That sounds like "ace" rhetoric.

At least I will admit I use empty rhetoric from time to time.

They should simply seat Burris and move on.

Ace, I don't see how this taints Obama. I don't believe in guilt by association, and so far as I'm aware Obama had nothing to do with this whole Blago business. In fact, all indications are that Blago told Obama's people he wanted some sort of payoff, whether political horse-trading or otherwise, and Emanuel wouldn't go along with it. Why do you think this reflects badly on Obama?

My link to Obama was empty rhetoric. But he is the leader of the party, he should put an end to this.

he doesn't really have the authority to demand the transparency you allude to for another 2 weeks

What you seemed to be saying was that you wanted to hold results that didn't exist against him. If you were really concerned with rewarding results, you'd probably spend some time examining results instead of alluding to results that don't actually mean what you want them to mean.

I don't accept the knowledge, experience or information you provided because it is irrelevant. You can't use a single point data to determine a trend-- this is elementary. I can't point to the state of Baghdad right now to decide whether things have improved there-- I need to compare the current state of Baghdad with some previous state of Baghdad. Even that two-point analysis would probably be too simplistic to render meaningful results.

Your argument that he failed to improve the schools because some of them are rated poorly now is empty. Your argument that he failed to improve schools because you know people who wouldn't send their kids to a Chicago public school is empty. The emptiness of these arguments doesn't depend on the validity of the knowledge, experience or information you provided, because information isn't what is problematic about them. What is problematic is that you think your data means something that it does not, that it can not.

This isn't that hard to understand, is it?

i just want to add my hat--and that hat is immense, chatreuse and sports a feather---to the ring amongst others tossed by folk who really do not understand what the democrats in the senate are thinking of on the burris business.

now that those nimrods on cnn are saying that feinstein has come out in favor of seating him...(why o why do i watch this nonsense ever?)....

it seems that the presumption of innocence is out the window here, swamped by the rhetoric of the "taint" (fighting down the temptation to make a string of obvious jokes)...so obviously the problem is that the democrats are worried about tossing some ammunition to the right (which is not in this case a synonym for the media tout court).

i think this is a stupid fight to have undertaken: there are far more pressing matters.

Blago's statements yesterday had to be part of a larger legal plan--to bolster an insanity defense! I mean, who in their right mind would actually think he was being impeached because of policy initiatives? And who in their right mind would go public spouting such drivel, thinking someone would believe it?

I'm telling you, it was all part of the criminal defense plan--the man is unhinged, and here's evidence of it.

Are you taking the supply side position that tax cuts are good for the economy? If they are good for 98.6% of the people, why not the other 1.4%?