Reader comments
Burris denied seat in U.S. Senate to succeed Obama

The Dems sure love their drama.

Does this mean that Blagojevich will have to give back the money?

The liberal wackos won't seat a black man appointed by their corrupt, but still lawfully elected Democrat Governor. We have all heard that Mr. Obama's seat is a BLACK seat and BETTER go to a black man or women! Meanwhile, liberal hacks are salivating over the the stolen election in Minnesota. The race to declare white man Al Franken the winner of the recount shows the Democrat leadership to be the same old racist that they have always been. No surprise.

Let me get this straight, the democrats are having problems with Burris, Al Franken, and Carolyn Kennedy. Yes, I can see that this is a party of unity. Go Obama.

two weeks to go for Prez Obama and we already have this. What's new? Bill Richardson has dropped out, and Feinstein is opposing Peneta as head of the CIA. Again, it looks like a party of unity, racism aside.

Why does this story describe this as "a spectacular demonstration of political gridlock" when it's the Democratic Senate leadership denying an appointment of a Democratic Senator by a Democratic governor?
And why would anyone think this has anything to do with Burris' race?

Sen. Reid won't seat a duly appointed black man. That makes it about race. Your obviously not a democrat and don't know how thing work in our party. Butt out!

The platform was one of change. Obama came onto the sceen claiming that if McCain was elected it would in essence be a third Bush term. McCain wasn't elected,but we are going to get that third term, but this time it will be one of Democrat corruption and not republican. Hope we all can live with such a change. George.

The reason anyone would think this has to do with race is because that is the failsafe fallback argument. It usually forces people to back away from their opposition to someone so that they are not tagged with being a racist.

Think through this ... a corrupt govenor selects a replacement based on race (all other things aside) & yet the people opposing it are called racists? ... Has logic really died?

Did Buress expect? Poor choices on his end, he should have refused, and accepted it later. What an idiot.

democrats have ever been able to lead it is in their DNA.

It's no surprise that some partisan Utahns want to use recent events to sling mud at the Democratic party. How quickly they seem to have forgotten the improprieties of Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Ted Stevens, George Ryan, and plenty of others. It seems that neither party is exempt from scandal. Holier-than-thou readers would do well to remember that.

No surprise wrote: "The race to declare white man Al Franken the winner of the recount shows the Democrat leadership to be the same old racist that they have always been."

This is a bizarre comment on a number of fronts, but especially because both candidates in that race are Caucasian. But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good(?) accusation.

TO: "IT'S A BLACK SEAT"

"Sen. Reid won't seat a duly appointed black man. That makes it about race. Your obviously not a democrat and don't know how thing work in our party. Butt out!"

I REALLY HOPE THIS STATEMENT WAS TONGUE IN CHEEK!!!

The seat appointment MUST be ratified by the signature of the governor AND the Attorney General (which confirms the approval of the legislature/legislative branch of the government). That's why there was so much focus on the views of the Illinois legislature on the governors appointment.

Sen. Reed or Fienstein had NOTHING to do with his credentials being rejected. . . that was the secretary of the senate that did that. his credentials DID NOT HAVE THE SIGNATURE OF THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ILLINOIS!!! Pure and simple.

Now, if people think this is a "black senate seat;" they've got another thing coming. If the next person who is appointed PROPERLY is white, man or woman, and is not seated BECAUSE THEY ARE WHITE. That racist move will see such a backlash that you can't even imagine.

THE SENATE SEATS ARE NOT WHITE OR BLACK!!! They are more of a dark gray with a reddish brown upholstery.

To say it belongs to a black person is racist! It belongs to the people of Illinois. Color means nothing, unless you judge people by their color which makes you a racist.

All Buress really wants to do by showing up at the capitol and meeting the press is to make sure that he is covered in the media, so that when a new Governor is chosen, that person doesn't appoint somebody else.

Because, I am sure that Buress would much rather be appointed by a legitimate governor, but he doesn't want to loose his chance.

The only ones judging people by the color of their skin are the fine democrats. And, yes, they are racists for so doing.

It is liberal politicians that are complaining that a black appointee is not being seated because of racism.
That's your party. That party of skin color, first, last and always.

I for one have not forgotten about Foley, Ryan, Clinton, Reynolds, Blago, Rostenkowski,and all the other career politicians you love and from which you derive hope and change.

The lack of partisanship doesn't bother me. I think the idiotic Repulican party should stand back and let the looney's on the left pass all of their insane bills. Unfortunately, too many Republicans are as nutty as the libs.

Pick up a Chicago newspaper or go online. Obama's former Senate seat is traditionaly a black seat and Chicago Pol's want to keep it that way.
Tounge n cheek? no, that's the liberal machine. Deal with it.

Response to: IT'S A BLACK SEAT! Contrary to what you stated that this is a race issue, I respectfully suggest to you that it is not. If Mr. Burress happened to be White, instead of Black, he would still be rejected for exactly the same reason. His credential is not legally and properly signed by the Illinois Secretary of State with the appropriate Seal of the State of Illinois affixed thereon.