After weeks of dribs and drabs of revelations that his stumbling upon the Illinois senate seat wasn’t so innocuous after all, the question was starting to become whether Roland Burris would survive the end of the month, not whether he’d be able to win re-election. Today, Burris will announce that he’s splitting the difference: he won’t resign, but he won’t run for re-election either.
This may not change the 2010 calculus that much; Jan Schakowsky and Alexi Giannoulis were probably going to run in the Democratic primary whether or not Burris was there; the main question was whether Burris could sneak through the primary based on African-American support and a split liberal vote. At any rate, it gives Burris a graceful (or at least less graceless) way to ride off into the sunset and carve another line on his mausoleum.
Also, Pat Quinn, who took over as governor in the wake of Rod Blagojevich and who was one of the first to call for Burris to resign, announced that he will be running for re-election in 2010.
“I have no reason not to run,” Quinn told me when I asked him about the 2010 election. “I think I am doing a good job today. I anticipate I will continue to do that. Stabilizing the ship of Illinois is vitally necessary. I think even in the first three-and-a-half weeks we’ve done a decent job of turning a page in an unhappy chapter in the state’s history.”
By getting out in front of the Blago blowback, Quinn seems to have stabilized his situation and there doesn’t seem to be any discussion of primary competition for him (yet).
UPDATE by Jimmy Hell: Now Camp Burris is denying everything, saying that no 2010 decisions have been made.
running, i mean no doubt about it. And she’ll have the Chicago machine behind her and will destroy Quinn.
Like probably almost everyone else here, I really like Congresswoman Shakowsky, and no doubt she’d be among the most progressive of Senators, but how much of a problem is her husband’s ethical and legal stuff going to be? I know she did nothing wrong, and even what he did is pretty mild as far as this stuff goes. But it is of concern. While it hasn’t hurt her in her uber-liberal North Shore district, in this current climate will it hurt her in the rest of the state?
Then again this guy may not last until 2010.
Sure, it takes a two-thirds vote, but I can easily see public pressure forcing that, especially if something new comes out, and/or he gets indictred for perjury…
so itll prob b schakowsky/giannoulis v. kirk/roskam. well keep schakowsky’s and prob take kirk’s. if roskam runs id love to see duckworth take another stab at it so we can get her into the legislature. my bets on it bein a schakowsky v. kirk race w jan’s husbands stuff being the cannon fodder for them and kirk voting against everything for us. i honestly dont know too much bout kirk other than hes a mod republican in suburban chi-town but i cant see how a repub would win in a state that has gotten progressively more democratic and one in which i would assume the pres would add his voice once the primary is outta the way
If I were a Republican, I would really want Burris to resign and his replacement be determined by a special election. That would give us Republicans a chance of taking over the seat well before the 2010 elections. But I am a Democrat. Therefore, I really want Burris to serve out his term.
http://www.swamppolitics.com/n…
When the Illinois show gets boring, we can move to the Kentucky show, and vice versa.