User talk:Rrius/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

AfD nomination of United States Senate special election in Illinois, 2009

United States Senate special election in Illinois, 2009 has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Senate special election in Illinois, 2009. Thank you. —Markles 14:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Burris

whether in question or not, or whether he is seated or not, he was nevertheless legally appointed to the positions...a fact that is not in dispute. you may reference the previous senators previously not seated as precedence. --emerson7 19:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. I've marked him like Frank L. Smith, who wasn't seated. I also changed back the punctuation and the way McCormick is treated. The em dash makes it clearer that the role continues to the present day without taking up space unnecessarily saying it. The en dash makes it look as though the closing year was left out. I have no idea what your problem is with the parenthetical for saying McCormick died after losing renomination; it is an aside and should be treated as such. If you problem is that it takes up too much space as is, we can drop it to a ref. -Rrius (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

after checking the definition of designate, i would encourage you to reference wp:3rr. any further discussion should be taken up on the the article's talk page. --emerson7 02:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The one has nothing to do with the other. See my note at your talk page. -Rrius (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

wikipedia does not peddle in speculation...only fact. --emerson7 02:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

let's continue on the talk page...i'll reply to your "tomorrow" comment there. --emerson7 02:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

'designate' is correct when used as an adjective....and in my corner of the world, it can also be used as a noun. --emerson7 02:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Not so fast, Burris

IMHO, Burris should've been sworn-in as Senator. Anyways, I'm sure he enjoys the attention of it all. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Seniority

I responded at Talk:111th United States Congress re: the Franken question. I can do some more checking, but I doubt I would get much of an answer from my contacts given the sensitivity of the issues. I linked to a couple of articles that quote sources discussing it.

On another note, I did hear back from my Senate contact on the term question. January 3 is the date that terms end, and by default new ones begin. So I will yield on that issue. It still doesn't address the contradiction for the 105th and 106th Congresses though. Must have been a holdover from with the GOP ran things. They changed parliamentarians shortly after the 106th Congress, so that could be part of it, too.DCmacnut<> 14:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

CNN's coverage of Senate swearing-in ceramony

I wonder if somebody could correct CNN. They seem to be suggesting that all 100 (err, make that 98) Senators are being sworn/re-sworn in. When in fact, 33 (err, make that 31) are being sworn/re-sworn in. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Robert Byrd would be rolling his eyes. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Please

Do not accuse me of being a vandal. That's what you did, despite what you may think. I added no untrue info, only changed where things were written.... Why have the article jump from topic to topic, when it flows much better now. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 20:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I am really upset about this.... tell me what "Untrue info" I added to the United States Senate article? Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 20:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not call you a vandal, nor did I treat you as such. I reverted some major changes you made at a stable article and directed your attention to the article's talk page. At the talk page, I explained why I reverted your edits and what I believe is untrue in what you wrote up about senators-designate. I did not mean to leave you with the impression that I was calling you a vandal or a liar. I am sorry for hurting your feelings, but I had responded to you somewhere (maybe at Markles's talk page) telling you which of your edits were incorrect. In telling you, I also advised you that your edits should be verified with reliable sources. I don't know if you failed to see that or ignored it, but it is advice you (and all the rest of us) should follow. As for rearranging the Senate article, you did it, I reverted, a discussion will now ensue. I'm not sure where the problem is. -Rrius (talk) 21:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I will again revert, now that you asked me to explain my revisions and I have. By the way, you continue to argue our conversation from the other day.... complete different situation from today. Stick to what we are talking about. "Objection.... relavence...?" As far as sourcing, you are right, but remember, sometimes you write and then go back to source.... including what you did yourself here. My goal with the Senate-delegate article was to first get it up and running, say what I could (why I used loose phrases like "most often") and then research it and source it in the coming days. YOu beat me to the punch, and that's cool, but you have to look at the whole picture. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 22:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I restoring someone else's edit there, and had actually seen a source in the past. It was a different situation. -Rrius (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Two quick things, I disagree with moving Vacancies and Expultions down in the order.... maybe move Term and election next to them. The reason is all of those s.t.'s define a way in or out of the senate, while the others, like Seniority, define a state of being within the Senate, so to say. Second, I see you really don't like the Senate-elect/designate section, and that's fine. I think it's fine, personally, but now it's not mentioned at all. Also, be sure to re-direct the senator-elect and senator-designate pages to the subtopic where you do decide that they are relavent to mention, since now that s.t. is gone. Let me know if you want me to help. Sorry if I seemed to be harsh. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 02:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The arrangement is logical because it takes the reader from getting into office to being in office to no longer being in office. As for the senator-designate thing, the first sentence says that senators-elect are elected and senators-designate are appointed. Your second sentence said that the difference was that senators-elect are elected and senators-designate appointed. Your third sentence explained that senators-designate are appointed because there is a vacancy, when a different section explains that appointments only occur to fill vacancies. Those last two sentences weren't necessary. -Rrius (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Special senate elections in Illinois & Colorado

Do you have some sources that the appointments in Illinois & Colorado only serve until Nov. 2010 and that there would be special elections concurrent with the general elections in Nov. 2010?—Markles 22:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I provided the refs in the article, they are the statutes in the respective states that say appointments are until the next general election, not the end of the term. -Rrius (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Project Congress

As a participant of WikiProject U.S. Congress, please consider placing {{Project Congress to do}} to the top of your User_talk page. Thank you.—Markles 01:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing! -Rrius (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Democratic-Republican Party links

Hi Rrius, I'm not quite following what you're doing. As far as I can tell, the only difference is that clicking on these links now leads the reader through a redirect page. I think I must be missing something simple; would you explain what you're doing for me? :-) faithless (^speak) 09:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Preparing for the move. If I'm reverted, I don't care. I'll just redo the work after the move. -Rrius (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ted Kaufman

Sorry, maybe Glenn Thrush was wrong on this? Cassandro (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Or he means tomorrow, when Burris is also being sworn in, or Friday, the first 11 a.m. after Biden resigns at 5 p.m. tomorrow. There is no news source that says Biden has resigned and Kaufman has been sworn in. -Rrius (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I see (Glenn was then not really exact, the post came in before 11 a.m. today) but then Mr. Kaufman's entry is also wrong... Cassandro (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I accept I broke the table, but I did provide a reputable source. Kelestar (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Because it was my fault, if I see that someone puts Mr. Kaufman back, I'll revert it. Cassandro (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I checked this as well, and it appears someone's source jumped the gun on the blog or had the days wrong. I think all related articles are corrected. The Senate has on two prior occassions accepted creditials of senators prior to a vacancy being in effect, so in theorty Kaufman could present his creditials to the Senate Thursday morning, take the oath of office, and have it take effect at 5 pm when Biden's resignation is official.DCmacnut<> 20:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I knew other people could take oaths early, but I figured the Senate's requirement that oaths be in open Senate would work against that. Well, I guess that's just another application for Markles's, "an oath does not a senator make". -Rrius (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Update: Official word from the Senate Cloakroom, keepers of the schedule. (202-224-8541 if anyone's intersted. It's just a recording).

• Burris to be sworn in at 2 pm, January 15
• Kaufman to be sworn in at 11 am, January 16

Looks like it won't be an early swearing in afterall. Biden gives his farewell remarks at 10 am Jan 15 and Clinton gives hers at 11 am.DCmacnut<> 20:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Any information about the Salazar farewell speech? (I think a schedule for the swearing in of Michael Bennet is a little early.) Cassandro (talk) 21:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm really confused... Maybe he is right or not? Cassandro (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Senate

That's twice that I did that, and neither time did I do it intentionally. I guess I am losing my mind. Thanks for pointing it out sorry for the inconvenience. You had no issue, I assume with the rest of the edit? Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 20:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah the years thing is pretty open to the opinion of individual editor, obviously I dont really care about that, but they are interesting years. BY THE WAY you were correct, Roland is in!!!! I thought they would find some loophole to keep him out, but you were correct, they could not do so. I'm glad, personally, it's a nice career capper for a guy who has pretty much done a good job for Illinois over the years. Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 20:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:110th United States Congress#Roland Burris

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:110th United States Congress#Roland Burris. Thank you. —Markles 15:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Nah. I'm staying out of it until we have genuine information from somewhere. I'm going to assume I as wrong for now, and react if anything changes. -Rrius (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Norm Coleman

Franken is still the certified winner of the recount nonetheless. This is not about the settlement of the race, it's as yet to be determined. But as of right now, Franken is the declared winner of the recount, and is technically the Senator-elect unless the courts do something to change it. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I'm not, I'm just being reasonable. The totals were certified and a winner of the recount was declared, and it was Franken. It was all over the news and in the media, so if you refuse to admit that then you've turned a deaf ear to it. Franken is the Senator-elect if he's been certified as having more votes, which he has. Franken's results should be respected in this case, and since he has been certified by the Minnesota Canvassing Board as having more votes than Coleman, he is the Senator-elect unless the courts intervene to change the outcome. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a winner of the RECOUNT was declared, if you've been listening yourself. It was all over the web and the media that the Canvassing Board "declared Franken the winner of the recount." Regardless of election contests, Franken currently has a certified lead of votes over Coleman and is the Senator-elect because he has the votes. Unless something changes those vote totals, he is the Senator-elect. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Since this discussion is happening at your talk page, there is no need to re-post here. -Rrius (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I recommend we have the discussion at the Coleman talk-page. Get more imput. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually they are man, Obama was declared President-elect the night of the election even though the electoral votes hadn't been cast. Whoever is certified as having more votes is in fact elected, that's common sense here. Let's be reasonable and respect the results. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hero of Time 87 (talk • contribs)

LOL, there's no doubt of Franken's victory in the recount either man, the Canvassing Board declared him the winner of the recount they presided over. No matter how you spin it, Franken has been certified as having more votes than Coleman and is technically the Senator-elect unless the courts change the vote totals. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

What part of "you don't need to post here" don't you understand? -Rrius (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The editor refusal to discuss this at talk:Norm Coleman, is beyond my understanding Rrius. I had to leave it. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

PS: I'm carry on at Coleman page. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Suits me just fine GoodDay. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hiya Rrius. The editor-in-question is currently under Sockpuppetry suspicions. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• FYI, there's a lovely little template that I created a couple of years ago which you could have used here: {{Discussion moved to}}.—Markles 21:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(resp to Rrius) I was just able, to keep my cool. Phew. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I shoulda checked his 'edit history', as it's not very old. GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Burris/Kaufman

I noticed the discrepancy on Burris' appointment. If I recall, Blagojevich announced the appointment on Dec. 31, but the certification papers say Dec. 31. With respect to Kaufman, after reflection I think I've been in the wrong on the whole oath thing. Senate rules do say you have to take an oath to be a Senator, which is what I've been basing my previous assertions on. However, Roger Wicker's term is shown as starting Dec. 31, even though he didn't take the oath of office until January 22, 2008 (2008 Congressional Record, Vol. 154, Page S13 ). Bioguide says he took the oath Dec. 31, but the Congressional Record says otherwise. Several senators have been able to be counted as Senators, even without taking the oath in open session because they were appointed and Congress was sine die adjournment until the elected successors were sworn in. I'm now more inclined to accept Markle's assertions of when terms start, with the caveat that official records from the Secretary of Senate or the Bioguide on when terms start be our guiding documents, contradictions notwithstanding.

I also think I was reading too much into the sine die appoinment issue. I was referencing 2 U.S.C. § 36 which says "salaries of Senators appointed to fill vacancies in the Senate shall commence on the day of their appointment and continue until their successors are elected and qualified: Provided, That when Senators have been elected during a sine die adjournment of the Senate to succeed appointees, the salaries of Senators so elected shall commence on the day following their election." Basically, it is saying that if you are appointed, regardless of whether it's within a session or sine die adjournment, you get paid from that day. I was trying to impose a little original research on that by extension saying that since they were getting paid from the date of appointment, the Senate could still impose a separate swearing-in/seniority date. In retrospect, I went a bit too far in trying to explain away contradictions and discrepancies.DCmacnut<> 21:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the Senate is being inconsistent; I'm just glad I wasn't missing something. I've been assuming that Burris's term began December 31 based on 2 U.S.C. § 36 and precedents of the Senate that use that law to establish when an appointed senator's term ends and when his or her successor's term begins. Based on Barrasso, I guess I was wrong. When they follow Sec. 36 and when they don't may be more idiosyncratic than either one of us gave the Senate credit for. In any event, I wrote the Historical Office, and they corrected Burris's entry to Dec. 31. -Rrius (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Am I right with the suggestion that Burris' seniority date is Dec. 31, 2008? In the case of Kaufman: his seniority date of is Jan. 16, 2009 because his predecessor resigned just one day earlier or Jan. 15, 2009 beauce Joe Biden's resignation came to effect that day? Will it be the same case with Michael Bennet and the new senator from NY? Cassandro (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the problem with Barrasso? He's appointment was effective June 22, and he took the oath June 25 (2007 Congressional Record, Vol. 153, Page S8327 ). The 2nd part of 2 USC 36 has to do with senators who are elected to fill an appointed seat. Carnahan and Talent are an example. 2 USC 36 says that if the Senate is in session (as it was when Talent took office), an elected senator to fill an appointed seat's term starts when he/she qualifies. The Senate says that to qualify means taking the oath of office. Talent's term started when he took the oath on Nov. 25, 2002. That's probably where the confusion arises.

With respect to Cassadro's comment, Kaufman's term started Jan. 15 (the date in his certificaiton) papers pursuant to 2 USC 36, since this was an appointment rather than election. Presumably, when Bennet or the NY senator are appointed, 2 USC will also apply and their terms will start when they are appointed. Looks like the Senate won't be able to assert retroactive seniority for these new members, yet they could grant them equal seniority within the Democratic Caucus, which is separate.DCmacnut<> 23:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no problem with Barrasso. If you use Sec. 36 as a strict guide, Barrasso's term of service would start at June 22, not June 25. Since the 25th is used, I was wrong in believing that December 31 should be used for Burris. Since the Senate has very clearly used the part of Sec. 36 in regards to elected senators, but it appears not to use for calculating terms of appointed senators, they are being inconsistent. -Rrius (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind, just checked the chronological list, and they use June 22. So Burris should be December 31, and Kaufman should be January 15. Right? Are we all agreed? I don't know how I managed to confuse myself. -Rrius (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Illinois and Colorado vacancy/elections

I wasn't aware of the respective statutes. I was basing my edit on multiple reports that since it was the regular general election, it really didn't matter for a special election. They're probably just ignoring the technicalities of the last two months. In either case, it looks like a special election would be held, and I stand corrected. However, if no one stands for the special election (RFK case from 1968) the appointees would serve until the regular term expires. The appointees could opt to just run in the general election and forgo the special entirely (Nick Lampson in 2006), but unlikely.DCmacnut<> 19:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Burris

I intended the summary to be directed toward Cassandro, who is not from the United States. However, I still disagree due to the twists and turns his appointment had, he wasn't even considered a proper candidate until a couple weeks after his appointment. If the Senate logs support your argument, fine; if they don't it'll be because his case was likely sui generis. Therequiembellishere (talk) 08:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't trying to be harsh. Did it really come out that way? I just thought it would be a honest thing to say, I've been told to research topics more thoroughly and then come back and found nothing wrong with the request and I apologise if it came out that way.

I see, alright then. And yes, I agree that the appointment is bazaar, especially with the flip-flop from all of the senators antagoising him. Reid has proven once again his ineptitude. And you're perfectly fine. Once everything get cleared, I'm always take a "hakuna matata" stance. Therequiembellishere (talk) 09:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

1947 Presidential Succession Act

Hiya Rrius. I must confess, this Act confuses me. (After the assume office, of course) If Obama & Biden simultaneously died, resigned or were both removed from office, Speaker Pelosi would serve as Acting President (not President) until Jan 20, 2013? Nobody would move into the White House? If she's gonna perform the Presidential powers & duties until Jan 2013; why not make her President? Furthermore, if Pelosi must resign as Speaker, to assume the Presidential powers & duties, isn't she removing herself from the succession by resigning as Speaker? GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing, the idividual who's first effected by the Act, will likely give it the Tyler approach (i.e. declaring oneself President). Hopefully, your country will never need to apply the Act. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the Act is a mess up. Seeing as Obama & Biden are Democrats, I'd assume Pelosi would be made the next President if a double-tragedy occured. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Bioguide errors in Roger Wicker

Who did you contact to get Burris's Bioguide appointment date fixed to Dec. 31? Roger Wicker's bioguide entry says he was appointed Dec. 31 and took the oath the same day. However, he was sworn in January 22. 2007 Congressional Record, Vol. 153, Page S13 , since the Senate wasn't in session in the 31st. Any chance you could work your magic to get that fixed as well?DCmacnut<> 21:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've sent an e-mail. The e-mail address is, by the way, Historian@sec.senate.gov. -Rrius (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Pres pro tem

See talk page, please. Foofighter20x (talk) 08:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Acting Cabinet

Thanks, I knew the offices couldn't be completely vacant so I went searching. I just wished they released the Acting Transportation Sec. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I had assumed that Bush's appointees continued in their positions until they resigned. Thus, no need for Acting Secretaries. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Afair the terms of Secretaries end with the end of the term of the president. Cassandro (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no. There is no term for Cabinet secretaries, which is why Gates doesn't need to be confirmed again. It is by convention that they resign at the change in administrations. If they didn't, they could be sacked anyway. -Rrius (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, I wasn't aware of this. Cassandro (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Assuming the respective Deputy Secretaries haven't been confirmed 'yet'. Who's running the Departments. PS: I know I'm nitpicking. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The Obama deputies have not been confirmed. At least some of the acting secretaries seem to be top career officials. Specifically, they are listed here. -Rrius (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. There's some holdovers from the Bush Administration, like under-secretaries and assistant secretaries. GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

File:40th Can Senate.svg

Hi there. I see that you are the author of File:40th Can Senate.svg. I was curious, if you had the time, to update this image to reflect the current Canadian Senate standings. There are no more vacancies and a Ind. NDP has switched to the Liberals. Cheers. --Natural R_X 03:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

Thank you very much! --Natural R_X 16:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Burris

I enjoyed reading your ideas on Senator Burris on his talk page. I've added a suggestion. Chergles (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

One problem is I don't oppose Burris. He's just some old dude. Write something like the pretext (even if done in a nice way) and some editors will attack you. I've been attacked before for writing things that a normal person would agree but a savage editor will disagree and start to attack. Chergles (talk) 19:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Caroline Kennedy

I'm guessing Governor Paterson never really considered Kennedy. I think the un-official campaigning by her & on her behalf, annoyed him. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This appointment "race" is really unpredictible. There are sources which say that Rep. Gillibrand is the frontrunner, other say Ms. Weingartan, an other Tom Suozzi. So, maybe we will see a surprise (or not). Cassandro (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with GoodDay that he was annoyed by the very public campaign. I also agree that we could see a surprise. Paterson is a bit of an oddball, so anything could happen. -Rrius (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A good oddball, though. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Feminist groups will be happy to know; Paterson has chosen Gillibrand. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Or not, she not terribly liberal, so they may not like that. I'm not really sure what his reasoning was for picking her. Aside from an attempt to court female voters, is it an appeal to suburban and upstate voters? -Rrius (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

She is not a staunch liberal as Ted Kennedy (she has e. g. an "A" rating from the NRA). It seems to me that her fundraising abilites and her appeal to upstate voters were the top reason for her appointment (and Gillibrand is Roman Catholic and NY has many RC voters). Cassandro (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Now the ball is in Kennedy's & Cuomo's courts. Do they run in 2010? we shall see. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Caroline stated she won't challenge the appointed senator if Gov. Paterson chosses someone else. Cassandro (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, Gillibrand has a better chance of holding her seat than Paterson has holding his. -Rrius (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't under-estimate, Governor Paterson. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not. He picked a friend of Clinton, which is obviously helpful. He pissed off the Kennedy family, which is not. He picked a woman with credibility upstate, which is also helpful. I'm not sure how much of that will rub off on him, though. If he doesn't fit in upstate, I don't know how much appointing a pro-gun senator helps. On the other hand, she isn't popular in NYC, which could hurt him in the primary. Again, it's hard to tell how much of that transfers to him. In the end, the slipshod way he handled the appointment cannot have done him any good. It's also not clear where he stands with Cuomo right now. On the one hand, Cuomo wasn't picked, on the other hand, Kennedy wasn't picked. (Those two families don't get along at all.)

Gillibrand will face a primary challenge, but she has the advantage that most people would prefer to be governor. In addition, she has two years to increase her NYC appeal. I'm by no means saying Paterson is toast, I just think he has a tougher row to hoe. -Rrius (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Do the Republicans have any credible contenders? Rep. King is going after the Senate seat, Rep. McHugh has not signalised any interest in the race, high-ranking State Assembly members are gathering for Gillibrand's House seat. Bloomberg want's to be reelected as NYC mayor... On the Dem side it depends on if Cuomo intends to run, I don't believe that someone of the congressional delegation will make a try, they have almost all safe House seats. Cassandro (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Rudy Giuliani will probably run for Governor, so I don't know who would run for Senate. The fact that Gillibrand is not particularly liberal will probably keep credible Republicans away, as will the fact that it is only for a two year term. Former governor Pataki could run, but I haven't heard that he has any interest. -Rrius (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I never did understand the whole Caroline Kenendy for Senator thing. To my knowledge, she's never been involved (at least publicly) with politics before. It was like, Hi, I'm JFK's daughter & I should be chosen. Let's get this over with. GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. She tagged along with Uncle Teddy on some campaigns and publicly campaigned for Obama last year. Other than that, it's not clear when she's been involved. Heck, she doesn't even vote every two years. -Rrius (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

She's probably saying to herself, why did I let them talk me into this? Kudos to the Governor, for being his own judge. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Many will depend on how Gillibrand will master her first years as senator. She doesn't start very well: just two years as elected officeholder, she will be the Baby of the Senate (she's 42) and will have Chuck Schumer alongside her, who now sees his chance to be the Top policitan of NY (after Moynihan and Clinton). It will be interesting how this NRA-thing will emerge. If Rep. McCarthy really challenges her in the primary that could be a big game. Gun-control activists will raise huge amounts for her and maybe Mayor Bloomberg will even endorse McCarthy. So, NY will be a place to watch for the next two (or more) years. Cassandro (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I basically agree. A lot will depend on what she does, but she doesn't have all that long. Anyone who wants to mount a primary challenge will have to raise money starting soon. -Rrius (talk) 04:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Illinois Comptroller

Thanks for this edit; I was having a brain freeze and I just did not like the way it was coming out. Then I see your edit and it makes me feel like I forgot how to tie my shoes. Thanks for getting it right. Unschool 07:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

(Oh, and the following edits were great, too.) Unschool 07:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't think I'd ever bothered reading the lead in that article before you started editing it, so thanks for noticing it had problems. -Rrius (talk) 07:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Again and again and again...

I don't know how this can be stopped... Cassandro (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Blagojevich

Hiya ya. Outside Illinois, the Governor is becoming quite entertaining. I had a good chuckle, when he began comparising himself (in relation to his political situation) with Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi & Martin Luther King, Jr.'s past troubles. Me thinks, this is gonna be a quick Impeachment Trial. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

IMO, he's looking ahead to the pending criminal trial (as impeachment conviction, is a foregone conclusion). Senator Winfrey? GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Walters messed up on The View, telling the crowds Blago will be removed from office if impeached. Err no Barb, He's already impeached. Conviction by the Illinois Senate will cause his removal. Why can't these people get it right? GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's looks like the Illinos Senate, is getting ready to decide. Just waiting for the Governor's final statement. GoodDay (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

He should definitely get on the state plane back to get back to Chicago as soon as possible after giving his closing. The second the Senate votes to remove him, he's out, so if he tries to get on the plane after the vote, they won't let him on. If he's already in the air, I'm sure they'll finish the flight. Springfield is a small city, so I'm sure if he has the plane ready to go, he can get out of town while the prosecutor is giving his rebuttal or the Senate is deliberating. -Rrius (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Did he convince ya, any (concerning aquittal)? Perhaps, bring a tear to your eye? GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Almost brought a tear to my eye—from laughing. He spent maybe twenty minutes on the actual charges, then went off on his sweeping speech about how he's for the little guy, how he didn't get into Harvard (poor baby had to settle for Northwestern), etc. It was classic Blago, full of lies and half truths, so if anything, he hardened the resolve of the Senate. In other news, he does get a chance to get home before he's removed. The Senate took an hour break, then the prosecutor gets another half hour, then they'll deliberate. I do think some members are going to complain about the constraints on the evidence they were given, but I'm betting on at least 55 voting to convict. I'm not sure it will be unanimous. I'm most interested to see how Rickey Hendon will vote. He's a black legislator from a black district. His constituents are among the only supporters Blagojevich has left. On the other hand, he's a member of the Senate leadership, and it might hurt his career to vote to acquit. He's asked a lot of questions during the proceedings, so he's either going to vote to acquit or he's been tough to cover his vote to convict. -Rrius (talk) 18:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If the Senate votes on Blago's faith today (they might choose to extent the Trial), I'm guessing 57-convict. As for the plane usage, wowsers; when you're out, you're out. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Rickey Hendon is going to vote to convict based on the non-health-care-related charges. Based on that, I'd say 57 is good prediction, but it might even be unanimous. -Rrius (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Rickey says it's going to be 59 to nothing. -Rrius (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

And so it is, 59-0. Blago's appearance today, may have cost him any support he had. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

59-0 for disqualification of holding future Illinois public offices, aswell. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately for him, but he can still run for president in 2016. -Rrius (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Burris reloaded

Is the mausoleum thing really relevant? I don't think so, ok, it's a sign for a big ego but which US Senator hasn't a big ego? Cassandro (talk) 11:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If you look, I didn't add it. A previous editor moved it to a separate section called "Legacy", and I moved it back to what had been called "Biography", but which I renamed "Personal life" in response to that editor's changes. I really don't think the mausoleum thing is especially relevant, but I don't have the energy to be the one to lead another battle at that page right now. If you want to, I'll back you up, though. -Rrius (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I know that it wasn't you, I just wanted to know what your opinion is. Ok, there is a section about this on the talk page, I will refer to it. Cassandro (talk) 11:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, cool. -Rrius (talk) 11:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If you had such a problem with my changes maybe you could have included me in the discussion instead of just reverting my changes, or "responding" to them, or whatever it is you claim you do around here. --IvoShandor (talk) 13:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't revert them; I made my own changes. My changes were obviously a reaction to yours, but they did not restore the article to its previous state. Your edit summaries made certain criticisms of the article as it existed before you edited it. Where I agreed with the criticisms, I sometimes saw a different way to address those problems. I was, as every editor is supposed to be, bold in making edits where I saw room for improvement. There was therefore no reason to take anything to the talk page. -Rrius (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Start of Burris' term

Hi Rrius,

You can read the text of 2 USC 36 here: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode02/usc_sec_02_00000036----000-.html. As you can see, the section quite clearly concerns the salaries of senators, not the legal start of their terms. In fact, the word "term" is not even mentioned once. Furthermore, the U.S. Senate's own website states that Burris' term began in 2009: http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=B001266. Therefore, I think it's wise to reverse your reversion and change the date back to January 15. Let me know if you have any questions.

Best regards, Plainsong

Plainsong (talk) 21:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

First, the Burris entry does not say his term started on January 15; it says he took the oath that day. You are simply wrong about believing that the term begins with the oath. Second, it is merely logical that the time period one is eligible for a salary is one's term of office. Moreover, the Senate itself uses this as the definition of when a term begins. See this article: http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/termofasenator.pdf. Note especially page 12, where it is said that Senator Goddell "served from September 10 (having taken the oath on September 12)..." I have no questions. If you have any, feel free to ask. -Rrius (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I just read the Senate article, and you are quite right. Thank you for pointing out my error. The Burris entry does say his term of service began in 2009 - although that must be a mistake on their part. Best regards, PlainsongPlainsong (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you look at the Burris article? Someone did change the comment (and the date) on the term beginning stating the "paperwork-problem". Cassandro (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Seniority

I have a question on DCmacnut's talk page. Maybe you know the answer better. :-) Cassandro (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

CNN's bedside manner

Wowsers. CNN didn't offer 'get well wishes' to Justice Ginsberg, at all. Instead, they were concerned with who Prez Obama will nominate to replace her. Jumpers, they (CNN) are certainly the impatient ones, aren't they? GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Justice Stevens is still going strong. Must be the bowtie. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Re Tony Blair article

Rrius, you removed a POV tag I added. This should not have been done, because even if you think the article is neutral the fact remains that some editors (inc. myself; see talk page) do not. The tag reads:

It asks not to remove until the dispute is resolved. The dispute has not been resolved, so please do not remove this tag again.

As you say above, I am assuming good faith and if you deleted this accidentally as part of a revert or similar, no problem.

ThanksJandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I removed the tag because it was part of a series of edit by you that appeared to be part of a systematic POV attack on Blair. -Rrius (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)