Custom Search
Showing posts with label Senator Roland Burris. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Senator Roland Burris. Show all posts

Sunday, December 20, 2009

Dems Might Lose Obama's Old Senate Seat In 2010




















Democrats Stumble Toward Senate Primary



Some Chicagoans grouse that President Obama has reneged on promises to return home regularly. Midway through a desultory, prickly United States Senate debate last week, I realized he might need to get back to help save his old seat for Democrats.

It’s almost as though the seat was covered by a secret term-limits restriction. Since 1992 we’ve had Alan J. Dixon, Carol Moseley Braun, Peter G. Fitzgerald, Mr. Obama and now Roland W. Burris, whose mediocrity and conceit helped make his selection by then-Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich so unseemly. Confronting doubts about his candor and fund-raising prospects, Mr. Burris opted not to run for a full term, though he can joyously engrave “U.S. Senator, 2009-2010” on the large mausoleum he has already built for himself in Oak Woods Cemetery.

This leaves four Democrats in the Feb. 2 primary and, since Mr. Obama couldn’t persuade the state’s attorney general, Lisa Madigan, to run and surely win, it presents an unexpectedly problematic general election match against Representative Mark Steven Kirk, a moderate Republican. Only one of the Democrats has run for elective office, and three can thank inheritance and other family largess for making their candidacies possible.

The debate spotlight was on Alexi Giannoulias, the state treasurer and front-runner, who is clearly improving as a candidate but given to a too-slick-by-half, frat-boy superficiality à la Mr. Blagojevich. David Hoffman, a nervy former federal prosecutor and former City of Chicago inspector general, is razor-sharp and self-confident to the point of projecting arrogance.

Cheryle Jackson, president of the Chicago Urban League and a former spokeswoman for Mr. Blagojevich, is Carol Braun Lite, lacking the former senator’s street savvy and knowledge of politics. And Jacob Meister, an unknown lawyer, has family riches, campaign offices statewide and, I presume, a hope that his opponents are all kidnapped by Election Day.

Mr. Giannoulias’s plan turns on name recognition and money. As he did for Mr. Obama’s presidential run, he has so aggressively tapped a Greek-American base that his Federal Election Commission filing resembles the Athens phone directory: Konstantin Alexakis, Baltimore; Evangelos Ambatielos, Los Angeles; Nicholas Angelides, St. Louis; Demetrios Panoushis, Elmhurst, Ill., to name a few.

Mr. Hoffman, a Yale graduate and former law clerk for Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, must be hoping the image of truth-seeking prosecutor combines with a Giannoulias meltdown. Mrs. Jackson’s slogan could be, “I’m black and a woman and they’re not.” As for Mr. Meister, who barely registers in independent polling, perhaps the visibility at least will help him find some new law clients.

The breakfast gathering at the Union League Club heard rhetorical spitball fights between Mr. Giannoulias and Mr. Hoffman that did not reveal any larger political vision. Lost in the debate was any convincing discussion of the day’s predominant economic fears.

Mr. Hoffman so often restated the doubts about creaky Broadway Bank, the Giannoulias family-run institution in trouble over bad real estate loans, that the next debate should be held in the bank’s lobby at 5960 North Broadway. Instead of a moderator, bring auditors from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The state treasurer is lucky that Broadway Bank’s disarray became truly apparent only after his election and exit from the bank.

But what was most notable was Mr. Giannoulias’s needless and peevish counterattack against Mr. Hoffman for having “hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in stock with these big Wall Street banks that are protected by TARP money and taxpayers, and he’s now using that money to fund his campaign.” It was confusing and unconvincing.

Who cares about the investment issue? said Dion Miller Perez, an unemployed father of three who had worked for a nonprofit community agency. Mike Flannery , the ace WBBM-Ch. 2 political reporter, had brought Mr. Perez to the debate as a two-legged, one-person focus group, and Mr. Perez indicated that corruption was not as relevant as the economy to a prospective primary voter.

The treasurer was a no-show for a promised postdebate appearance before reporters. That left newsies to deal with a wacky accusation from Mr. Meister, who is gay, that Mr. Hoffman is anti-gay for mentioning that he’s the only parent in the race.

Regardless, if Mr. Obama still cares about a filibuster-proof Senate majority after he’s done with health care and fixing the global climate, he might want to return home, have dinner with Oprah and work for whomever Democrats pick to run against Mr. Kirk.

If it’s Mr. Hoffman in an upset, his strength may be that he’s least likely to embarrass the state. Then, again, Mr. Burris has set the bar so low that only a professional limbo dancer could get under it.




View Larger Map


Sources: NY Times, Huffington Post, Google Maps

Friday, November 20, 2009

Roland Burris Is Cleared By Senate Ethics Committee...Democrats Need His Vote

























Burris scolded for "Misleading" info. The Ethics Committee admonished Sen. Roland Burris for being "less than candid" with investigators regarding his appointment. NBC's Brian Williams reports.




Senate Democrats are under extreme pressure to pass Health Care Reform Bill.






Senate Ethics panel: No punishment for Sen. Roland Burris


The Senate ethics committee on Friday admonished Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill., for making "inconsistent, misleading or incomplete" statements about the circumstances surrounding his appointment to the seat once held by Barack Obama. The committee recommended no action beyond the letter.

Burris was appointed by disgraced former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who was impeached and driven from office after he was accused of trying to sell the Senate seat.

The committee cited at least one example, a phone conversation with the governor's brother, where Burris linked his willingness to raise funds for the governor with appointment to the Senate.

While finding no violation of law, the committee's "Public Letter of Qualified Admonition" told Burris that "Senators must meet a much higher standard of conduct" than he exhibited with his constantly changing statements.

The ethics committee has often been criticized for failing to go beyond letters of admonition after finding a senator's conduct discredited the institution.

Burris commented, "I am pleased that after numerous investigations, this matter has finally come to a close. I thank the members of the Senate Ethics Committee for their fair and thorough review of this matter, and now look forward to continuing the important work ahead on behalf of the people of Illinois."

Weakened and facing multiple primary challengers next spring, Burris has decided not to fight for a full Senate term next year. Fellow Democrats shun him. Meanwhile, the former governor is scheduled to go to trial in June.

The ethics committee was especially critical of Burris' comments during the Nov. 13, 2008, phone call from the governor's brother.

While Robert Blagojevich explicitly told Burris he was calling to raise campaign funds for the governor, the committee's letter to Burris said "you appeared to agree to write a check and even potentially raise money"; and "repeatedly brought up your desire to seek the Senate seat.

"You also implied that the people you might raise money from would be unhappy if you did not receive the appointment," the committee wrote. The committee found the conversation "inappropriate in its content and implications."

The letter also was critical of Burris' shifting explanations about his contacts with the governor or his representatives.

"You gave multiple and at times contradictory explanations for failing to disclose all your contacts with the governor's associates, which individually and collectively gave the appearance that you were being less than candid," the ethics panel wrote.

The committee said that in deciding to go no further than the letter, it considered that a county prosecutor found Burris' sworn statements did not violate the law.

"We were also aware that these issues surrounding your appointment to and seating in the Senate have been subject to intense public criticism," the committee said.

The second-ranking Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, said, "When we met with Roland Burris in January, we made it clear that in order for him to be seated in the U.S. Senate he needed to appear before the Illinois General Assembly to testify openly, honestly and completely about the nature of his relationship with the former governor, his associates and the circumstances surrounding this appointment.

"Since then, the accuracy and completeness of his testimony and affidavits have been called into question. The U.S. Senate Ethics Committee has completed its review into this matter and found that Sen. Burris actions have brought discredit on him and the Senate. The letter of qualified admonition from the Ethics Committee speaks for itself."






EDITORIAL: Law on Burris' side, but that doesn't mean he's right


The laws looks to be on Senator Roland Burris’ side — but that doesn’t mean he is not a liar.

A U.S. Senate ethics panel on Friday concluded that Burris provided “incorrect, inconsistent, misleading or incomplete information” when he testified and made comments about his contacts with former Gov. Rod Blagojevich or members of his team before the freshly-arrested governor tapped Burris to be senator last December.

But the Senate only admonished Burris on Friday because it said the evidence didn’t support any “actionable violations of the law.”

Technically speaking, they’re probably right.

But there’s the law and then there’s what is right.

Burris lied, then he lied about lying.

By any standard, that falls far short of what we expect from a U.S. Senator.

Burris, you’ll recall, told an Illinois House impeachment committee in January that he didn’t talk to anyone except Blagojevich’s former chief of staff about the Senate appointment. Burris later acknowledged he actually talked to four Blagojevich insiders, including a key conversation with the governor’s brother where Burris lobbied for the appointment while offering to help with fundraising for Blagojevich.

Burris accepted a radioactive Senate appointment few other honorable men and women would touch. And, against great odds, he managed to hold on to that appointment only because the law — and not public opinion — was on his side. Now, he gets to keep that job because he knew his way around the law.

But that doesn’t mean Burris is not a liar — or that he deserves to be a U.S. Senator.




View Larger Map


Sources: MSNBC, Chicago Sun-Times, Miami Herald, Google Maps

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Senator Roland Burris Yells At Reporters Regarding His Testimony...."Have You Read It?"






























"Did I try to buy the seat? Never!"

"Did I commit perjury? No!"

"If you look at the transcript you can see what I was saying."

"I mean, so Rob, I'm in a dilemma right now wanting to help the governor."

"I did not know anything about a pay-to-play. I knew if I raised money, it would be a problem."

"Have you read it?" Have you read it? Have you read the affidavit?!"





View Larger Map

Sources: Politico, Newsmax, Fox News, Day Life, Youtube, Google Maps