Tuesday, January 6, 2009

while we're on the topic

Of Roland Burris...I'm not sure what to think of this whole debacle. I seriously laughed when Blagojevich actually appointed someone! Blago is very gutsy to say the least. But the really ironic part was that he actually appointed someone qualified that no one would criticize if the Blago scandal hadn't been uncovered.

So now we have Burris...I wonder how close he is to Blago and if he in any way payed to play...but it doesn't seem so. Then there are some of the opinion that the problem is the appointer, not the appointee. So why shouldn't he be seated? If it is a legal appointment, and there's nothing actually wrong with Burris...why aren't they seating him? And in a time when there are enough problems to go around for the government, this seems like a really silly mess. Doesn't Illinois want to be represented in the Senate at a time like this? And it seems that he is a generally respected Illinois politician. If the problem is the appointer, then that shouldn't reflect badly on the appointee. What about all the people Bill Clinton appointed and then he got impeached? Did that reflect badly on them? It certainly didn't. Obama's populating D.C. with all of Clinton's staff right now. I don't really have any feelings either way about Burris, especially since I'm not a citizen of Illinois. But it just seems silly not to seat this guy. Unless he is directly tied to the paying for the seat. Now I am going in circles. Any thoughts out there?

No comments: