Blago Appoints Burress
Wow. Despite requests from essentially everybody to avoid appointing a senator to fill Barack Obama’s senate seat, Ron Blagojevic has decided to tap Illinois Attorney-General Roland Burris to the seat. Back in 2002, Burris ran against Blagojevic in the primary with Obama’s support. The Senate Democrats aren’t happy:
The Democratic leaders of the Senate repeated that view on Tuesday, issuing a statement saying it was “truly regrettable that despite requests from all 50 Democratic Senators and public officials throughout Illinois, Governor Blagojevich would take the imprudent step of appointing someone to the United States Senate who would serve under a shadow and be plagued by questions of impropriety.”
The statement continued, “We say this without prejudice toward Roland Burris’s ability, and we respect his years of public service. But this is not about Mr. Burris; it is about the integrity of a governor accused of attempting to sell this United States Senate seat. Under these circumstances, anyone appointed by Gov. Blagojevich cannot be an effective representative of the people of Illinois and, as we have said, will not be seated by the Democratic Caucus.”
The leaders concluded by saying the appointment was “unfair to Mr. Burris, it is unfair to the people of Illinois and it will ultimately not stand.” They called on the governor once again to resign.
What a weird development. Part of the shame of it is that Burris seems like a perfectly well-qualified choice, but the circumstances put him under an unavoidable cloud of suspicion.
79 Responses to “Blago Appoints Burress”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
December 30th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
if only the title were correct…
plaxico burress would have been a much more interesting choice for senator
December 30th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
I guess I am not that surprised by this or by anything that Blago has done since this whole thing broke. The one and only thing he has going for him is the fact that he is still officially the Governor. I suspect he knows that, in all likelihood, his political career, and indeed the prospect of almost any respectable career that would allow him to continue or improve upon his accustomed lifestyle, is just a fanciful dream at this point. The worst part of his life begins as soon as he gives up being Governor and as part of this, he needs to pretend as if nothing has changed. I feel no sympathy for him but his actions also make sense from the perspective of a basic survival instinct.
December 30th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
I don’t think a guy who shot himself in the leg is an appropriate choice.
December 30th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Will the Democrats reject a legally appointed African-American? Nice job by Blago of calling Harry Reid’s bluff. Bring on the lawyers…
December 30th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Damn it, two other people got to the Plaxico joke before I could.
December 30th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
I don’t see what grounds the Democrats have for refusing to seat Burriss. Blagojevich is the Governor of Illinois. He has the right to appoint a Senator in the event of a vacancy. There is a vacancy due to Obama’s resignation. There is no evidence that Burriss has committed any crimes, and apparently it is not at all clear that the Senate has the right not to seat appointed senators.
Obviously, this is a less than ideal situation, but it seems to me that the least bad course would be to seat Burriss.
December 30th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Illinois deserves 2 Senators, and the Democratic Party will need as many votes as possible in the Senate, as soon as possible. So as long as he didn’t promise anything to the governor, let this man get the job.
And it would have been nice for Reid to have shown the same high moral standards when it came to torture, FISA or Lieberman.
December 30th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
and apparently it is not at all clear that the Senate has the right not to seat appointed senators.
I have seen that there is some disagreement over whether or not the Senate can indeed simply refuse to sit a Senator but that seems like mostly a trivial technicality to me. Clearly the Senate can act to depose one of its Senators when it feels it is necessary. Even if there is some constitutional limitation on their rejecting a Senator before they are seated, that really only means that they will simply vote him out on the first day of the new session.
As to whether rejecting Burriss is for the best, I do think there is some value in separating themselves from Blago. Whether that outweighs the value of having the seat filled is a pretty close question but I would side with Reid on this one.
December 30th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Fortunately, the President Elect isn’t under a cloud of suspicion because the only close friend and colleague that Blago and Obama had in common was Tony Rezko.
December 30th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
That the Senate cannot control who is elected (or appointed) to the Senate is actually a rather important principle of constitutional law. If the Senate could refuse to seat someone simply because they don’t like him, or don’t like who elected or appointed him, then the Senate would have the power to become a self-sustaining, self-selecting oligarchy. For that reason, they do not have the power to refuse to seat members, unless they were not validly chosen, or do not meet the minimum qualifications established in the constitution. They can expel a member by a 2/3 vote — but why would they do that to Burris? None of this is his fault. (Also, note that Reid’s statement says Burris won’t be seated in the Democratic Caucus, which is a political party meeting, not an official branch of the government. That’s different from saying he will be rejected from taking a seat in the Senate itself.
December 30th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Tony Rezko, Tony Rezko…why does that name sound familiar, Steve?
Oh, I know! Tony Rezko is the guy who’s been singing like a bird to Patrick Fitzgerald, and hasn’t implicated Obama in anything.
December 30th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Apparently it’s just me, but this seems like a wise move on Blago’s part. The logic seems pretty obvious to me; Congress takes session next week, and Blago is asserting that the people of Illinois deserve full representation. If anyone pushes back, he’ll accuse them of putting him (Blago) above the interests of the people and try to play the investigation against him as a cartoonish political vendetta. To that end, it makes a lot of sense that he picks someone against whom its hard to build a Blago-related argument other than a general declaration that no one Blago appoints will be acceptable, which feeds into the narrative he wants to weave.
Will it work? Probably not, but it’s about the best play Blago could have made as he stares down near certain impeachment.
December 30th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
The senate should just seat the guy if at all possible. If they find wrong-doing on the part of Burris at some later date (which I doubt they will) they can always eject him at that time. Blago will either be convicted or not. Best to lock in a Democrat as soon as possible for the senate seat, even if it’s not under the best of circumstances.
December 30th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Of course, Burris couls have helped to diffuse the situation by refusing the seat if he was appointed to it by Blago.
December 30th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
The problem is that his accepting the appointment makes it reasonable to wonder whether he did promise something. I don’t understand why Burris is playing along with Blagojevich’s game, but it doesn’t make him look good.
December 30th, 2008 at 4:17 pm
I don’t see how this Blago Countergambit (that name has a nice ring to it, doesn’t it?) does Blago much good, but it’s hard to see how Reid can block it. As TKD said, the Senate can’t block someone’s appointment just because they don’t like him, and Blago is still empowered to appoint Obama’s replacement. And since it takes a 2/3 vote to expel someone from the Senate, Reid would need at least 8 GOP votes, which he probably wouldn’t get.
So Reid may as well just go along with the deal. And Blago? I think his thought must be that if he’s going to go down, he might as well have some fun on the ride.
December 30th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Quite frankly, I can see where Blago is coming from. He is getting kicked to the curb by the Democrat establishment, and he probably hates their bones. This is his last act of revenge before going down. That some idiot like Caroline Kennedy could be a viable candidate for Senate while he (the hard-scrabbler he is) is getting kicked in the balls probably also fueled his (twisted) sense of injustice and hardened his resolve to to f*ck with the Democrats.
Look, this guy essentially has no golden parachute. If it had been a Republican governor, some guy will discreetly give him a big envelope of cash or some spot on some random do-nothing group. Problem is, he isn’t a Republican, so he’s screwed for good. If I were the guy I would do the same; I mean, what is there to lose? Might as well get some catharsis while at it.
December 30th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Seeing U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush defend the appointment at the press conference and state he will personally go to Dick Durbin to plead for Burris tells me this will be difficult to block. Rush will also go to the Congressional Black Caucus to seek support for Burris. Forget the governor for the moment and think about the possibility of elected Senators refusing to seat a Black Senate appointee whose personal character is above reproach. Better now to stay quiet and plan the next move to welcome Burris and save as much face as possible.
December 30th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
As TKD said, the Senate can’t block someone’s appointment just because they don’t like him, and Blago is still empowered to appoint Obama’s replacement.
I really don’t think the answer to this is entirely clear. I have seen some well reasoned arguments both that they do and that they don’t have such a right. There is even sorta kinda some precedent when in 1974 the Senate forced a new election in New Hampshire because it didn’t think the official results of the first election, which had been twice reversed on recounts, were clear cut enough. In any case, I have a feeling with this incident that we are going to find out through the courts just how we should interpret the Senate’s constitutional right as “the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members.”
December 30th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Article 1, Section 5 of the United States Constitution states in part: Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members,.
I interpret this to mean that the Senate (and the House) are the sole judge of the qualifications of any new member and are under no legal obligation to seat him/her.
December 30th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Not so fast, SLC….
The Supreme Court apparently disagreed in the Adam Clayton Powell case; some legal eagle fill us in please.
December 30th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
That’s right, Powell basically says that the only “qualifications” that the House (in that case, but I don’t see why it wouldn’t apply to the Senate as well) can judge are the qualifications laid out in the Constitution. “Sufficient appearance of independence from slimy governor” is not one of those qualifications. At least, that’s the argument.
December 30th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Glenn, in this case the Senate would be judging the election (appointment), not the qualifications, so it’s different from Powell.
How long would it take for the Supreme Court to rule on the case? Could it be tied up long enough for another resolution to be reached?
December 30th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
TKD’s point about the Democratic Caucus seems an important one. If that’s right, then Reid isn’t actually threatening not to seat Burris - just saying that he won’t give him any committee appointments, etc. This is a serious handicap for a senator, but different from not being seated.
December 30th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Here’s a link to that NH situation in 74 by the way.
December 30th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
KC, that’s assuming that “election” contemplates appointment as well. I’m not sure it does. Judging an election entails determining whether the vote was proper, etc., but an appointment power is unconstrained.
December 30th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Glenn, I’m not sure it does either, but I think an argument can be made that it does, so taking it to court seems like a possibility.
Unfortunately Burris/Blagojevich/Rush are following the Clarence Thomas strategy of painting all opponents as racists.
December 30th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Blago is the governor with the authority to appoint Burris and of course Blago has not been convicted of anything.
Recall please that the Illinois Supreme Court has so far rebuffed all efforts to limit Blago’s constitutional authority.
And Fitzie’s proposed release of some parts of some Blago tapes stinks to high heaven.
Now with Burris the hypocrisy of the Democrats has reached a new high.
Obama earmarked millions for the corporation which employed his wife at over 300K year. So much for our Caesar in waiting.
And the Senate Dems who were perfectly happy to legalize all of Bushit’s criminal activity now are shocked, SHOCKED!, by Blago?
It could be funny if they weren’t so pathetic.
December 30th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Obama calls Blagojevich’s decision to appoint “extremely disappointing”. I doubt Rush’s race baiting went over well with him.
December 30th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Very savvy move by Blago. Burris is not only clean, but universally respected here in IL. He’s also a super-dork, and has always been - Blago picked the absolutely *perfect* guy: someone clean in his own right, who also is uniquely obtuse, as well as just provincial enough so as not to see what’s wrong with accepting the appointment.
I think some of the commentors upthread are right to note that Reid didn’t say he wouldn’t let Burris be a Senator, just that he wouldn’t let him into the caucus. Reid is (and, to be fair, other Senate Dems are) relatively shitty chess player(s), always getting themselves into corners, so this is par for the course. He and the Senate dems would be in a better position had Harry made no comment at all, or said something non-committal. It’s going to be very very hard to not let Burris into the caucus - how ridiculous would that be? Burris has even said he wouldn’t run for re-election. Point, Blago.
December 30th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Unless the Supreme Court has changed its mind since the Powell ruling, the Senate only gets to evaluate whether a new senator was, in fact, chosen — not whether they should have been chosen. That is up to the voters (or in this case, under Illinois law, the governor).
If the Senate attepts to seize the power to choose who shall serve in the Senate, that is a new imperial power grab, and the Court, if necessary, should stop them.
The New Hampshire re-vote (1974 election, held again in 1975) occurred because there were contradictory election returns, so nobody really knew who won the election. That doesn’t apply here, unless they are going to claim that they can’t read Roland Burris’s name on the appointment form.
December 30th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
1) A Senate which was prepared to set Ted Stevens if he won the election — and which kept Jefferson around after all that cash was found in the freezer — has no moral or legal authority to quibble about Burris’s qualifications.
2) And for Reid to piss off the people of Illnois and a sitting Democratic Senator to no purpose is just fucking stupid.
December 30th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
My favorite part of all of this is that Harry Reid is having none of it.
It is still unclear to me why Burris would allow himself to come under such strict scrutiny, letting his reputation be so thoroughly questioned in the wake of Blago’s trail of corruption.
December 30th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
The New Hampshire re-vote (1974 election, held again in 1975) occurred because there were contradictory election returns, so nobody really knew who won the election.
No, I disagree. I don’t think that’s exactly right. In the 1974 contest, after all the recounts, the Governor of New Hampshire certified the Republican as the election winner. The Democrat petitioned the Senate to question the validity of those credentials and the Senate did, presumably legally, exactly that. Now, I agree that the cases are different (election versus appointment) but it was also true in this case that the Governor of the State was not the final arbiter of the validity of that State’s credentialing of its election winner. The Senate decided it was in its power to deny the Governor’s lawful certification. I am by no means suggesting that that definitively establishes the rights of the Senate to intervene in this sort of scenario but I don’t think its a closed question. As I say, I suspect the courts will be clarifying this.
December 30th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
1) I think the courts will allow Burris to be seated. And if Reid doesn’t want Burris in the Democratic Caucus, I’m sure the Republicans will welcome him with open arms.
I can’t believe it — Joe Lieberman gets up on NATIONAL TV at the Republican Convention and endorses John McCain over Democratic nominee Barack Obama — yet Reid lets Jumpin Joe into the Democratic caucus. If you have that big of a fucking tent, then why not Burris?
December 30th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
I’m guessing it’s because at 71, with a lifetime of public service, he wants to go out as a Senator. Unfortunately, right now it looks like he’ll be tainted by Blago. It’s a real shame, because Burris is a good guy (and I’m not just saying that because I went to school with his kids).
December 30th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Kudos to Don Williams, I hadn’t even thought of that–the Senate not only would have seated Ted Stevens, they gave him an effing standing ovation send-off. Senate Dems need to chill, unless they truly know something, um, not in evidence at this time.
December 30th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
yet Reid lets Jumpin Joe into the Democratic caucus. If you have that big of a fucking tent, then why not Burris?
Well, as I am sure you know, the issue isn’t Burris. The issue is the man appointing him and public trust in the process of that appointment. If you are saying you disagree that the public trust is harmed by such an appointment then that seems like a reasonable argument one could make but I cannot see what any of that has to do with the Lieberman situation.
December 30th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
As far as the “corruption” meme goes — well, given its membership , I’m not sure the Democratic Caucus can afford to set the bar all that fucking high.
I have the impression Blago is an asshole — in which case, impeach his ass. But until he’s tried and convicted, he’s Governor of Illnois. And State Governors should not take any shit from the US Senate.
These, after all, are the same fucking whores who sent 4000 US soldiers to their deaths because they were scared to stand up to AIPAC and Haim Saban. Given its recent history, The idea that the US Senate has moral standing to render judgement on anyone is hilarious.
December 30th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
I hadn’t even thought of that–the Senate not only would have seated Ted Stevens, they gave him an effing standing ovation send-off.
Stevens may have been seated but it was also pretty clear that they planned to boot him as soon as possible. The Republicans were already drawing up the papers before the election was finalized. The standing ovation is indefensible on the other hand.
December 30th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
I don’t really give a shit if someone hands Blago a brown bag with $20,000 in it. In the scheme of things , that doesn’t seriously hurt the country.
What hurts the country is George Bush handing the richest motherfuckers on the planet a $2 Trillion tax cut , stealing the money out of the Social Security Trust Fund, and High Integrity Harry Reid not letting out a fucking peep.
I mean, if we’re going to be setting moral standards here, let’s take the fucking gloves off.
December 30th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
December 30th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
What hurts the country is George Bush handing the richest motherfuckers on the planet a $2 Trillion tax cut , stealing the money out of the Social Security Trust Fund, and High Integrity Harry Reid not letting out a fucking peep
That was weird. My comment published as empty the first time. I said that I don’t think its too much to ask to care about both sorts of problems. I also said I think you are very much underestimating the kind of public harm that is caused by the sort of small scale corruption you are describing.
December 30th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
What was questioned in 1974 was the validity of the election returns. Wyman was not seated, but it wasn’t because people didn’t like him; it was because there was a dispute as whether he or Durkin had won the election. Resolving an election dispute is within the proper scope of Senate power.
None of that applies here. There is no election dispute. There is no question that Burris is eligible. There is no question that Blagojevich has the power to appoint. And no question that he did in fact appoint Burris. There are no facts in dispute.
The Senate could only decline to seat him by saying that he wasn’t actually appointed; that Blagojevich lacks the power to appoint; or that Burris is constitutionally ineligible. But it cannot refuse to seat him on the grounds that they want the seat to stay empty, or because they don’t like Blagojevich, etc.
Under the ruling in Powell v. McCormack, Burris must be seated. If it does otherwise, the Senate would be in open defiance of the law — an ironic way for them to show disapproval for Blagojevich.
December 30th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
I don’t understand why there is any opposition to this–the governor being forced to appoint someone clean, qualified, and untainted by the governor’s efforts to sell the seat looks like the ideal solution. Otherwise, the next 6 months get spent with the seat empty, and partisan bickering over the process for putting a successor in place. Meanwhile, even one vote in the Senate may turn out to be crucial . . .
December 30th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Re mort/Glenn
Adam Clayton Powell was the incumbent and had been a member of the House for several years. Burris is not an incumbent Senator. Big difference.
December 30th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Resolving an election dispute is within the proper scope of Senate power.
Yes. I get all that TKD. My point was that according to the State of New Hampshire, there was no dispute. The Governor had certified and credentialed a Senate Election winner. The Senate decided that the Governor’s decision could be overturned. Now I get why that situation is different because they were overturning that decision for the specific reason that they questioned the method by which he came to that decision. The reason in this case is different and maybe that will make the difference if/when the courts rule. But they would not be acting against the Governor’s appointment because they don’t like him. They would be acting against it because, similarly, they question the integrity of the process by which he credentialed a candidate. Now I suspect you may be right and that this is not something the Senate can lawfully do. I am merely saying that it doesn’t strike me as the sort of open and shut case you think it is.
Think about it this way. What if, for instance, we knew that the Governor had sold that Senate seat? From a legal point of view, nothing will have really changed. Blagojevich would still be Governor. His appointment would still be, until it was determined by a court otherwise, legal. Would it be so clear cut in that instance that the Senate was forced to accept this appointment? Perhaps so. Perhaps their only remedy in the constitution would be to boot the appointee after they were seated. I am just not so sure a court would feel that the Senate had no constitutional right in that circumstance, given that they have the right to overturn a legally certified election, to disallow an appointment under such highly questionable circumstances.
December 30th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
..at 71, with a lifetime of public service, [Burris] wants to go out as a Senator. Unfortunately, right now it looks like he’ll be tainted by Blago. It’s a real shame, because Burris is a good guy (and I’m not just saying that because I went to school with his kids).
Yes, Burris absolutely is a good guy, but he’s a dork - a fool to say yes to Blago. His reputation for honesty remains, or ought to remain, intact, but he is still tainted by Blago in the sense that he’s enabling the Governor’s gambit. Good and honest a guy as Burris is, this sort of obtuseness probably has something to do with his never getting any higher office (just my opinion).
December 30th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
I still don’t get this–Blago picks someone who is (thus far) not tainted by corruption, and yet he shouldn’t be seated? Even though he won’t run for election, and is a caretaker in the seat?
Of course the Legislature could have passed a new law in the interim, but they didn’t, thus, the Gov gets to appoint. Should IL have no 2nd senator until Fitz’s case is resolved? That is gonna be a long time from now.
And isn’t Blago “innocent until..”
I don’t really think he is innocent, but we’re entering a scary world if any politician charged by a prosecutor must immediately surrender to the authorities and resign his position.
December 30th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Yes, and whose fault is that? The guy dove head first into a pit of sewage, and now he’s going to complain that people are worried that he might smell? There are quite a few people who want that job and are qualified. Most of them haven’t made the mistake of accepting a tainted appointment from Blagojevich. I hope for Burris’s sake that he really is as squeaky clean as claimed, because every nook and cranny of his life is going to be examined at this point. It really doesn’t sound to me like the best end to a political career.
December 30th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
The Senate is the final judge of elections of its members because the Constitution gives that power to the Senate, and not to the state certifying authority. Therefore no member’s election is final, no matter how many times it is certified, until it has been accepted by the Senate itself.
With regard to the Burris situation, we do not have to wonder what a court would think; we have the Supreme Court’s 8-1 ruling in Powell v. McCormack to tell us what they think. Unless someone is contending they have changed their minds, the ruling is very clear that the only reasons the Congress may decline to seat a member are constitutional ineligibility, or factual issues as to whether they were actually elected.
Therefore, if there were evidence that Blagojevich had in fact sold the seat, it would change nothing with regard to whether the Senate is obliged to seat the appointee. They would. And they would then expel the member, and rightly so.
That’s not the situation here. We appear to have a validly appointed person, who is eligible for the office. Powell is clear that such persons are not to be blocked from seating.
December 30th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
I’m not so sure. Are you saying that if there were clear evidence that a candidate had bought an election, the Senate couldn’t judge that election to be defective? Maybe, but I don’t think the Powell case established anything about that.
December 30th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Are you saying that if there were clear evidence that a candidate had bought an election, the Senate couldn’t judge that election to be defective?
Well I think TKD’s argument is that an appointment is not an election and that the Senate has no Constitutional authority to challenge an appointment, really for any reason. The Senate’s role with respect to an appointment, as opposed to an election, is therefore entirely perfunctory. TKD may very well be correct. Its just that it seems kind of odd.
December 30th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
SLC, the point is the Senators don’t have unfettered discretion; if it’s a legal appointment by the Governor and Burris meets basic qualifications, Reid is blowing smoke. Not so big a difference.
December 30th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
I’m just saying the Powell precedent isn’t relevant because the challenge then was to Powell’s qualifications, while in this case the case could be to Burris’s election, if “election” is interpreted in a broader sense that would include appointment. I don’t think that interpretation is so unreasonable that it can be dismissed out of hand, so I wouldn’t be surprised if the court ended up deciding the question.
December 30th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Are people here really arguing that the DNC wouldn’t lose credibility if Burress becomes the next senator of Illinois?
That’s laughable.
December 31st, 2008 at 7:21 am
Doesn’t anyone have a problem with how Team Obama has mismanaged this mess? Blago and the Illinois State Legislature should have been taking direction from Obama all along, at Obama’s insistence. Admittedly, Blago is weird, but he should have been on a short leash since election day.
December 31st, 2008 at 7:48 am
Last night, Chuck Todd on Rachael Maddows’ MSNBC program stated that what’s really going on here is that Harry Reid will stall and play for time, expecting that the Illinois State Legislature will impeach and remove Blago from office. They will then argue that any appointment he made is null and void. Since it would take 2 years of court fights to resolve the issue, the election in 2010 would occur before such resolution, thus making the issue moot.
December 31st, 2008 at 9:30 am
What leash do you think anyone has on the guy? Blagojevich has nothing to lose at this point and will do what he wants. Blaming Obama for not getting involved in this mess is ridiculous.
December 31st, 2008 at 9:36 am
Re thehova’s comment “Are people here really arguing that the DNC wouldn’t lose credibility if Burress becomes the next senator of Illinois?
That’s laughable.”
—————–
Are people here arguing that Burris would cast a stain on the moral purity of the Democratic Caucus?
That’s REALLY Laughable.
I mean , it’s like a toothless AIDS-ridden crack whore pretending that she is a virginal debutante.
One understands that the fiction is necessary for business reasons but..
December 31st, 2008 at 9:43 am
Blago and the Illinois State Legislature should have been taking direction from Obama all along, at Obama’s insistence. Admittedly, Blago is weird, but he should have been on a short leash since election day.
Hmm. I think this rather misses the point of what makes this situation so unusual and interesting. There are a number of things going on here
First, it was known by most local politicians for some time that Blago was corrupt and likely to be convicted at some point. The trick to dealing with him at all was to do so while keeping your distance from him. Thus it was not really possible or advisable for Obama or anyone else to try to get too involved in the day to day of Blago’s governance. Keeping him on any kind of leash, in other words, was likely to end up badly for the leash holder.
Second, the timing of the situation has screwed with everyone’s best case scenario here. Fitzgerald would have preferred to have waited but he didn’t feel he could wait until after Blago sold the seat. The Illinois State Senate would prefer to impeach but impeachment takes time and evidence a lot of which is tied up in the criminal proceeding. Nothing that the legislature can really do at this point, whatever it is that Obama would like to have happen.
Finally, given the public nature of this whole scenario, which was always unavoidable, Blagojevich is in a position where he has nothing to lose but just enough power to wreak havoc. A person in that situation is not controllable. If it didn’t have such serious consequences, it would almost be amusing to see so many people around the situation try to exert control over the situation while Blago is making it quite clear that until he is convicted or impeached, they are quite powerless to make him do anything he does not want to do.
Ths to say what Obama should have done here ignores that nobody ever had much of a chance to make this go any other way than it did. This was a situation that was going to end badly long before Obama even received the nomination. So no, I do not agree that Team Obama has mismanaged anything here. I would love to hear any ideas on how he, or anyone could have ever done so.
December 31st, 2008 at 9:49 am
What would make the DNC lose credibility is if the Senate is stupid enough to reject a man whose moral record is better than 70 percent of the Democratic Caucus –and thereby infuriates the people of Illnois into electing a Republican.
Last time I checked Burris had not voted to send 4000+ US soldiers to their deaths in an unnecessary war to seize non-existent weapons of mass destruction.
Last time I checked, Burris did not let George Bush run the economy into another Great Depression while dumping $6.3 TRillion of debt onto us.
Last Time I checked Burris had not let George Bush steal $3 Trillion from the Social Security Trust Fund.
Given that a significant faction in the Democratic Caucus has been sucking Haim Saban’s cock for the past 8 years, I don’t think they want to start a finger-pointing exercise. That’s the one thing that could make Governor Blagojevic look like a fucking choir boy in comparison.
If some of you are too stupid to realize where this could head, I assure you the Republicans are not.
December 31st, 2008 at 9:58 am
Hey, by all means give Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly a reason to discuss the high moral standards needed to serve in the Democratic Caucus– if they’re lucky, Harry Reid will be dumb enough to state them.
Then Let Rush and Bill evaluate present Caucus members against those standards. Then let them point out how that Caucus rejected the poor honest black man from Illnois.
December 31st, 2008 at 10:17 am
This doesn’t make any historical sense. The first state to allow direct election of Senators was Oregon in 1907. Are you saying that clause of the Constitution was dormant until then?
December 31st, 2008 at 10:40 am
Re SLC’s comment “Article 1, Section 5 of the United States Constitution states in part: Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members,.
I interpret this to mean that the Senate (and the House) are the sole judge of the qualifications of any new member and are under no legal obligation to seat him/her.”
—————
I think what people are overlooking is that subsequent amendments modified the above power.
Amendment 10 states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Amendment 17: “When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.”
So the Supreme Court decides — and I think the Supreme Court will back Illnois’s rights. If Reid doesn’t like it , he can round up two thirds of the Senate to vote to expel Burris.
December 31st, 2008 at 10:50 am
Even if you think the Senate can block Burris from being seated simply by majority vote– which I think is wrong — note that Reid will still probably fail.
The 40 or so Republicans will be happy to vote for the black man against the evil lily-white Senate Democrats — who are trying to continue the old Southern Democratic tradition of shutting out the only Afro-American to be serving in the Senate. I think they will be able to find 10 or so Democrats to join them –given that black voters are sizable swing voters in some states.
Where this could REALLY bugger the Democratic Party is in local and state races with sizable black districts. IF the Republicans can grab more control of state legislatures, they can control the redistricting after the 2010 Census.
I can just hear Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh rolling with laughter as they report that Reid is digging in his heels over a “stand on moral principle”. Who would ever have expected that?
December 31st, 2008 at 10:55 am
The Republicans have been trying the “Democrats are racist” ploy for a while now, and people haven’t been buying it. It will have even less traction when the GOP is busy making “Barack the Magic Negro” its theme song.
Are black voters more likely to be swayed by Mitch McConnell or by Barack Obama, who is rejecting Bobby Rush’s vile race baiting?
December 31st, 2008 at 11:42 am
Don,
I doubt very seriously that this will play out with the type of racial politics you seem to imagine occurring. I can see this going a lot of ways but I highly doubt that this appointment is going to initiate some sort of argument about race in the Senate. I think this appointment, for good or bad, will always be about how the Senate chooses to deal with Blagojevich and Burris will always be just a bit player in the whole drama.
I would also add that what Limbaugh or O’Reilly have to say about any of this whatever the Senate decides to do is entirely beyond irrelevant. In any case, there rhetoric will not be changed whatever the Senate does.
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:43 am
levitraExcellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 11th, 2009 at 4:26 am
Incredible site!
March 12th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 14th, 2009 at 5:05 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:23 am
I want to say - thank you for this!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:09 am
tramadol
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:06 am
I want to say - thank you for this!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:04 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 5:13 am
Incredible site! viagra