations alone, even if they contain naughty and/or angry words, just draw the line at the obviously insane.
Chris said...
I find myself unable to post anything on this topic without devolving into more f-bombs than a wiretap of the Blague, so suffice to say: Way to go, Harry. I'd take a Republican in Illinois III over this crap.
I'd sooner recieve oral gratification from Mike Huckabee than see the scum occupy President Obama's vacated seat.
@ Pragmatus
For the first time ever, my latest post did not appear immediately after I made it. This suggests to me that someone is reviewing the material before it goes on the website.
Yes indeed.Look just above the Word Verification area in the Leave Your Comment drop-down window and you will see an added sentence ("Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.").
(I,too, missed it earlier today when I first posted.)
"Reid and Durbin had no reason to believe there would be a sustained public outcry if they seated Burris"
I guess the rule of law had nothing to do with the decision to bow to the inevitable -- it certainly had nothing to do with most blogger's analysis (including 538's, I hate to say).
The fact the Supreme Court already ruled (in the Adam Clayton Powell case) that there are limits to how Congress can impose personal whims on who is allowed into Congress also, apparently, held no sway w/ the leaders or what passes for blogger analysis.
Please, get a grip. Try
Ried really screwed up . . . again! I'm really don't Burris has any integrity. If he did, he would never have accepted the appointment. Sad!
I'd like to run the opposition campaign in 2010. I'd feel real good about beating the corrupt appointment of the jailed criminal Blago. The quirky loser who is in the pocket of the corrupt dem machine.
It would be easy.
About goddamned time.
Wow...
I've already had a post rejected by the moderator. The subject was an innocuous suggestion about how moderation can work successfully.
Will this post be axed too? If so, then that's it for me, I guess.
Anyone ever heard of "rule of law and not of men" (or women)? Whether we like it or not, Blago's appointment is legal and Burris ultimately would have been seated by court order, so why drag it out?
Conversely, in Minnesota the law forbids the governor and SoS from certifying Franken as Senator-elect until Coleman's challenge (no matter how frivolous) has been concluded.
As Nate has explained before, the Supreme Court has set serious limits on the Senate's ability to just admit or keep out whomever it wants. And this is really pretty reasonable; just imagine if in, say, 2004, the Bush-pandering Senate majority had had the power to deny seating to anyone it wanted, because of suspected ties to someone they didn't like or for any old reason at all?
This is great news... for Nate Silver
loomisnews said...
"I guess the rule of law had nothing to do with the decision to bow to the inevitable -- it certainly had nothing to do with most blogger's analysis (including 538's, I hate to say).
The fact the Supreme Court already ruled (in the Adam Clayton Powell case) that there are limits to how Congress can impose personal whims on who is allowed into Congress also, apparently, held no sway w/ the leaders or what passes for blogger analysis."
Although I am not a lawyer or constitutional scholar, not seating a legally appointated designate, in accordance with the laws of Illinois, would be covered quite handily by Marbury v. Madison. This is because the State Supreme Court could compel the Secretary of State to sign the certification, unlike Marbury's lack of venue.
Then again, I could be entirely wrong.
However, many of us blogged that L'Affaire Burris could only have one ending here. If you think that Nate did not think this was a likely outcome, refer to his unscientific but prescient post.
This Burris appointment has become just a hobby horse for people who don't like Harry Reid to ride. For example people who think that Burris will not be a reliable vote or that he do a Jeremiah Wright at the Press Club thing. Very, very unlikely.
I don't think that Reid expected Blago to make a decent appointment and so he made his line in the sand. But Blago appointed about the least offensive politician in IL. Point to Blago.
@LT- Burris is 'the least offensive politician in Illinois'? Do you have a tv machine? Or a Google? Burris tried very hard to execute a man (Cruz) who he knew to be 100% innocent, in order to advance his run for Gov. The Asst. AG who was supposed to handle the case resigned in protest.
Anyway, we have to live with him for 2 yrs, hope for the best, and then try to unite behind a good candidate. Schakowski?
Fight the battles, you can win.
Reid, Durbin seemed to forget that.
People, though up in arms, got way more many things to worry about than a democratic pissing match on this appointment.
I said seat him long time ago, no one won in this matter. In fact, if it had dragged on and Quinn was appointed governor, HIS appointment would have been under scrutiny. The only real taint free way of appointing this seat was through special election, but since the Democrats 'effed it up, we would lose, if an election were held.
It is more than time to move on past this. Burris won't be the nominee in 2010, this gives us here in Illinois time to find a solid candidate.
Too much drama.
OT: For those who have been concerned about trolls on here recently, or anywhere, have a look at
http://www.xckd.com/493/
for a giggle.
@Statler & Caredwin, etc.
We still goin'? Save a box of Franzia for me! I want to know if there's a 'Last day of Bush' party. I'm there. I've heard there are some on-line parties. This date is [almost] more important to me than New Year's. Anybody got any plans?
I guess I'll find some folks around here and blog you guys about it later.
Happy new world!
So Nate,
Care to comment on Chris Bowers's comparison?
Bowers Vs. 538 Vs. Pollster.com
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=10740
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=10781
"538 had the edge among higher-polled campaigns, which means Pollster.com was superior among lower-polled campaigns. This goes against conventional wisdom. Many thought Silver's demographic regression gave him an edge among less-polled campaigns, but that Pollster's method only worked well in heavily polled environments. Turns out the opposite was true, and I'm not sure why. Maybe Silver's demographic regressions don't work, but his poll weighting does. Or something."
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/bowers_vs_538_vs_pollster.php
So the accuracy of our estimates tells us that the poll data alone, once aggregated at the end of the campaign, provided remarkably accurate predictions of state-level election outcomes. The fact that the more complex models used at FiveThirtyEight were equally accurate raises the question: In terms of predictive accuracy, what value did Fivethirtyeight's extra steps (weighting by past polls performance and the various adjustments based on other data and regression models) provide?
I continue to love your site, Nate, and you sold my when your post convention overlaid curves matched the polling swings almost perfectly, but you have been, in my humble opinion, reluctant/lax/uninterested? in analyzing your model's predictive value against (1) others' models and (2) actual results.
Hey Davy, there's lots of end-of-Bush parties in the works. Here in southern California we're having a giant "Ding Dong the Dolt is Gone" party on Monday, followed by an inauguration rager on Tuesday. Kegs, Patrón, and good times all around (maybe a box of Franzia if you're lucky). Forecast is 75 degrees and sunny. Come on out!
