The Real Reason Dems Backed Burris for the Senate

[dapoes]

Burris gave "corrected" affidavit to IL House Majority leader on 2/5. Why didn't it become public until the 14th? Link

Now that it looks almost certain that Illinois Sen. Roland Burris lied under oath about his contacts with impeached Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (and had that perjury covered up by another Chicago Dem for over one week while the vote occurred), one has to wonder why President Obama reversed his position, and put out the word for the US Senate to approve Burris under the dubious Blagojevich-related circumstances.

Well, besides the embarrassing circumstances of his former Senate seat being up for sale to highest bidder being in the news, there is the matter of the passage of Obama's stimulus package in the Senate.

Sen. Burris was the 60th vote on the stimulus bill with Sen. Kennedy ailing and not able to vote himself.

I wonder if anyone in the press will follow up on this?

 

[delldude]

You wouldn't dare accuse Harry Reid and his band of merry prankster's of subterfuge now would you?

 

[777 fixer]

Burris gave "corrected" affidavit to IL House Majority leader on 2/5. Why didn't it become public until the 14th? Link

Now that it looks almost certain that Illinois Sen. Roland Burris lied under oath about his contacts with impeached Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (and had that perjury covered up by another Chicago Dem for over one week while the vote occurred), one has to wonder why President Obama reversed his position, and put out the word for the US Senate to approve Burris under the dubious Blagojevich-related circumstances.

Well, besides the embarrassing circumstances of his former Senate seat being up for sale to highest bidder being in the news, there is the matter of the passage of Obama's stimulus package in the Senate.

Sen. Burris was the 60th vote on the stimulus bill with Sen. Kennedy ailing and not able to vote himself.

I wonder if anyone in the press will follow up on this?

I doubt the press will follow up on it. Mainly becasue its a conspiracy theory not supported by facts. When the Senate decided to seat him how could they have know what the final vote tally on the stimulus bill was going to be? Unless they had a time machine they could not. For all they knew more GOP senators might have crossed party lines and supported it instead of only three. Or possibly a bluedog democrat might have gone the other way and joined the Republicans in opposition.

Here's another question you have to ask. How many votes does it take to pass a spending bill?

 

[delldude]

They're going to do everything in their power to insure they get the 60.

 

[delldude]

Looks like recent events may support the contention that in their zeal to get 60 votes in the Senate the Obamacrats may have neglected to engage in the oft promised "Openess" that was to be the cornerstone of the "Change" in government also promised but in this case apparently undelivered.

There are rumors that Senator Burris may resign as a result of his "openess" or lack thereof. Boyo, boyo you have to love change don't you?

Change you can believe in...........

 

[777 fixer]

They're going to do everything in their power to insure they get the 60.

Even though dapoes tries to make it sound like Burris was the much needed 60th vote needed to avoid a possilble filabuster he forgets one thing. The final vote tally was 61-37. So in the end the claim that Burris was the much needed 60th vote is not accurate.

 

[dapoes]

Even though dapoes tries to make it sound like Burris was the much needed 60th vote needed to avoid a possilble filabuster he forgets one thing. The final vote tally was 61-37. So in the end the claim that Burris was the much needed 60th vote is not accurate.

Like Dell said:

They're going to do everything in their power to insure they get the 60.

 

[777 fixer]

Like Dell said:

I don't care what dell said. I want you to back up your claim with some facts. Now I know facts are bit hard for you to understand but myabe you should try.

Do you have anything to support your claim regarding the 60th vote? Since you overlooked the fact that the final vote tally was 61-37 I guess that means Burris's vote would not have made a bit of diffrerence one way or the other. But I guess you did not want that little fact to get in your way.

 

[dapoes]

I don't care what dell said. I want you to back up your claim with some facts. Now I know facts are bit hard for you to understand but myabe you should try.

Do you have anything to support your claim regarding the 60th vote? Since you overlooked the fact that the final vote tally was 61-37 I guess that means Burris's vote would not have made a bit of diffrerence one way or the other. But I guess you did not want that little fact to get in your way.

You don't find it odd that one day Reid is very much opposed, then all of a sudden the next day he switches, for no apparent reason at all?

 

[delldude]

You don't find it odd that one day Reid is very much opposed, then all of a sudden the next day he switches, for no apparent reason at all?

Notice Burris affidavit was 2-5 and the vote was 2-13 or something like that.Coincidence...no way.

 

[777 fixer]

You don't find it odd that one day Reid is very much opposed, then all of a sudden the next day he switches, for no apparent reason at all?

Once again, do you have any facts to back this theory up? No you do not.

You conviently ignore that fact that back when Burris was allowed to take his seat no one had any idea how a vote on the stimulus bill would turn out. You also ignore the fact that Burris was not the 60th vote needed to avoid a fillibuster. The reason for that being the vote was 61-37. Also one has to assume the Republicans would have tried to fillibuster it in the first place. It's one thing to get on a soap box knowing that something is going to pass anyway. It's an entirely different thing to actually try and stop a bill with a fillibuster if you have the votes.

 

[dapoes]

Once again, do you have any facts to back this theory up? No you do not.

Yes I do...Roll Call

You conviently ignore that fact that back when Burris was allowed to take his seat no one had any idea how a vote on the stimulus bill would turn out. You also ignore the fact that Burris was not the 60th vote needed to avoid a fillibuster. The reason for that being the vote was 61-37. Also one has to assume the Republicans would have tried to fillibuster it in the first place. It's one thing to get on a soap box knowing that something is going to pass anyway. It's an entirely different thing to actually try and stop a bill with a fillibuster if you have the votes.

Sometimes the reasons are so obvious...some (ie you) are blinded bye it.

 

[777 fixer]

Yes I do...Roll Call



Sometimes the reasons are so obvious...some (ie you) are blinded bye it.

Maybe next time you should go to the source instead of yahoo.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll...ote=00061#state

 

[Garfield1966]

I do not feel like looking it up but I thought when the Buriss thing first came up the Sen leadership said they wanted nothing to do with him. My understanding was that as long as he got the OK from the person in IL (not the gov but the other guy who needed to sign off on it) that the Sen leadership did not have an option.

I think the Dems (if they have any integrity) should kick the SOB out and let IL have a special election.

As for the Dems wanting Buriss for a 60 person majority .......DUH! That's a bit of a no brainier. If you can get a majority, you go for it. Republicans would o the same. I hope the dems loose it and the republicans never get it. The mere idea defeats the purpose of a 'two party' system IMO.

 

[dapoes]

Maybe next time you should go to the source instead of yahoo.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll...ote=00061#state

Your link is 1st vote on the 10th...mine was the final on the 13th link

Still doesn't negate the fact that the Dems needed all the votes necessary. So much so they overlook yet another democratic corruption scandal.