Will Roland Burris Resign?
With his support crumbling, Burris grimly hangs on to the Senate seat he so desperately wanted.
The tragicomedy that is Illinois politics has seen many a colorful character dance across the stage, entertaining the hard-bitten and cynical press with the brazenness of their malfeasance and devil-may-care attitude toward who might know it.
But Roland Burris was supposed to be different. He is a man with nearly two decades of unblemished service first as Illinois comptroller and then two terms as Illinois attorney general. He was widely respected as a clean, honest politician with unquestioned integrity.
But despite the respect he had garnered through the years, Burris felt his career was incomplete. Twice he ran for governor and lost. His bid for mayor of Chicago and another try for the Senate were unsuccessful. Friends said these failures ate at him, that he thought himself a lesser light in the political firmament because he had never achieved the high office he so coveted.
Then came the Obama candidacy for president and almost from the day that Obama clinched the Democratic nomination, Burris was pushing himself forward to replace him in the Senate:
“He wanted to end his career with a statewide office,” said friend, traveling companion and WVON radio host Cliff Kelley, who recalled Burris becoming upset when others were mentioned as potential Obama successors and he was not. “He really wanted this. He never thought he’d get it, but he was hoping for it.”
Burris’ current problems can be traced directly to this overarching desire to top his career off with a bang. Instead, he is likely to end it in shame.
Here’s story number one:
His troubles began on January 5 of this year when he submitted an affidavit to the Illinois House impeachment committee, which was looking into the question of whether to bring Governor Rod Blagojevich to trial in the state Senate for his conduct in trying to sell the senate seat being vacated by President Obama, among other misadventures. In that sworn document, Burris stated that he had no contact with any of Governor Blagojevich’s representatives prior to December 26, when the governor’s lawyer called him about the senate seat.
And story number two:
On January 8, Burris appeared before the impeachment committee to give his make or break testimony. The U.S. Senate was already up in arms over the fact that the disgraced governor named a candidate for the senate seat despite their warnings he wouldn’t be seated. But Blagojevich correctly judged the political quandary he had placed the Democratic leadership in by naming a respected African American to the job. With black activists organizing a nationwide campaign to support Burris, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid seemed to be softening his stand to bar him from serving.
But Reid was specific in his warning to Burris about his testimony before the impeachment inquiry:
After days in which Senate leaders had demonstrated determined resistance to Burris’ appointment to the Senate by scandal-tainted Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, Reid praised Burris as “candid and forthright.” And he suggested the testimony Burris is to give Thursday before the state legislature’s impeachment committee could be crucial to his prospects of gaining the seat.
“He’s going to go answer any other questions they might have. He’s not trying to avoid any responsibility and trying to hide anything,” said Reid (D-Nev.) “Once that’s done, we’ll be in a different position and see what we are going to do.”
Burris’s appearance went so-so. There were complaints from Republicans that the candidate was not very forthcoming about some aspects of his testimony with regards to who his clients were that he lobbied for in Springfield. And there was one crucial contradiction to his sworn affidavit from January 5. Burris admitted to a contact where the Senate seat was discussed with Lon Monk, former chief of staff and close friend of Governor Blagojevich. But the Democrats let that small discrepancy slide. Anyone can make a mistake.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Rick Moran is PJM Chicago editor; his own blog is Right Wing Nut House.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
31 Comments
1. Winston:I doubt it!
Feb 20, 2009 - 1:09 am 2. Cato:This bozo won’t quit unless he’s pushed. And, Congress still hasn’t gotten over its refusal to seat Adam Clayton Powell. So, he’ll be around for a while. Look for a Republican in that seat next time….
Feb 20, 2009 - 4:06 am 3. Sara for America:Resign? Not likely.
The members with the most offensive transgressions against the public are prized possessions because are they easily led. (Pleeez let me stay, I’ll do and say anything!)Their party-line votes are a given, they may as well be on a choke-leash.
And so, as it usually goes, we can expect that instead of being forced to resign, Burris will be appointed to sit on an ethics panel grilling CEOs.
Feb 20, 2009 - 4:52 am 4. RKV:Ditto Winston. Burris has got his lips on the public teat, and he ain’t about to let go.
Feb 20, 2009 - 4:59 am 5. robert verdi:no they won’t. They want that vote and are quite willing to carry him for two years until he is no longer needed.
Feb 20, 2009 - 5:01 am 6. PatrickHenry:Hey, he was in the Senate to vote for Porkulus; what else matters? Keep your eyes on the prize, people.
Feb 20, 2009 - 5:11 am 7. Peg C.:I think the phrases “distinguished career” and “our nation’s capital” have become mutually exclusive. Let’s hope that may change someday. My other beefs concern the acceptable racism that permeates the piece.
Feb 20, 2009 - 5:25 am 8. Pablo Panadero:It all depends on how how much and how long the canaries (Blagojevich and Rezko) sing. My personal opinion is that they intend to defend themselves to the end, but when the end is in sight they will start the opera and take the whole establishment with them.
Feb 20, 2009 - 5:30 am 9. cfbleachers:Rick, I am at a bit of a loss here. Don’t get me wrong, I get it. Blago was asking folks to “do favors” and in return “get favors done”. He was open and obvious about it and not very bright in covering it all up.
Roland is a good and decent man. Always has been. He doesn’t ever try to intentionally hurt anyone, he doesn’t have a mean bone in his body. The African-American version of Al the Pal.
But you know as well as I do, you don’t get ANYTHING done in Chicago without playing the “do favor-get favor” game. In the patronage mandated system of City Hall (and the County attached building to its East), you couldn’t get a job for decades in either the building on LaSalle or its attached twin across from the Daley Center on Clark…unless you had a sponsor. You couldn’t pick up garbage in Grant Park without a sponsor. You couldn’t get a permit for a picnic, you couldn’t get 55 gallon drum for your garbage, you couldn’t win a bid to mop floors.
So, let’s not be coy or disingenuous here. (not that you are, but this sanctimonious breastbeating from some Dems who have “found religion” rings a bit hollow).
Blago may be guilty as sin, but he is not yet CONVICTED of anything. He asked someone to assist him in building a campaign war chest for another “election”. (do favor) In return, he considers that person’s background and determines whether he or she would make a good fit for some job. (garbage picker in Grant Park up to US Senator, the do favor-get favor game doesn’t change in its underlying essence, only by matters of degree)
I think Roland (absent this present fiasco) is as qualified to perform the essential duties of the position as any name on the list previously in prior campaigns or this one. Would you make him take a back seat to Carol Moseley Braun or Emil Jones? (the black community saw this as a “black” Senate seat and were pretty vocal about not giving it to Dan Hynes or Jan Schakowsky, for instance)
So, this has nothing…nothing…to do with whether Roland would perform the functions of the job as well as other names mentioned. (I don’t know Jarrett or Duckworth very well, certainly not well enough to comment).
This has to do with whether it is a “cardinal sin” to have done PRECISELY what every other politician from Chicago has done, bar none. Roland made some phone calls for a guy who was not yet convicted, but suspected of wrongdoing.
Now don’t get me wrong, Blago is going down. (not without a fight, but his career is DOA)
Name me ONE Democrat, who has not been called to do a favor…and asked for one in return? Chris Dodd? Ask Angelo Mozillo. Who is going to sit in judgment of Roland? In essence, he called some fat cats to see if they would touch a toxic Blago? In return, he is considered for the Senate seat?
Give me a staff of crack investigators and free reign to look into EVERY Dem Senator who now wishes to sit in judgment. Do you think I could find something similar or worse? What odds would you lay, for or against?
Let’s be clear. I don’t condone the practice. I don’t advocate its continuation. I only point to the irony and ask who among the executioners can hurl the first stone?
Roland is a good guy and you can’t find anyone who knows him to say otherwise. He will dutifully carry water for Democrats without so much as a peep of resistance. He will vote the party line and be a loyal soldier. (not my ideal candidate on independent thought, but then who would one pick in either house to represent THAT particular ideal? Lieberman tried it and became officially an “independent”. Independent thought is not a valued trait in either house, the reason the two party system is permanently broken)
This public crucifixion of Roland is on the one hand accurate and on the other hand grand irony. The guy who currently holds the only “black” Senate seat in America is going to be crucified for the EXACT same behavior of “do favor-get favor” as virtually EVERY other guy judging him.
(I am intentionally NOT using the word “lynched”…we don’t need to play up that angle more than it appears naturally in this fact pattern)
Am I defending him? To an extent, I suppose. Am I condoning the system?…absolutely not.
But this is a good man who is taking a beating for the sins of others, especially those who now seek to judge him? (and certainly abandon him) In the final analysis, what lesson would be learned from it? Does anyone with an IQ above plant life think that after Roland is disgraced, that all the others will learn the lesson and heed its moral underpinnings?
Or do you and I believe that the very day after he is led from the hallowed halls in tar and feathers…that it will be back to “business as usual”?
The lesson will be…”don’t get caught”. Be more circumspect in your dealings. Don’t leave a trail.
And a very good guy will be replaced by someone who played the game better. A broken man, a broken system, and a broken set of rules. Nobody wins, everybody loses. I guess in the final analysis, Roland paid to play…so, he is to account for his participation in the game where America’s “public servants” pretend to represent us, while we pretend to care how they do it.
Feb 20, 2009 - 6:10 am 10. elvis:I’m keeping score and writing down all the infractions that go the democrats way. The press may be a little heated here…. but as the cliche goes …. not as much as if he was a republican.
Feb 20, 2009 - 6:15 am 11. Robert Hurley:The signs were there on his tombstone that his greatest quality was vanity. That should have been fair warning of what we were getting. But it has been even worse than advertised. He should step down immediately
Feb 20, 2009 - 6:19 am 12. LogicalUS:Resign?
Hell, one can’t move up in the leadership of the Democratic party until ones has at least 5 ethical scandals or two convictions on your resume.
Look at Barney Frank, Charles Rangel, and Charles Schumer, all should be in Leavenworth but instead are in charge of “fixing” our economic issues? And the integrity-lacking supporters of today’s Democratic Party just loooooove them just as long as the welfare checks keep rolling in.
Feb 20, 2009 - 6:29 am 13. Sara for America:cfbleachers
Maybe I’m missing something, but Senators represent a whole STATE nut just a city. Gosh, I was under the impression that there is more than one city in Illinois.
Why must Chicago politics dominate a whole state? My guess is that you could find someone not tainted by Chicago trash politics if you’d just look.
What you guys tolerate up there is pretty incredible.
Feb 20, 2009 - 6:33 am 14. Kim du Toit:Expecting Burris to resign would be to imply that he has a sense of shame — which, like most Chicago politicians, he doesn’t have — and should Do The Right Thing.
Unfortunately, this “decent and honorable man” has essentially tried to enshroud his actions with doubt and uncertainty, and has ended up perjuring himself.
Burris will use every trick in the book to keep his seat, and have to be dragged kicking and screaming out of the Senate, his fingernails clawing at the furniture and cries of “Racism!” coming from his lips.
And then he’ll probably run for election to the selfsame seat in the next cycle, and win (especially if his opponent is White). Because that’s how things work in Illinois and Chicago.
Feb 20, 2009 - 6:40 am 15. steve:Wonder how he’s going to document this on his mausoleum? haw!
Feb 20, 2009 - 6:43 am 16. HardHeadedWoman:Democrats NEVER resign or really apologize–”I’m sorry if what I said may have offended you”–they are narcisstic, psychopathic personalities who feel no shame, remorse or embarrassment. Power is all they know or want and they will hang on to that as long as they can.
Feb 20, 2009 - 6:52 am 17. Marc Malone:Resign? Wherefore? He’s not Republican. Only Republicans resign in disgrace. Dems have to have the prize pried from their cold, dead fingers.
For those who don’t get it, ethics and shame are family values. Only Pubs need apply (these principles).
Feb 20, 2009 - 7:27 am 18. cfbleachers:Sara
Illinois is a whole state. And we don’t “tolerate” anymore, I don’t suspect than what is done in Springfield.
That city collapsed, I can tell you horror stories about Carbondale and East St. Louis, Rockford and the Quad Cities. I know plenty of stories from around the state.
But Chicago politics dominates the state (Cook County), because…like it or not, that’s where the vast majority of the population, the business, the money and the power come from.
Eliminate Chicago and its suburbs…and Illinois would shrink in all those areas, while admittedly growing in common sense and responsibility, I suspect.
My point was, relating to Roland…you can’t even get in the game on a local level…much less a national level, if you don’t play by their rules. So, those who are willing to “play”, are a certain type of individual in the first place. Someone who was of the makeup holding fast onto their principles…couldn’t be elected rag picker or ditch digger.
Roland didn’t create the broken system, he only chose to play. He has been one of the least bad for his whole career, in a broken system. We can’t seem to elect a governor for the state who can pull himself out of the cesspool. It’s a disgrace, and none of us is “tolerating” it statewide, are we? But we can’t seem to fix it, either.
Feb 20, 2009 - 8:01 am 19. Chuckt:Burrus likely won’t resign – it was hard enough to get himself in; if he goes out, it’ll be kicking & screaming. There’s more than just Burrus’ political hide on the line though; with the Coleman-Franken seat still undecided, a few more Republicans in the Senate gives them filibuster power, and thus deadlock, which is not necessarily a bad thing, in my view. The Dems have had their shot at the seat, and blew it. Maybe the voters of Illinois will finally wake up, perhaps have an epiphany & figure out the Dems don’t have their best interest(s) in mind.
Feb 20, 2009 - 8:03 am 20. Pat J:I don’t think he’s going to resign. His ego is too big. That being said, the appointment itself was tarnished to begin with. Now this new information is going to compromise what little credibility he may have left.
Let’s just hope we (Illinoisans) can elect a good candidate in 2010. We certainly have a decent track record.
Feb 20, 2009 - 8:05 am 21. Rick Moran:cfbleachers:
The point isn’t what he did it was that he lied about it – not once but at least 4 times. It raises the question of what else he might be hiding.
Besides, as I point out, Burris left Reid and Durbin to hang in the wind, twisting slowly. They vouched for him with the caucus and now the entire Democratic senate has mud on its face.
But as I also say, he won’t resign unless he is confronted by a solid phalanx of black leaders and his personal friends. And that will probably not happen. A few preachers and even if Durbin calls on him to step down, it won’t matter. They will probably have to drag him kicking and screaming from his senate chair.
Feb 20, 2009 - 8:28 am 22. Buford Gooch:Minor correction: Mr. Burris served three terms as Comptroller, and only one as Attorney General.
Feb 20, 2009 - 10:40 am 23. ic:Why should he? He hasn’t done anything that his high and mighty colleagues are not doing, albeit they are doing that under cover.
Feb 20, 2009 - 10:42 am 24. johngaltlives:Roland Burris respected? Roland Burris is just another in the long line of sleazy demon rats who seem to believe they are entitled to power just by being demonrats. Seems to me there is no difference between Blago, Obamaskank and Roland Burr ass. Also seems to have the same affliction as everyone who has ever been associated with the Daley pukes. Buy the seat, no problem, Im entitled merely because I love Karl Marx. Break the law-the law doest apply to me, you are a racist if you dare criticize me for being a crook. Blago-Blago was no crook says Burrass, Blago was my role model. After all, Bubba,Obamaskank, and Nasty the Piglosi are all liars ad get away with it, what makes me differfent? Im a demonrat, i cant be a crook. William the Refrigerator Jefferrson, Charlie the RangHo and Alcee(all I can see is bribes) Hastings all say im black, so Im exempt from the laws because all you racist whites made me lie. Well Mr BurrAss, since when did “race card” mean anything other than admission to a NASCAR event?
Feb 20, 2009 - 1:16 pm 25. Butters Dad:He was “allowed” in to vote for the Porkulus package. All this catterwalling is just window dressing to make it “appear” that the rest of them are righteous, indignant, high and mighty. They know that if they let him go, there will be an uprising over last week’s vote and cries of fraud that will haunt them for years to come. No, they’re going to play the resignation game for a little while longer until it blows over. Then, in 2010, he’ll be voted out of office and it will all be as if it never happened. Very shrewd!
Feb 20, 2009 - 1:50 pm 26. Cybergeezer:Will Barack Obama resign?
Feb 20, 2009 - 3:57 pm 27. JackT:That little turd should resign. He flat out lied to the committee. No credibility left.
Feb 20, 2009 - 9:16 pm 28. joe:Why should he? He is the perfect example of a democrat sharing all the values and the character one has come to accept and besides he is black. If he is forced to resign we will all know it will be because of racism.
Feb 21, 2009 - 9:03 am 29. joe:JackT
That is a pretty high standard about honesty and integrity. If you applied it to all the democrats there would not be enough members of the Senate to hold a quorum.
Feb 21, 2009 - 9:07 am 30. one of your own:David Vitter . . . “Mommy”
Feb 21, 2009 - 9:48 am 31. Karl Marx:Those who mock Vitter are cowards.
Feb 21, 2009 - 8:28 pm