@kennyb: I think one thing that's easy to overlook is that nobody (including Nate) contests that using the polling averages from polls close to election day is going to give a very accurate prediction of the state electoral vote winners. The extra complexity in 538's models largely becomes irrelevant as the density of state polls increases, and especially over time. Nate always granted that.
What he had was probably I would say a better way of tracking the path of the elections in the weeks and months before late October. Of course I can't prove this point, nor can anyone else refute it, since they only ran the voting once, on November 4. The various "dampers" and corrections that Nate built in gave me confidence about what was going on in, say, August and September, but by the end of October a simple poll average was going to do a good job of predicting what happened on November 4.
In the meantime, we were all exercized over issues such as the Bradley Effect, cellphones, youth turnout, and so on. These were the largest remaining areas of uncertainty -- and sometimes partisan wrangling on the pages of 538. And we all enjoyed the analyses of these issues on Pollster and FiveThirtyEight -- which largely proved to be correct: the Bradley Effect was dead, or at least minimal; cellphone only households only distorted results by a little (2 percent perhaps).
In the end, when it came down to making predictions of the winners on November 4, Nate called just one state wrong in the presidential race, and he got every Senate race right (assuming Franken is eventually declared the winner in Minnesota). While some people have tried to shave this analysis further by measuring the average error in the predicted vote totals, we're talking about essentially meaningless differences between the leading polling-based forecasters.
(BTW/ I think the main reason Nate hasn't done a lot of post-electoin reviews is that he's finishing up his 2009 season baseball projections, while in the meantime following the Senate races to their final conclusion(s) and putting in place some of the foundation for his Obama administration policy and Congressional rollcall material. There's only so many hours in a day, and this website remains essentially a one-man operation.)
Juris-
I agree, I think Nate's model was much closer to predicting the real state of the race before the conventions, and during the convention bounces. Once all the polls converged in mid to late October almost all models got it right because there was no way to get it wrong, essentially. All the polls said the same thing near the end, and what they said was correct.
The real question is how could the polls be so right this time, and so much better than they were in Rove elections - anyone got a conspiracy theory?
Once again the dems prove they have no spine and will cave for even the slightest amount of pressure.
If Reid doesn't get the ax, then nothing will get done between the spineless wonder and our new President, Mr Barack "Avoid looking partisan at all costs, even if I can't do anything, please don't let the mean republicans accuse me of being a lefty!" Obama.
It is amazing that we now seem to value cowardice.
Well, I agree with most of the Juris, although I think you're being pretty generous on the last point. After all, Nate has posted about a lot of stuff since the election, but very little in the area of how his model's successes and failures. Blumenthal, on Pollster, on the other hand, has not posted on nearly as many topics as Nate.
Now, answer me this. If Nate was right as to every state, which he pretty much was, except for Indiana, why did he qualify his predictions by splitting electoral votes based on percentage likelihood of winning? Shouldn't he have given us a final snapshot assigning all EVs of a state to the projected winner, even if the projection was 51%-49%? His last snapshot before the election (sometime in October, I think) had Obama with 364 EVs, swapping Indiana's 11 for Missouri's 11 and getting Omaha wrong.
Hmmm, now comment moderation is gone again. Maybe google blocked all posts from Mulie's home state of Oklahoma.
Raise your hand if Mulie's home state being Oklahoma (if memory serves and Mulie is the same poster he was pre-election) is a surprise?
"There's only so many hours in a day, and this website remains essentially a one-man operation."
So where is Sean hiding? He has a much better handle on politics.
fred, it could also be that polling is getting better, and that there is a heck of a lot more of it.
Or it could have been a conspiracy...
And Juris,
If your answer holds, does that make IBD/TIPP the best pollster of the 2008 election, beating all aggregates?
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/hitting_a_bullet_with_a_bullet.php
David-
This is how government is supposed to work, at least in Obama's case. You put out proposals and improve them based on consensus and input. That is not rolling over, it is governing and we have dearly missed it the last eight years. Think if our foreign policy had been consensus instead of Bush snap judgment BS the last eight years!
Hell, think of it this week. The consensus is that Israel should pull back in Gaza, Condi Rice sets up a cease fire proposal in the U.N. At the last minute Israel calls Bush and says vote against it, Bush tells Condi she has to vote against her own proposal, she abstains, Israel in emboldened and the rate of Palestinian deaths goes way up. Bush, snap judgment extraordinaire and the decision maker, the wrong decision maker. How many people have Bush, Cheney, and Rove killed directly and indirectly? If you count Iraqi civilian deaths it is clearly millions. Good to see Bush go out killing the most people possible, it is his only legacy on foreign policy.
Kennyb-
I would be somewhat surprised if polling actually got alot better on a per poll basis in this election, when cell phone only and new voters through a wrench in most conventional models.
Kennyb-
Isn't it also true that the polling in most recent elections is pretty good? The issue is only a few states that poll wrong each cycle. I guess this year that was IN but that can be explained by AA turnout. What of OH and FL in those prior elections...
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2009/Info/track-record.html#2004
Well, fred, it did get better. The final polls for most pollsters, as pollsters' numbers converged, was much better than in 2004. I'll try to find a link for you if no one beats me to it.
Early 2008 accuracy numbers are here (before all the votes were in):
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/pollster_accuracy_and_the_nati.php
Here's a link to Israel stating they run American foreign policy through phone calls to the decider, and our foreign policy folks are just lapdogs to the brainiac in the oval office.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/washington/13olmert.html
Hmmmmm, maybe you are right...
kennyb-
The FINAL numbers converged on a better number on a number closer to the real outcome. Go look at the major pollsters over the last month - the numbers do not substantiate your blind faith.
It looks like pollster pulled his comparison chart of the major pollsters over the last month of the election. The polls did converge, but that means little, the real question is how could they have all been so divergent two weeks out if they are all so right?
@ Fred: Good to see Bush go out killing the most people possible...
Hmm, gotta disagree with that. Having more blood on our hands is no good under almost any circumstances. Anyway, Bush's legacy is already sealed, despite all recent PR efforts to the contrary (did you see that press conference today?).
The next seven days cannot pass soon enough.
This was just a clusterf*ck at all levels for the Democrats: Blago was off his nut, the Illinois legislature got way too cute in trying to keep the seat in Democratic hands by neither immediately impeaching Blago nor arranging a special election, the Senate "leadership" mired itself in ridiculous technicalities knowing they couldn't win a court or PR battle, and Barry assumed this had nothing to do with him.
Blago will be gone soon enough, but this is the Senate leadership Barry's trusting to support his stimulus package and the rest of his agenda. This won't end well.
Nate,
Comment moderation: completely acceptable. But you need to post guidelines of conduct (no personal attacks, threats... the degrees of off-topic permissability, etc..)
Example:
http://ussmariner.com/comment-guidelines/
Burris: I weep for Illinois. Nationally, the story will go away, but the state's suffering will go on, and on, and on...
The real question is how could the polls be so right this time, and so much better than they were in Rove elections - anyone got a conspiracy theory?
Sort of, yes, and we can thank the gloriously liberal Secretary of State Project for busting up any such conspiracy. It helped replace both Kathleen Harris and Ken Blackwell – SOS’s who were instrumental in maneuvering the Bush victories in 2000 and 2004. I’m not really much of a conspiracy theorist, but I do think the Republicans had a strategy in place for tipping elections their way when possible (fortunately, Obama generally crushed it in previously close swing states), and SOS’s were a critical component of that strategy.
@ cheapseats: Nate already posted guidelines of conduct ("Don't. Be. An. Asshole.") But as in real life, some ignore said guidelines. Hence moderation. If you've been following this blog for a while, you understand why.
RufusRules:
Not to belabor the point, but what I meant was to make comments guidelines an integrated part of his home page. Right up there on his headings bar, or somewhere else suitably visible.
cheapseats: For most blogs that would probably be sufficient, but 538 has a particularly obnoxious troll who appears to have some weird personal fixation on Nate and who has been blocked several times to no avail. It seems at this point that moderation, or institutionalization of said troll, is the only remedy.
Rufus-
I think it was clear I was being facetious.
cheapseats-
We do not need new rules for posts. The posts here, both on an off topic, have generally been very good and personal attacks at an acceptable level with one major exception.
The Bush years will go down as the big lies era, but the public wasnt lying to pollsters too.
Unless polling methodology has critically changed is some fashion we are left with only one explanation for the improvement in polling accuracy-
the big lie was in who won.
cheapseats-
Don't weep for IL, they have Durbin who is second in command of the whole Senate, Burris who will be a perfect lapdog, straight dem vote until he loses the next primary, and Obama/Axelrod/Jarret in the White House.
IL is likely the most powerful state in the union right now.
For Statler:
really genuinely interested in what your take is on Gene Robinson being asked to do a prayer at the Inauguration.....
Oh, and on topic, Burris was bound to be seated.
livemild said "the big lie was in who won" and it made me laugh. I could not agree more, and to steal an election does not take a country, it takes a state, or an area of a state, or even a city - if the election is close enough.
Anyone else for federal election standards?
Rufus-
Good point on the SoS project.
I think it was clear I was being facetious.
Oh, I know you were, I am just feeling a bit bruised, along the lines of "Jebus Christ, how much more damage can Bush possibly wreak before his ass is kicked back to Texas?" or "Goddamnit GWB, why can't you just hide under the bed until they come to sweep your dumb ass out of there?"
Ahem.
Rufus-
I am completely stunned at the audacity of the man. He loses the election, his popularity is in the toilet at historic lows, and he STILL uses his power to fuck things up and make the wrong decision. What hasn't he learned about his own idiocy?
its late and i am going to bed unfortunately i fear i am going to have nightmares about bush being an evil dust bunny under my bed- thanks rufus;)
Rufus-
The real question on this vote and others, is where is Condi Rice's spine and personal pride. She should have resigned over this.
Brian Jenkins said...
Blago will be gone soon enough, but this is the Senate leadership Barry's trusting to support his stimulus package and the rest of his agenda. This won't end well.
Darn Tootin'
I am completely stunned at the audacity of the man.
I believe he is truly clinically delusional. It typically presents in conjuction with megalomania/narcissistic personality disorders. Really, it is endlessly fascinating (scary?) to read the DSM-IV with reference to our elected officials.
The mighty Dr. Science said it best: There is a thin line between ignorance and arrogance, and only I have managed to erase that line.
@ Juris
I think the main reason Nate hasn't done a lot of post-electoin reviews is that he's finishing up his 2009 season baseball projections, while in the meantime following the Senate races to their final conclusion(s) and putting in place some of the foundation for his Obama administration policy and Congressional rollcall material. There's only so many hours in a day, and this website remains essentially a one-man operation.)
And don't forget Nate's book deal.That has to eat into his available time.
@ Opus / Juris:
And, I seem to remember his birthday is somewhere around this time (he outed it on one of his DailyKos diaries last year). Let's hope he's celebrating his monumentally epic year of badassery.
Interesting to note that I'm far from the only one around here who appears to have awakened before 3 o'clock this morning...
@ JMNorris: Yep, the Independent Voters of Illinois still exists, albeit as merged with the Independent Precinct Organization (with which Prof. Dick Simpson of UIC PoliSci was associated pretty closely during his aldermanic runs in the '70s), and it now operates under the moniker IVI-IPO.
They still do candidate endorsements and, last I knew, print newspaper inserts (think campus daily or free weekly advertiser) on the eve of election days with a full slate of endorsements for national, state and local offices, all the way down to county judicial candidates, and they include a conspicuous notice to the reader that one may take the document into the voting booth.
Learn more here.
Right then, as for this Burris thing...if others are content to shrug at the notion that sometimes democracy hocks up a mutant loogie of the like, and that the law is the law and the law was followed, well then, they're welcome to it.
I think that this, as a practical matter, is an utter load of crap. It would have been one thing if Blagojevich had observed due courtesy by consulting with Sen. Durbin and key members of the state congressional delegation, and then gone privately before the legislators who are about to fire his ass and presented Burris as a nominee to fill out the remainder of BHO's term and then retire from public life, and I was so naive as to have assumed as much when I got the news.
The subsequent outcry, the news that Cong. Danny Davis had been offered the post but correctly turned it down, the sickening performance of Bobby Rush at the presser and, not least of all, Roland's apparent cluelessness with respect to just how offensive all of this is tell me all that I need to know about the man.
As it is, he's a career mediocrity who brings absolutely nothing to the table, save for a single vote in the upper house, for the party or for any cause that it may seek to advance. If he runs to retain the seat, I shall spare no reasonable effort to see him defeated.
Oh, and purported Illy GOP "rising star" Mark Kirk is a sexist pig who would do well to learn a few manners and develop a grasp of how one properly speaks of women in office settings anymore, not least of all in their conspicuous presence. If he runs for the seat, it'll all come out --and I'm surprised that it hasn't already.
@ 51st Ward: Interesting to note that I'm far from the only one around here who appears to have awakened before 3 o'clock this morning...
Or maybe they're just waiting (sometimes in vain) for the Ambien to kick in...
Off topic to Burris, but . . .
Any bets that Shrub will pull a final major 'surprise' during his Thursday night 'speech'?
Such as announcing that he is issuing a pardon to Cheney for 'any crimes' (ala Ford's pardon of Nixon), then announcing he's resigning as of noon Friday, Saturday or Sunday, and Cheney will take the oath of office? Cheney's only official act would be to issue a pardon to Bush (again ala Ford's pardon of NIxon).
I do NOT want to see it happen, and I don't expect it to, but with this G** D***** administration, the only thing to expect is the unexpected that is guaranteed to hurt the US in the long run.
I think it's time Democrats and Republicans come together in light of a common enemy to destroy: Harry Reid.
Bush might declare martial law. Apparently Israel is going to attack Iran. Uh oh...
Mike in Maryland:
Nothing would surprise me at this point, but it would be a little odd for him to pull a stunt like that when he is trying so hard to reframe his "legacy." I think Bush actually believes he has been a good president and has been wrongly maligned, and I also think he believes that the Obama adminstration will not go after him, Cheney, or anyone else. And given Obama's forward-looking pragmatist stance, and the fact that he's got WAY bigger fish to fry, I tend to agree it's unlikely he'll launch any investigation into the Bush administation. More's the pity.
The new look is so spare!
I approve.
^what the fuck?
Love the new look. As for Burris, I was among the 39% who saw this coming. Setting aside personal feelings, was there anything a hypothetical anti-Burris crusader could hang his hat on? Certainly nothing legal or constitutional.
No litle petey, you were not missed but you are a better troll than Mule Rider who has turned into a murderous insane person.
Where is Real Joe or Virginia Conservative?
Can't wait to try the new look on my smartphone - it should make this site usable.
That's certainly not the real PeteKent, that's much too aggressive. I guess it's the Mule Rider imposter.
I like the new look, Nate, especially the Senate rankings.
Btw, maybe it's time to release a new pollster rating?
I've beaten this to death, Richard, so this will be my last post on it, but yes, I think, an anti-Burris crusader could hang his hat on quite a strong legal argument that the Senate decides who sits in its chamber. At the VERY least, Reid could have referred the matter to committee to investigate the appointment and then, by the time the report came back, Blago would have been impeached and Quinn might have appointed a different Senator, and the Senate would have to decide between the two (much like it decides between 2 slates of electors). At the very most, the Senate could have (and still can, but won't) expel Burris with 2/3rds vote. There is, however, nothing inherently "anti-Burris" about it, but rather, anti-Blague, and, in my mind, that was enough. But it was a distraction that the Dems didn't want. Turns out that the distraction was less palatable than giving up their principals.
I am disgusted by it, and recognize that I am probably in a minority on this one.
And I am a lawyer, did read Powell and the Illinois S.Ct. decision, and STILL think that there was a good argument for keeping him out.
PS-Nice new look, Nate!
PPS-Second on the new pollster ratings (although if anyone wants them, you can find some on Pollster.com)
Statler, can I repeat my comment now that you may be up and about (depending on the Franzia) - what do you think about Gene Robinson doing a prayer at the Inauguration?
The real Pete Kent was from Kentucky.
The real PeteKent was from Kentucky, and the real Mule Rider was from Oklahoma.
uh, I thought Oklahoma and Tennessee, but what do I know? And why does it matter?
I was watching a special on TV regarding the dust storms that devastated the OK panhandle and the rest of the mid west around the time of the Great Depression.
LBJ created a low interest loan program for farmers in these areas so they wouldn't loose their farms. You'd figure the entire region would still be a bit grateful.
Guess not.
Hey Folks- Please DNFTT- Really-
I appreciate the commentary, the links, and comedy in this comment section; but the last couple of days have been pretty unsightly.
Rarely is ignoring a problem an effective solution- but failing to reward negative-attention-seeking behaviors by ignoring those behaviors can work wonders in many cases.
So let's give it a try- All together now "DNFFT"
I can't wait to see Nate's TED Talk- Man oh man Mr. Silver must be busy! I still think Nate will have his work cut out for him if he is going to outshine Hans Rosling (Feb 2006 and june 2007).
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen.html
January 13, 2009 9:39 AM
it is about time that Burris got his seat
tiny tempest in a teapot in the general scheme of things as Nate has noted
more importantly the Obama team is trying to mend the WARREN imbroglio...
'Obama chooses Bishop V. Gene Robinson for inaugural kickoff events'
@ http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-obama-clergy-webjan13,0,7483819.story
"After angering gay rights supporters with the choice of evangelist Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration, President-elect Barack Obama has chosen the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal church to pray at the kickoff event for the inaugural festivities this Sunday.
Bishop V. Gene Robinson, who advised Obama on gay rights issues during the campaign, is set to deliver the invocation at an event on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial two days before the swearing-in ceremony, aides to Obama said Monday."
and apparently both Obama & Biden will attend the event
Bishop Robinson says he will pray for 'all americans' [not just christians] without using the bible
at least it is a small but symbolic step to repair the damage done imho
@mhz: You could have signed up for TED for a mere $6,000 admissions fee. They're gonna have the "New Nostradamus" guy there, too. But he's a rationalist, not a mystic.
DCM
Symbolic indeed, and very small. Warren's still at the big kids' table-he gets to deliver the biggest prayer of them all. Robinson's at a minor event that almost nobody is going to attend. Most folks won't even be flying into DC until the night before the inauguration. Who's he going to be delivering his address to, a small crowd of 20 people shivering in the cold who are only there because they live in the area anyway?
Come on, is this all we're worth to these assholes? After all the money and time we spent getting them elected?
DCM I have already posted twice about Gene Robinson in this thread - I really want to know what Statler thinks about it. But he has not yet emerged for the day.....
Hey, can we just stop talking about MR already? This is rapidly turning into a page where all we talk about is him. I'd rather talk politics.
This website is prejudiced against Okie culture. I'm getting censored!!
I continue to love your site, Nate, and you sold my when your post convention overlaid curves matched the polling swings almost perfectly, but you have been, in my humble opinion, reluctant/lax/uninterested? in analyzing your model's predictive value against (1) others' models and (2) actual results.
Totally agree with this and had been wondering about it myself for awhile. When do we see the post-mortem?
RSCC leader Cornyn says that "Beating Burris is a top priority" in 2010:
http://dyn.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/index.cfm/category/Illinois
That's quite a dumb thing to say, because Burris is certainly not going to be the Democratic candidate by then. Mark Kirk is probably the best, and almost only republican candidate who might have a shot at this, but in 2 years Blagojevich will be mostly forgotten, and the people of Illinois will ask themselves "Should I vote for a republican because Harry Reid didn't care enough about Burris?" ... very unlikely.
I also thought that the Republican front against Eric Holder would hold (I guess Arlen Specter was the most vocal republican on the issue because he needed to show his "conservative credentials" to avoid a primary in his re-election bid). Now, Orrin Hatch will not follow the party line and there won't be a single problematic cabinet appointment hearing.
If you add the confusing RNC chairman race, you get the picture that the Republican leadership is confused and divided.
@fred, concerning Gaza:
Where were the protesters when missiles were hitting Israel?
And, just to make it clear, I am a Democrat who opposed the war in Iraq and the periodic urges to attack Iran. In the interests of full disclosure, I am Jewish, and I have opposed Israel's expansion of settlements in the West Bank. I want you to think about living under 6300 rocket attacks in nearly eight years, with 3000 in the past year alone. Yes, I know it's from the Jerusalem Post. Please read it anyway, if you have any claim to an open mind.
Comment moderation: completely acceptable. But you need to post guidelines of conduct (no personal attacks, threats... the degrees of off-topic permissability, etc..)
Nate did post comment guidelines once awhile back. IIRC, they were "Don't be an asshole." Hence, Mulerider is thankfully, though long overdue, gone.
sorry Statler, this moderation lark meant I didn't see you had posted until after I had replied to DCM. In the UK Robinson is being treated as a big deal, though it is not clear from the coverage that it's not the actual ceremony that he's been asked to pray at.
PS, for us ignorant Limeys, what IS Franzia anyway?
Sort of, yes, and we can thank the gloriously liberal Secretary of State Project for busting up any such conspiracy. It helped replace both Kathleen Harris and Ken Blackwell – SOS’s who were instrumental in maneuvering the Bush victories in 2000 and 2004. I’m not really much of a conspiracy theorist, but I do think the Republicans had a strategy in place for tipping elections their way when possible (fortunately, Obama generally crushed it in previously close swing states), and SOS’s were a critical component of that strategy.
While Obama won so handily, he didn't need a fair SoS, Franken did. And, IIRC, the Minnesota SoS was one they contributed to. Kudos to the Secretary of State Project.
@Statler:
Share your upset at Warren's giving the invocation. I do expect a pretty good crowd at the Sunday kickoff event at the Lincoln Memorial. Maybe I'll attend that one in lieu of going to the zoo that Tuesday will be. Expect at least 20,000 (albeit not 2,000,000) for the Sunday event.
WV: bilhou: What people will be saying after two successful Obama terms.
sorry juris I do not understand. Nate's Talk will be available on the internet at some point. no?
@Stat and Mrs. B
Did you see the last bit of the "Open for Questions" with the incoming press secretary.
They say we are getting rid of Don't Ask Don't Tell- It is at the very end though.
http://change.gov/newsroom/entry/open_for_questions_round_2_response/
Actually I think Roland Burris is kind of cute- but the story about RB working trying to get the death penalty for Cruz (or anyone else for that matter imho) is very upsetting.
http://www.propublica.org/article/in-90s-burris-sought-death-penalty-for-innocent-man-1231
I want to believe that somewhere deep down in Burris's heart he really is doing this at least in part as service to the public. Given that Blago would not resign this was one of the fastest routes to filling that second IL seat- and right now it seems that time is of the essence. Let's hope that Burris has not gotten too used to the national spot light and will not provide more fuel for detractions from the important work at hand.
wv rantings-
mhz - found it but unfortunately my kids have overdone the downloading this month watching back episodes of South Park, which means our ISP has downgraded our line speed until 16th, so youtube unwatchable until 17th (wait 10 seconds, watch 2 seconds, wait 10 seconds, watch 2 seconds......).
wv glych - yep, got one of those all right.
polls-apart-
Guess you haven't read many of my posts - Israel does have the right to defend itself, it does not have the right to use the most modern warfare to kill 1000 civilians, and bomb schools, in order to overcome the death of 5 Israeli's.
Moderation in all things, even killing people you hate.
mhz-
This has been widely discussed. Burris was in a very bad place on Cruz. It was not clear that Cruz was innocent, the cops (who were later proved to be lying) said he was, and he had been twice convicted. Could Burris just walk away from a convicted child killer? Just for the record, Jim Ryan(the AG after Burris) also pushed the case.
The Nicario case is a slam he doed not deserve, the judiciary completely failed in this case, as the AG is not the finder of fact or truth.
@fred-
I was once told that spirit of"an eye for an eye" is the idea that one should give or take
no more than an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth.
I wonder if that is a widely used interpretation- Probably not.
@Mrs. B-
So sorry to hear about your internet wows. I am addicted to change.gov videos. Whenever I am feeling down I watch one and I usually feel better. I know it could be mostly candy- but they get me through the day sometimes. I watched the Christine Romer one during the Silver vs Mankiw tussle over Romer. She had a great quote about the jobs in the stimulus package being for lots of phenotypes not just burly men. Boy did I smile at that one.
@fred-ok thanks for the perspective- I do not like to think ill of people. you seem to be very informed about IL (as well as other things)- iyho is there any chance that Il and more states are going to move away from the Death Penalty.
@Fred:
My point is that, even if the Hamas attacks had killed zero Israelis (instead of the actual five), that living under 3000 rocket attacks in one year (with attendant air-raid sirens, schools put underground, etc.) would be unthinkable if the source were say, Windsor, Ontario and the target were Detroit, Michigan. If the government of Canada were unable or unwilling to stop such attacks (or supporting and organizing them, as is the case with Hamas in Gaza), I think even an Obama-led government would take drastic action to stop such attacks.
The deaths of civilians in Gaza is a tragedy, but it is a fact that the school which was attacked by Israelis was used to launch rockets toward Israel. The Israelis are sending a message that, while they do not deliberately target civilians, (as Hamas does as a matter of policy) that the presence of civilians will not be a bar to attacks on the sources of rocket fire. I believe that the Israelis are bound and determined to root out and destroy all weapons in Gaza, and to destroy Hamas in the process if possible. The Israelis will then be honor-bound to rebuild Gaza, as I see them as necessarily occupying the place afterwards. (It should be noted here that Hamas destroyed Israeli-built hydroponic growing facilities when they took over Gaza.)
I know the current Israeli government is not of the caliber of leaders such as Golda Meir, but something she said has stayed with me for all these years. Paraphrasing Ms. Meir: I am not so angry at the the deaths of Israelis at the hands of our enemies, as I am that our enemies have forced us into killing them to protect ourselves.
Perhaps you could provide me with the exact quote, fred.
mhz-
Thanks, but it is just that I went to school WAAAAY too long and I am old (it happens) and love to listen to news and opinion.
As for the death penalty, I am too passionately opposed to it to be able evaluate it with any perspective.
@Fred- I have no idea why you're trying to cut Burris some slack on Cruz. The Asst. AG assigned to the case resigned from her job in protest because she was sure Cruz was innocent and Burris refused to change course even though he in effect acknowledged that he agreed. That the extreme Republican scumbag Jim Ryan persisted in the same course is not exactly an exoneration of Burris.
@polls apart
wiki says it goes like this-
* We can forgive you for killing our sons. But we will never forgive you for making us kill yours."
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/33312.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golda_Meir#Aliyah_to_Palestine
in the quotes section-
Albert Camus has the best book title ever:
"Neither Victims nor Executioners"-
It was a very real time and interesting set of essays.
@fred:
The newest Hamas rockets have brought the cities of Ashkelon, Ashdod, and Beersheba within range. The Qassams fired in the past could be characterized as "Hamas Rocket Torture" (as in "Chinese Water Torture"), but 1,000,000 Israelis now live within range of the newest Hamas rockets. This is why the Israelis are willing to undertake this attack on Gaza, and why they are unlikely to stop. International guarantees in Lebanon have not stopped Hezbollah from rearming there.
mbw-
I am cutting Burris slack because he deserves it - the voters were passionate on the case of a killing of a young girl and it is the judiciaries job to find innocence.
Yes, the ADC did leave in a "noisy" way which should lead the JUDGE to ask more questions. The judiciary failed, it is not the job of the AG to judge guilt or innocence, it is just not their job.
polls_apart-
I do not disagree, but the new rockets were not fired until AFTER the incursion. In essence, I am not against going in - but - by going in you just took away any leverage or chance Obama had to really bring in Egypt again. If this was such a huge freakin' issue, why do it now? Ask yourself why Israel did this instead of waiting for Obama/Clinton to come in - who almost got a peace deal when they were in charge last time.
This is pretty clearly meant to stop any peace deal, and it has made me, yes me personally, much less safe in the U.S. and as I travel the world. The Israeli's just handed the terrorists a million extra recruits, more suicide bombers, and have made the world less stabel in the long term because they could not wait a stinkin' month. It is unforgiveable.
Wanna bat they are trying to bomb Iran and really destabilize the place while the neo-cons are still in charge?
Show Israel to be the nuts they are, walk away from their billions in war funding every year. I need my tax dollars here.
The judiciary failed, it is not the job of the AG to judge guilt or innocence, it is just not their job.
Yeah,he should just follow his job description,like the Nazi executioners followed theirs."It's not my job;I was only following orders."
Opus132-
That is nsulting. Burris had this AGC leave AFTER the guy had been convicted twice. That is so far from a Nazi executioner it is unimaginable to even bring it up. The AG cannot just decide the jury was WRONG! That is up to the JUDGE!
I am strongly against the death penalty, and think alot of pinnocent people are in jail, BTW.
Should not the AG be a moral person? Who was the more moral person here,the AG or the AGC?
As a moral person (which I don't doubt you are) you should feel insulted not by me but by Burris' lack of morality in this case.
My guess is that Burris was allowed to take his seat on two provisions: that he vote the party line, and that he not run in 2010. His chances of winning a statewide seat are slim to nil, and I think that he knows it.
So now he gets to be called "Senator" for the rest of his life, just like Dean Barkley, who served two months (after being appointed by Jesse Ventura to fill out Paul Wellstone's term) and acted as a spoiler in the recent MN Senate race. Yes, *sigh*, he's my senator, too.
We do not know who was the moral person in this case because we do not know what they knew and when they knew it.
Why not blame the trial judge who screwed it all up to begin with? Who was immoral for following the law after that? Or was it the Sheriff and the folks who were tried for lying in the case who were immoral? Go read the facts before you blame Burris, he came in late to a conviction, he was not the judge or the prosecutor which you seem to think he was - those are the wrong doers if there are any.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanine_Nicarico_murder_case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolando_Cruz_case
My understanding of the duties of a prosecutor are to follow the truth, no matter where it leads.
By following the truth means that you consider any evidence that comes in at any time during the case, or even after a jury has decided a case. If the evidence is not to your liking, TOUGH. You follow the evidence to get to the truth, not to the desired result, or stating "the jury made a decision, therefore the case is closed."
Maryland had a death penalty case where the accused had sat on death row for YEARS, and the prosecutors had initially tried to not do further investigation of the case. Eventually enough evidence came to light that it was found that the accused was innocent, and the prosecutors took the correct and moral path in helping to overturn the conviction. For more information, Google 'Kirk Bloodsworth'.
For ANY prosecutor to state that "the jury convicted, so my hands are tied" is a prosecutor who is not out to make sure justice is done, and done correctly, but only doing their job in a way that feeds their own ego.
Ummm, wasn't Burris the AG and NOT the prosecutor? Wasn't Burris only presented with info from one person, and the cops said she was lying? Wasn't the person in the case already convicted by a jury and upheld by a judge? Wasn't the case a huge public spectacle where certainty would be required to overturn any conviction? Aren't judges supposed to be finders of fact? Aren't juries supposed to be great judges of fact? Aren't we supposed to assume that the guy had a good defense team?
