Lawmaker should resign over subterfuge

» 3 Comments | Post a Comment

When newly appointed U.S. Sen. Roland Burris showed up in Washington on his first official day to fill a position vacated by Barack Obama, we defended his right to be seated. Burris was appointed by beleaguered Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who had been accused of attempting to sell the seat to the highest bidder.

Burris appeared to have no questionable ties to the governor and should not have been punished by the Senate for the sins of his appointer.

Now it’s Burris who’s on the hot seat as his testimony before Illinois lawmakers about his relationship with Blagojevich is unraveling.

Criticism of Burris has been swift and harsh, and cries for his resignation grow louder by the day.

The U.S. Senate Ethics Committee is reviewing the contrast between Burris’s testimony to Illinois lawmakers last month and emerging revelations about Burris’s contact with Blagojevich’s advisers and Burris’s fundraising efforts on the governor’s behalf.

Considering his close ties to a governor accused of corruption, Roland Burris should have simply declined the appointment to the U.S. Senate rather than omit key details while under oath.

Add another voice to the chorus: Burris must resign.

Advertisement

 
View More: No tags are associated with this article
Not what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
 

Advertisement

Reader Reactions

Flag Comment Posted by Clifford Spencer on February 22, 2009 at 8:00 pm

Dear Sirs,
  If I may, let me play the role of devil’s advocate to another letter.
  In my view, he is overly optimistic just as I am extremely skeptical.
  His home state of Alabama has a much more trusting primary system than my state of New York.
  On paper, your system is far better than mine.
  So long as your citizens vote for what they consider the best candidates, your system will doubtless succeed.
  Sadly, politics rarely works like that.
  When one side gets a “winner” the temptation for a Rush Limbaugh Texas Two Step comes into play.
  The object then becomes one of sabotaging the primary system for the other party.
  That is why we have closed primaries while you have open ones.
  I admit that I am suspicious.  However, after the Canuck letter, the Diem Cable, Donald Segretti, Chuck Colson, Tricky Dick, Spiro Agnew, Karl Rove and Republicans pretending to be “students” and “demonstrators” that suspicion is understandable.
  After all, I have a lot to be suspicious of.
  Clifford Spencer

Flag Comment Posted by jorod74 on February 21, 2009 at 10:10 pm

Gonna take this one step further.
Burris should resign. and if not, forced out of office.
The Minnesota fiasco should have been remedied by now.
if I were Obama, i would slap any hand from California that is extended for a loan, grant or bailout because they are sitting upon billions in revenue and refuse to take advantage of it.

Lastly, every one that voted to pass the Stimulus bill who did not read it should be impeached and sent home for malpractice or incompetence. You cannot represent a populace properly if you don’t even know what you are fighting for.

Flag Comment Posted by Clifford Spencer on February 20, 2009 at 7:57 pm

Dear Sirs,
  I completely agree that Burris should resign.
  By the same token, the American people should demand that the citizens of Minnesota be represented by two senators.
  As incredible as it seems, during the entire stimulus debate, those citizens lacked equal representation!
  In California, also, their state budget was only passed on the condition that the Republicans could better influence the Democrat primaries.
  Naturally, they claim that their idea will make voting more efficient.
  Remember how expensive the recall election was?
  Want to buy the Brooklyn Bridge?
  Whatever happened to the slogan “no taxation without representation?“
  Clifford Spencer

Post a Comment(Requires free registration)

The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement