Picture this scene...
If the special election "costs taxpayers a dime, it's probably a waste of money," added Giannoulias, flanked by fellow Illinois Democrats U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin and U.S. Rep. Danny Davis at a campaign news conference on Chicago's West Side to talk about jobs.
Giannoulias made this statement despite a federal judge ruling that then Gov. Blago's appointment of Roland Burris was illegal according to the Illinois law. God forbid a law stop the Democrats from getting their way.
For instance, the Senate is poised to take up the Disclosure Act on Tuesday and the Republicans are trying to block it via filibuster. Guess we'll find out in less than 24 hours whether the Democrats will have the votes to move forward. So what's the big deal about the Disclosure Act? How about thwarting a recent US Supreme Court ruling that says corporations have 1st amendment rights as well as other groups. The Disclosure Act would also exempt a Democrat money making machine - aka unions.
I wrote about several weeks ago, but I'll repost part of it again:
According to the American Institute for Economic Research: Since 1990, labor unions have contributed over $667 million in election campaigns in the United States, of which $614 million or 92 percent went to support Democratic candidates.
[The $787 billion dollar stimulus earmarks] is no doubt related to $38 million dollars that the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Union has contributed to Democratic Party campaigns since 1990, with nearly $2.6 million being given during the 2008 election. Public sector unions as a whole have given around $160 million to Democratic candidates between 1990 and 2008, with donations of $6 million in 2008. (emphasis added)
With the Disclosure Act, the Democrats have said they don't care about the US Constitution or the Supreme Court, but they sure know where their bread and butter is. The NRA carved out an exemption for themselves as well, but was that move allowed by the Democrats more about protecting a "single issue group" or about trying to entice just 1 Republican to vote for this monstrosity. The third reason the Democrats want the Disclosure Act? The Democrats have pretty much treated business like a red-headed step-child and they know that businesses will most likely be contributing to the other side - Republicans - to depose the Pelosi/Reid/Durbin/Obama stranglehold on power and threat to capitalism.
Back to Giannoulias' statement. If it "costs taxpayers a dime, it's probably a waste of money". Seems the Democrats only think this is true regarding a special election, but not towards Cap and Trade, Obamacare, "Financial Reform" bills or anything else that has come out of Congress this session. If they applied this statement to most of the government programs, then there wouldn't be Tea Parties throwing a monkey-wrench in the works, would there?
Finally, a special election, even if the new Senator would only be seated for 60 days, is more important than the election for the Senator for the next 6 years. It's no secret that the Democrats might ram a great deal of controversial legislation like Cap and Trade or Immigration reform or Card Check through a lame-duck Congress and not being concerned about re-election especially if a Congressman/woman had already lost (read: not answerable to an angry electorate). A Republican winning the special election and being seated for 60 days gives the GOP 42 votes for 60 days and would make it harder for the Democrats to break a filibuster. This is the real reason behind Giannoulias, Durbin and Davis not wanting a special election. They want that one final blitzkrieg of legislation where they don't have to answer to anyone but themselves and God.
Vote November 2nd - your country depends on it.