One of the big issues in Friday's White House press conference were the remarks Robert Gibbs, White House spokesmodel, made regarding US Senator Roland Burris. He attempted to back away from them but the press noted "It sounds like a resignation call," "It sounds like you're telling him to resign" and "And, I mean, you -- this White House is, coming through your mouth, basically saying that this man has shaded the facts and he needs -- or changed -- you said he had a variance."
Gibbs claimed he wasn't saying any such thing and that Burris needed to decide what to do. No, we don't believe Gibbs is sincere. But Roland Burris is the one who needs to decide what to do.
Did he pay for his nomination?
There's no proof he did, there's no indication he did.
If, however, he did, he should step down.
The press has offered nothing despite non-stop attacks on Senator Burris.
Monica Davey, the drive-by taxi hack of The New York Times, has filed one report after another with teases and innuendo. All she has is that Burris filed an affidavit with the Illinois state legislature adding to his remarks. She wants you to believe she's unearthed . . . a public document. One Burris handed over.
In the questioning by the Illinois state legislature in January, Burris was asked a host of questions. He states that he thought of additional comments -- questioning had 'moved on' during the inquisition (which is what it was) -- and he followed up with the affidavit.
It's news because?
"His story keeps changing!"
That's the cry of the lazy press and some idiots. No, not really. Did he give money to Burris? No.
That's really all that matters.
US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (pictured above with Burris) has thankfully been less eager to turn a minor news cycle into a scandal this go round. Illinois' other US Senator, Dick Durbin (also pictured with Burris), would do well to think before he speaks. (It might even allow him not to cry in public.) Reid's approach boils down to: 'The matter's being sorted out. If there's any action needed, we'll address it then.' Good for Harry. (See we can praise Reid.) But Dick Durbin's making a bigger fool of himself than he did when apologizing for his Nazi comparisons a few years back.
Meanwhile, there's a lot of hatred aimed at Roland Burris and we do believe some of it is racially motivated. Roland Burris is the only Black US Senator. Blacks, not bi- or multi-racials, have always made The New York Times nervous. Bi- and multi-racial gets the front page and praise from the paper of record (true this decade, true in the 90s, true in the 30s -- truth be told). Blacks? For an allegedly liberal paper (editorial wise), The Times has a very racist history which includes there never-ending attacks on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (hatred that as late as this decade resulted in his widow Coretta Scott King's passing being treated as something so minor it required no editorial or column).
So Monica Davey didn't go out and buy her White shirt, she just took it out of the paper's cloakroom.
Roland Burris was appointed by Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. Blaogjevich was under investigation for a variety of alleged offences. He remains under investigation. He still hasn't been tried in a court of law. Whether he's guilty or not will be determined if the matter ever goes to court. Roland Burris is not accused of anything illegal. Roland Burris is not charged with anything illegal.
He was appointed by the sitting governor of the state of Illinois. When they finally decided to impeach Blagojevich, the legislature moved quickly. They could have done the same action at the start of December. It's not as if they had any more evidence -- or any? -- when they finally did so at the end of last month. The legislature, knowing Barack Obama had been elected president and would not be serving in the Senate, knowing the governor (Rod Blagojevich at that time) would be appointing the next senator, elected to do nothing. Only after he had appointed Burris to the US Senate did the legislature finally talk seriously about taking action to impeach the governor and, weeks later, finally do so.
Roland Burris had to leap through hoops, after being appointed to the Senate, to actually be seated. There was never any reason for that. The law is the law.
But he jumped through the hoops. He met with the legislature and answered their questions, he met with Reid and Durbin and answered their questions.
Name another appointed senator who has ever had to do that. You can't. Those are special rules created for Burris.
Now Illinois just kicked out a governor based on charges (not facts) and may end up with egg on their face as a result (egg and a lawsuit if some gossip ends up true).
But that's not enough for some people.
Burris filed additional comments!
His story has changed!
He elaborated.
Get over it.
Some dumb PUMAs -- such as Heidi-Li -- are leading a witch hunt on Burris and doing so because they're, honestly, ignorant.
Heidi-Li proved there is no connection between thought and writing as she offers her fact-free rant against Burris.
Having nothing worth saying, she attempts to craft a comparison to The Sting. Robert Redford and Paul Newman's characters and actions are nothing like Roland Burris and Rod Blagojevich. Equally true, Heidi, is that audiences applauded Redford and Newman's characters and rooted for them, so right there, your allusion fell apart. Like Gail Collins are Maureen Dowd, you're so desperate for a pop culture ref to pad out your facile 'thought,' it doesn't even bother you whether it fits or not.
Heidi-Li then goes on to claim that Blagojevich and Burris "race-baited." A bold-faced lie. They did not.
These lies are why PUMA gets the reputation of being racist. Clearly they aren't bothered by that reputation or they wouldn't continue to attack people with lies.
Heidi-Li wasn't done playing the fool. She wanted to insist Roland Burris is the establishment's choice: "Let's see if the DNC and the DCCC get behind Kirsten Gillibrand’s reelection in 2010 or whether they leave her to fend for herself while they try to vindicate the Burris appointment by a 'redemptive' election."
Roland Burris is not supported by the DNC or the DCCC. Your first clue is he wouldn't have had to jump through hoops to be seated if he had the party establishment behind him. He also wouldn't have had Barack come out against him. (Barack only changed his mind when his comments caused a backlash in the African-American community.)
Heidi pits Kirsten against Roland and you have to wonder why that is?
Maybe Heidi could 'explore' that?
Reality, Roland was wanted no more than Kirsten was. Reality neither was the establishment's choice. Which is why both are so savagely attacked in the press. Grasping that PUMAs don't have longterm memories or a big knowledge base, we'll keep it simple: Barack is an example of a candidate endorsed by the establishment. As such, Barack gets fawning press and will continue to do until he's no longer the establishment's choice. Got it? Or was that too difficult for you to grasp?
If they could see beyond their own tantrums, the PUMAs who are factually challenged could grasp that Roland Burris was hated for the same reasons they are: "too old." The pick was supposed to be Tammy Duckworth. That would be the pro-war Tammy Duckworth.
And that may be the most amazing thing about all this. Now granted PUMAs are now called racists and Republicans. And apparently aren't overly bothered by that description. So possibly for them, the Iraq War doesn't matter. (And if you doubt that, check out any of their sites and you'll find multiple music videos, UFO conspiracies, fashion and hot chick/dude talk, and not a great deal more. But you will not find the Iraq War covered. That's heavy lifting and PUMAs aren't up to doing hard work apparently.)
Roland Burris is against the Iraq War. Not kind-of, sort-of. Not "let's do smarter war." And at a time when war is being repackaged under Brand Bambi to be sold again, Burris is a vote that's needed in the US Senate.
If Roland Burris has given money to Blagojevich or committed any other crime, he should step down as US Senator immediately. If he hasn't, it's time to stop the witch hunt.
Not only did Burris have to jump through hoops to be seated, it now appears the press wants to lead a monthly attack on him (aided by Dick Durbin) forcing Senator Burris to 'audition' over and over.
That's not being done with any other senator. And Ted Stevens stepped down when? Right. After he was convicted of a crime. It's only with the (only) Black senator that there's a higher standard at play. With the only Black person in the US Senate, he needs to step down -- the press and racists argue -- for words. Not for actions. Not for crimes.
For words.
If he were a White man from Alaska, he'd be laughing right now. Instead, he has to continue to hold his head high and try to maintain a sense of dignity while these indignities continue.
It says a great deal about how non-post-racial the US is that this witch hunt takes place with so few stepping up and saying, "That's enough."