I think the system is almost completely broken, but that doesn't mean you can blame one guy who did play his appropriate role.
No Mike, the prosecutor is supposed to evaluate evidence before trial, not after trial. Once a conviction is in place, it is the judge who is supposed to evaluate whether the new evidence is good enough to re-open the case.
fred said...
. . . the prosecutor is supposed to evaluate evidence before trial, not after trial. Once a conviction is in place, it is the judge who is supposed to evaluate whether the new evidence is good enough to re-open the case.
Since the state Attorney General is an officer of the court, is an attorney, and thus must abide by the The Lawyer's Code of Professional Ethics, please square the above with the following, especially the second part of the quoted text:
"EC 7-22
Respect for judicial rulings is essential to the proper administration of justice; however, a litigant or lawyer may, in good faith and within the framework of the law, take steps to test the correctness of a ruling of a tribunal."
If a tribunal's ruling (meaning the ruling from the bench by a judge or jury) is shown to have been incorrect when new evidence is presented, then the second part of that Code of Ethics does not apply?
BTW - the ethics quoted above are the New York Lawyer's Code of Professional Responsibility (found here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/ny/code/NY_CODE.HTM). I would suspect that the Illinois Lawyer's Code of Professional Responsibility has the same or similar language.
@fred- It was funnier with Homer Simpson and the killer tomato plant: "I'm only one person."
Or maybe Lehrer's "I just send them up, who cars where they come down? That's not my department says Werner von Braun."
This is an actual innocent human life here. Many people behaved in an extremely immoral fashion- there's no quota there. You're really saying that murder is ok if the voters like it and you can pretend it's somebody else's fault?
Oh, get over yourselves!
Smart guys, can of course, without talking to a judge, illegally release convicted felons in NY. Ya, sure. Am I arguing with attorneys or people who have watch Law and Order? The ethics rule matter alot, when did they over-rule the constitution or the common law system? I think they are consistent, maybe you need to read them again!
What the hell have you two done pro-bono? Ever fought a wrongful death penalty case? I have and you guys are completely clueless. You can't win by citing the ethics code, and Burris knows it. You need a new fact, that can overcome the finding of a jury - the DNA might have been that here. Why didn't a judge rule that? I don't know, but you back of the envelope lawyers who have never argued before a judge seem to know....please, give me your great wisdom, oh great constitutional scholars...
I can see you at the gates of the jail -
"I am mbw, haven't you read my posts on 538! I clearly know more law than the state attorney general, and the prosecutor! The cops who did this are liars! Release the death row prisoner! I am the GREAT mbw - do so, on my order!!!!!"
Good luck, oh great arrogant attorney.
Homer Simpson, hmmm, it kinda sounds like Homer to think, and to be so naive as to believe, that an AG would step into a local prosecution case that is huge visibility and, well, overturn a jury, or two, or three.
The process is broken, but lawyers who are so fucking clueless as not to understand basic roles are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
You went to an Ivy League school, didn't you? You guys don't need or understand facts. Try U of C, we at least get the problems.
mbw = Homer?
Read the facts yet mbw? Got a clue? Put your clueless platitudes to the facts yet? Then call me.
Oh, and make sure you follow those other ethics arguments about the rule of law, and the constitution, and little stuff like that.
Tell me,Fred,what would you have done if you,instead of Burris,were AG at the time?
Fred,
The attitude you have is why most people have a certain stereotype of attorneys:
They would rather follow a stupid law, not fight that stupid law, then admit that they don't know a fricking thing about common sense. And because they don't know a thing about common sense, they can't recognize a stupid law even when it slaps him or her in the face.
Slavish following of judicial decisions when new evidence becomes available that is very indicative of the innocence of the defendant, evidence to the point that OTHER attorneys give up their position in order to not participate in an abortion of justice, is the epitome of arrogance. It appears to me that Burris did slavishly follow a judicial decision even when new evidence became available that showed there might have been a miscarriage of justice, evidence such that an assistant AG resigned rather than proceed in a possible miscarriage of justice.
It also appears that you support Burris because of his slavish allowance of justice to be miscarried because a judge had spoken.
Do you realize that judges, juries and attorneys are all human, and that humans make mistakes?
I guess you think that (especially) judges and attorneys, solely because they are a judge and/or an attorney, are beyond the human fallacy of making mistakes.
Keep reinforcing that stereotype by continuing to defend an indefensible position, namely that when an attorney is presented with evidence that shows a miscarriage of justice has, or might have, occurred, the attorney cannot do anything to prevent the furtherance of a miscarriage of justice.
If attorney ethics DO allow for the above scenario, even in the face of common sense, then the stereotype is self-inflicted by the entire profession, and attorneys shouldn't expect any pity from anyone who is not an attorney.
Opus, I have no idea what Burris knew and when he knew it, but I can promise you that I, like Burris, had alot more belief in the system than it turned out to deserve.
Attorneys are part of a system of law and play a role. The system is based on other appropriately playing theirs. To act as if every attorney is an all knowing fact finder who believes everything their client says on blind faith, or believes any other witness blindly, is so naive as to laughable.
I assume my client is lying. I also assume the judge and the cops are at least competent. All those assumptions were wrong in this case, and to think anyone could have seen through this subterfuge and been able to walk away from prosecuting a case as big as the Ramsey murder case (which this was in IL at the time) is just not looking at the facts.
As an attorney, the AGC that resigned could have done alot more sticking around and making sure the real facts came out in court, in stead of grandstanding. In my mind that was her role, in my mind she failed.
fred said...
I assume . . . and I also assume . . .
An entire episode of The Odd Couple was based on a policeman assuming something. Turns out what the policeman assumed had occurred was incorrect. Turned out that the policeman's assumption made an ass of himself, and all the other innocent people who were dragged into the incident because of the policeman's assumption.
That episode should be required viewing for all attorneys, police personnel, judges, jury members prior to entering jury service, and any other person entering a position where the act of assuming might lead to a erroneous act or outcome.
Oh, and your pollyanna vision that all police are assumed to be squeaky clean - they are human and thus can and do make mistakes. They are just as capable of lying as anyone else, and in most cases are in a position to more convincingly lie than the defendant, purely because the defendant IS the defendant and assumed by idiots (like you) to be guilty of lying until proven otherwise, and the police officer is assumed by idiots (such as you) to be squeaky clean until proven otherwise.
You, sir, do your fellow attorneys no favors by being the hot air ass that you are.
As an attorney, the AGC that resigned could have done alot more sticking around and making sure the real facts came out in court, in stead of grandstanding. In my mind that was her role, in my mind she failed.
So you are saying that that the blame falls on the "grandstanding" ACL.
Fred,I have lost all respect for you.End of dialogue.
For those who are wondering here is a quick Franken update:
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/37523294.html?page=3&c=y
The more this drags out the more I am convinced Franken is gonna make a great Senator. Keep up the good work Al.
wv: scoop- no joke here is the scoop on Franken.
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,潤滑液,自慰套,威而柔,威而柔,威而柔,威而柔,自慰套,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套,潤滑液,威而柔,FleshLight,跳蛋,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,跳蛋,按摩棒,FleshLight,充氣娃娃,情趣商品,情趣網站,情趣網站,潤滑液,性感內衣,充氣娃娃,按摩棒,情趣精品,跳蛋,情趣網站,情趣商品,跳蛋,FleshLight,充氣娃娃,情趣內衣,情趣精品,按摩棒,威而柔,自慰套,成人玩具,Nexus,lelo,聰明球,後庭,後庭g點,g點,美國fleshlight,STU訓練大師,Fleshgirls,Toys Heart,Tenga,日本 Vibratex,日本Toys Heart ,日本Tenga,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,整型,水噹噹,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,珠海,下川島,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家,搬家,搬家公司,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,網頁設計,土地貸款,免費資源,電腦教學,wordpress,人工植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,
I live in IL. I recall a democratic senator, Carol Mosley Braun, the first black female senator. IL was so proud...for about 6 months. By then, we knew we'd made a mistake. Not only was she not qualified for the job, but she was an embarrassment. Sadly, we had to wait 5 1/2 years before we could vote her out. Many democrats gladly voted for repub Peter Fitzgerald (who turned out to be a good senator).
History is repeating itself. Thankfully, this time we have less than 2 years before we can vote out Burris. Unless he pulls off a miracle, just about the time Burris is running for reelection, Blago will be going to jail. It'll be a fine reminder of how Burris became a senator in the first place, and there will be plenty of ads on TV to reinforce the message.
Just...two...years. Can't wait.
My two cents: I don't think anyone ever actually thought he wouldn't be seated. I think the Dems knew they would, etc. I think they put up an initial fuss simply so they seemed to be protesting Roddy - but they never really meant to block him. It seems to me that it would be unlikely for any serious Democrat to challenge him, which would leave a clear path for a Republican to take the seat....
@kinskyco- Fitzgerald may have been honorable but he voted wrong on almost everything, including huge tax breaks for the rich, IIRC. Braun was a disaster but generally voted right.
@Julia- Schakowsky (a very serious possibility, on Obama's short list) has already suggested she will run. If Burris is the candidate in 2010 there's already a clear path for the Republicans.
豆豆聊天室 aio交友愛情館 2008真情寫真 2009真情寫真 aa片免費看 捷克論壇 微風論壇 大眾論壇 plus論壇 080視訊聊天室 情色視訊交友90739 美女交友-成人聊天室 色情小說 做愛成人圖片區 豆豆色情聊天室 080豆豆聊天室 小辣妹影音交友網 台中情人聊天室 桃園星願聊天室 高雄網友聊天室 新中台灣聊天室 中部網友聊天室 嘉義之光聊天室 基隆海岸聊天室 中壢網友聊天室 南台灣聊天室 南部聊坊聊天室 台南不夜城聊天室 南部網友聊天室 屏東網友聊天室 台南網友聊天室 屏東聊坊聊天室 雲林網友聊天室 大學生BBS聊天室 網路學院聊天室 屏東夜語聊天室 孤男寡女聊天室 一網情深聊天室 心靈饗宴聊天室 流星花園聊天室 食色男女色情聊天室 真愛宣言交友聊天室 情人皇朝聊天室 上班族成人聊天室 上班族f1影音視訊聊天室 哈雷視訊聊天室 080影音視訊聊天室 38不夜城聊天室 援交聊天室080 080哈啦聊天室 台北已婚聊天室 已婚廣場聊天室 夢幻家族聊天室 摸摸扣扣同學會聊天室 520情色聊天室 QQ成人交友聊天室 免費視訊網愛聊天室 愛情公寓免費聊天室 拉子性愛聊天室 柔情網友聊天室 哈啦影音交友網 哈啦影音視訊聊天室 櫻井莉亞三點全露寫真集 123上班族聊天室 尋夢園上班族聊天室 成人聊天室上班族 080上班族聊天室 6k聊天室 粉紅豆豆聊天室 080豆豆聊天網 新豆豆聊天室 080聊天室 免費音樂試聽 流行音樂試聽 免費aa片試看免費a長片線上看 色情貼影片 免費a長片 本土成人貼圖站 大台灣情色網 台灣男人幫論壇 A圖網 嘟嘟成人電影網 火辣春夢貼圖網 情色貼圖俱樂部 台灣成人電影 絲襪美腿樂園 18美女貼圖區 柔情聊天網 707網愛聊天室聯盟 台北69色情貼圖區 38女孩情色網 台灣映像館 波波成人情色網站 美女成人貼圖區 無碼貼圖力量 色妹妹性愛貼圖區 日本女優貼圖網 日本美少女貼圖區 亞洲風暴情色貼圖網 哈啦聊天室 美少女自拍貼圖 辣妹成人情色網 台北女孩情色網 辣手貼圖情色網 AV無碼女優影片 男女情色寫真貼圖 a片天使俱樂部 萍水相逢遊戲區 平水相逢遊戲區 免費視訊交友90739 免費視訊聊天 辣妹視訊 - 影音聊天網 080視訊聊天室 日本美女肛交 美女工廠貼圖區 百分百貼圖區 亞洲成人電影情色網 台灣本土自拍貼圖網 麻辣貼圖情色網 好色客成人圖片貼圖區 711成人AV貼圖區 台灣美女貼圖區 筱萱成人論壇 咪咪情色貼圖區 momokoko同學會視訊 kk272視訊 情色文學小站 成人情色貼圖區 嘟嘟成人網 嘟嘟情人色網 - 貼圖區 免費色情a片下載 台灣情色論壇 成人影片分享 免費視訊聊天區 微風 成人 論壇 kiss文學區 taiwankiss文學區
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment