On Friday, we asked Progress Illinois readers to leave their comments about the decision by Senate Democrats to keep Roland Burris from being seated as Illinois' junior senator this week.  Below is a sampling of some of the responses, which ran the gamut.

Maurcus:

I just don't think we have a lot of choice in the matter, it was a legal move by a sitting governor. I agree with the person who suggested we seat him, get past this, and get about dealing with our crooked governor. Let's keep our eye on the ball.

Robard:

At least Jesse White has shown some backbone. Burris should take a lesson and do the right thing, as any Cubs fan would, throw the ball back and keep his dignity.

David:

The question should be: is this guy Burris, going to make a good Senator? You can't taint somebody just because of who appointed him. That was one of the reasons we separated ourselves from England so that our families and associates weren't punished because of their associations with the guilty.

Additionally, it's a two year appointment. Why don't we seat the guy as he seems qualified, and move on. If we don't like him, we can vote him out in short order.

Bored Now:

All Democrats should be extraordinarily wary of burris' "appointment." If seated, Roland Burris becomes the new face of corruption, both for the media (who won't forget who appointed him) and Republicans (who will make sure no one ever forgets).

Springfield Reader:

Blagojevich is the governor. He hasn't been impeached or, for that matter, indicted. Burris meets the qualifications. Neither is my idea of an ideal public servant, but I don't understand how this appointment violates any law. Everybody knows that Burris will be nothing more than a placeholder; his career ends with this appointment.

Margaret:

I note here that in my community the noise is quite different. Instead of yelling that ‘Blago is a crook and Roland lost all credibility by accepting the appointment’, people are saying ‘it’s a legal appointment and we want him seated’. [...]

The Black community is not monolithic and the opinions about this and any other issue will vary widely as I imagine they do in other communities. However Black people are particularly sensitive to the ‘powers that be’ attempting to change the rules in the middle of the game, because historically that was what happened when Blacks were finally allowed to play in the game.

Anonymous:

Neither the white or black community are monolithic. There are plenty of whites who have no desire to waste 30-50 million on an election. We want to focus the spotlight back on Obama. Burris is adequate for an Illinois Democrat. Let him have it.

Vasyl:

First, I think that White and the Senate should continue to oppose the Burris appointment because it keeps the pressure on the General Assembly to quickly conduct and conclude impeachment proceedings.

Second -- and more important -- Burris is just a bad choice on the merits. I know, it's standard to start every discussion about the appointment with some qualifier stating that "Burris is a fine man." But really, he was a mediocre public servant at best. He shows a poor to non-existent grasp of the issues. And he seems to be living in the political world of Springfield of the early 1980s, not grasping the political realities of national politics in the 21st century.

CB:

[A] tremendous cloud hangs over the Burris appointment. Not only the Blagojevich imprimatur (which is exactly what Democrats do not need), but Burris's own extensive state contracts, his lobbying, his previous opposition to a Blagojevich appointment, and bottom line, as Illinois voters have recognized numerous times, he's not all that impressive. His latest role just confirms him as a "go along to get ahead" fellow, whose highest priority is his own personal advancement.

You can read the entire thread here.

Image used under a Creative Commons license by Flickr user chicagopublicradio.