During his January testimony to the Illinois House impeachment panel, Roland Burris provided the following:
Rep. Jim Durkin: Prior to his arrest, did you have any conversations with the governor about your desire to be appointed to the seat?
Roland Burris: No.
Durkin: OK. Did you talk to any members of the governor’s staff or anyone closely related to the governor, including with family members or any lobbyists connected with him, including oh, let me throw out some names: John Harris, Rob Blagojevich, Doug Scofield, Bob Greenlee, Lon Monk, John Wyma? Did you talk to anybody who was associated with the governor about your desire to seek the appointment prior to the governor’s arrest?
Burris: I talked to some friends about my desire to be appointed, yes.
Durkin: I guess the point is I was trying to ask: Did you speak to anybody who was on the governor’s staff prior to the governor’s arrest or anybody, any of those individuals or anybody who was closely related to the governor?
Burris: I recall having a meeting with Lon Monk about my partner and I trying to get continued business and I did bring it up, it must have been in September-maybe it was in July of ’08 and you know, ‘If your close to the governor, well let him know that I will feel certainly interested in the seat.'”
Durkin: OK.
(Later in the hearing)
Durkin: At any time were you directly or indirectly aware of a quid pro quo with the governor for the appointment of this vacant Senate seat?
Burris: No sir.
Durkin: Ok. If you were aware of a quid pro quo, what would you have done?
(Burris’s lawyer calls it a hypothetical question and inappropriate. Durkin calls it “highly relevant” and what his response would have been. Rep. John Fritchey (D-Chicago) says his response to something that did not occur was “irrelevant” and “speculative.” Durkin says its “germane” to the hearing and a “reasonable request” of what he would have done. Burris’ lawyer says Burris will respond because he wants to be “clear and open.”)
Burris: Rep. Durkin, knowing my ethics, I would not participate in anybody’s quid pro quo. I’ve been in government for 20 years and never participated in anybody’s quid pro quo.
Durkin: I guess the point is, would you have gone to the federal authorities if you were aware of that?
Burris: I have no response to that. emphasis mine
Today, in explaining why he felt it necessary to release a new affidavit that says he had have conversations with Gov. Blag0jevich’s brother and that the brother requested “campaign fundraising help”, Burris stated:
“It was done because we promised the (impeachment) committee we would supplement information in case we missed anything,” Burris said Monday before embarking on trip to talk with constituents. “End of story.”
“There was no change of any of our testimony,” Burris, 71, said. “We followed up as we promised the impeachment committee. … The information that’s being reported in terms of that this was done because of a fed statement is absolutely, positively not true.” (again, emphasis mine)
Since the election of Barack Obama, the word “change” has well, undergone a change.
“Change” used to mean simply “different.” While change ultimately could be good or bad, there was nothing inherent in the word itself that indicated which of those outcomes the “change” would be. Since Barack Obama has come on the scene, the possibility that “change” could be anything but hopeful and positive, has been eliminated from the consciousness of the entire left side of the political spectrum. “Change,” when used by the Left, now means positive, hopeful differences that further the power entrenchment of the particular Left organization or person using the word.
When Burris says “there was no change of any of our testimony,” he is using the New Obama English. Using New Obama English, his statement does not indicate that his testimony is the same as it was previously, i.e. no different. Rather, it is the equivalent of using the double negative indicating that his testimony has not gotten better than before.
Finally, Burris is using “change” in Leftist code. His use of the word in this context is warning others on the Left that they should not expand their investigation, call for his resignation or attempt to force him from office. Burris is after all, from Illinois and if anyone believes he would go quietly now that he’s reached a seat in the most exclusive club in the world, without causing collateral damage, well, they’d be hoping for change that wasn’t good and that’s just not what a Leftist in good standing does!
When you really think about it, Burris has good reason to believe his position won’t be in jeopardy. After all, if the Illinois Legislators accepted an indefinite answer to a specific question about political impropriety, what makes us think that any of the Legislators have gotten significantly smarter in the past six weeks?
“Shovel Ready,” “uniquely qualified” and “worst since the Great Depression” are already words and phrases that have lost their historical meanings with the New Obama English. “Change,” if not already, will soon be added to the list. By the end of Obama’s Presidency anyone using these words in other than a satirical manner, will be seen as caricatures of serious thinking individuals. Come to think of it, that already describes most of the extreme left!
