Roland Burris Not Running In 2010
Tweet
That’s good, because nobody was going to vote for Blago’s Boy.
Illinois Senator Roland Burris, who was appointed to Barack Obama’s Senate seat by impeached former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich amid a cloud of controversy, has announced that he will not seek election to the Senate in 2010, CBS News has confirmed.
17 Responses to “Roland Burris Not Running In 2010”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Good.
Is there a credible Democratic candidate for the seat?
Whew.
In referring to Burris as a “boy”, you just further prove that it is the Liberals and non-whites who are the real racists. At least that’s what Rush “MLK” Limbaugh tells me.
Time to play “Name That Party!”
Notice how the article never explicitly identifies Burris as a Democrat, and it’s not even implied until the 5th paragraph.
J.
Bueller? Bueller?
He’s got the Sausage King of Chicago endorsement, which has to amount to something.
Jay, you’re not doing much to dissuade me from the observation that conservatism is all about trying hard to find something, somewhere to be indignant about.
Jay, if the readers of a CBS blog called Political Hotsheet aren’t sure of Burris’ political party, it’s probably because their cat jumped on their keyboard and got them away from the CBS Big Brother page.
If the media really wanted to hide Burris’ political identity, why wouldn’t they just not cover this story at all? After all, even the most dimwitted among the computer users could find Burris’ party in less than a minute.
Isn’t is racist to refer to a black man as “boy”? Isn’t it doubly so to imply that he belongs to a white man? Is this one of those things where it’s okay if blacks do it to each other? Samari Rolle wouldn’t agree.
“Jay Tea”: “Time to play “Name That Party!””
Well, if this were FOX we’d label him an (R).
Nice, “Newsy.” Thanks for saving me the effort of pointing out the parallel.
Of course, the difference is that in your example, it would be corrected quickly. This one, though, will be left to stand.
Scrolling down, the Sarah Palin story drops “Republican” in the second paragraph.
In the “GOP Senators Start Online “Doctor” Show” article, the party affiliations of the Senators in question are cited after the first mention (the standard rule).
The John Ensign story specifically identifies him as a Republican in the second paragraph.
Another amazing coincidence, I’m sure…
J.
Notice how the article never explicitly identifies Burris as a Democrat, and it’s not even implied until the 5th paragraph.
Well gosh Jay…I’m surprised this arm of the “leftist media” didn’t come right out and put an (R) next to his name.
That was the point you were trying to make, wasn’t it?
Jan Schakowsky would be nice
I still haven’t seen a justification for why it is wholly appropriate for a senator in the United States Congress to be called a “boy”.
“Jay Tea”, I understand where you are coming from but my perception of the ‘bias’ is coming from the other side.
Notorious R‘s never seem to be associated with their Republican Party in media stories, or if they are it isn’t until deep into the media piece.
I’d prefer that when the news media reports on a politician it would always be with immediate mention of that person’s party.
And in text I’d prefer the whole name of the party be spelled out: Democratic and Republican (NOT ‘Democrat’).
My reply to hearing the “Democrat Party” misnamed is to return with the “Republicon Party” or if I’m feeling charitable, the “Republi Party”.
“Newsy,” amazing — I actually agree with you. The “Democrat Party” stunt is just stupid.
Well gosh Jay…I’m surprised this arm of the “leftist media” didn’t come right out and put an (R) next to his name.
That was the point you were trying to make, wasn’t it?
Um… no, Durablend. This is the EQUIVALENT of the “whoops! Wrong party” game. The difference is, this one is almost never corrected. The “call a D an R” game is fixed almost immediately.
J.
The “call a D to R” game is fixed almost immediately.
Well, even if “fixed immediately,” it’s an error on the Fox “News” Channel that always goes in one direction only. Whenever a Democratic politician faces disgrace and scandal, the F(R)NC always put a (D) after his/her name and not the incorrect (R). Funny that.
…and rotter, whenever a disgraced politician’s political affiliation is buried, i’s almost always a (D) instead of an (R). Funny that.
They’re both stupid. One, however, is far more insidious, far more widespread, and far more often left uncorrected — and it ain’t Fox News’ little foible.
OK, this is about the third time around the circuit on this argument. Is anyone else getting bored?
J.