This Blago-Burris thing is starting to piss me off

Senate Democrats are throwing a hissy fit over Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's appointment of Roland Burris to fill President-Elect Barack Obama's Senate seat.  To some extent this is understandable.  After all, Harry Reid said that the Senate wouldn't seat anyone the corrupt Blago appointed, then that darn Blago appointed someone anyway, so obviously this outrage must be opposed and all that.  Well, fine, but why exactly is this an outrage?

Burris isn't an ideal candidate by any means, but he isn't remotely outrageous, as everyone who's outraged by his appointment will earnestly assure you.  No, the problem isn't with Burris, say Senate Democrats, but with the process that resulted in his appointment.  This sounds like a good point until you think about it, but let me suggest that the corrupt process that preceded Burris's appointment virtually assures that Blago's selection of Burris is as pure as can be.

Recall that Burris wasn't anywhere in the mix when Blago was shopping the seat, and his name is among the few that isn't somehow referenced in Patrick Fitzgerald's 77-page complaint.  More importantly, Blago didn't appoint Burris until after he started crafting his criminal defense.  The appointment has to be seen in the context of Blago's inevitable defense:

How can I be guilty of trying to sell the Senate seat when, in fact, I gave it away to a clean politician for nothing?  All of that talk about quid pro quo was merely that -- talk.  And obviously that talk amounted to nothing, because at the end of the day I appointed Sen. Exhibit A.

That this will obviously form part of Blago's defense compels the conclusion that his appointment of Burris is clean.  It's intended as a get-out-of-jail-free card, at least on that count of Fitzgerald's complaint.

So, where does that leave the hissy fit?  Burris isn't dirty, and neither is his appointment.  Democrats could probably do better, and maybe they ultimately will, but in the meantime, with Republicans already threatening filibusters, why exactly would Harry Reid prefer to ring in the new Congress with one fewer Democrat than he might have?  Bear in mind that he'll already be a man down because Republicans will fight tooth and nail to keep Al Franken out until Norm Coleman exhausts his rapidly dwindling options in Minnesota.  This will reduce the Democratic caucus from 59 to 57, and Joe Lieberman is one of the 57.

This isn't an idle point, because a massive stimulus bill is supposed to be headed for Barack Obama's desk within a week or so after he's inaugurated, but neanderthal Southern Republicans (along with their Blue Dog pals in the Democratic caucus) are already affecting to be alarmed at the deficit spending that will require.  This, of course, is preposterous -- these are the same losers who voted for every one of George Bush's tax cuts and every bill to fund the war in Iraq, so it's a little late to start worrying about the national debt that doubled for no reason under George Bush.  But facts never impede sanctimonious hypocrites, and as I've noted before, ideological Southern conservatives are just dying to drive us off a cliff.

At some point it would be nice if the Democratic leadership would pull its collective head out of its collective ass and start governing.  Thanks ever so much for that.

Comments

[Larry Smith]

Burris is an idiot. He really is a buffoon and Bobby Rush is his pathetic race baiting wingman.

http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/

Thursday, January 01, 2009
Democratic circus deserves Burris

Roland Burris is a disagreeable mediocrity as a politician.

Voters have rightly rejected him numerous times in his bids for higher office—governor, U.S. senator, mayor of Chicago—because he's at least six parts ego to one part performance, a charmless, presumptuous irritant on the stump and at the debate lectern.

And they will reject him again, assuming, as I do, that his appointment to the U.S. Senate this week sticks and that he runs as an incumbent when the seat is open again in 2010.

Republicans will take over the seat recently occupied by almost-President Barack Obama.

Blame (or credit) Gov. Rod Blagojevich all you want.

It was Blago's job under the law to name Obama's successor, after all. And it was his clumsy alleged criminality that left him in a position where picking Burris—who was such a has-been that his name almost never came up in discussions about who would get the senatorial nod—was the best "gotcha!" card in his deck. (For one particular beef I have with Burris, see here)

But Democratic leaders—namely Speaker of the House and party chair Michael Madigan—deserve a big share of the responsibility.

Blagojevich was obviously inept and ethically challenged in 2006 when he ran for re-election against a credible primary challenger. Yet Madigan co-chaired his campaign.

Then, as Blagojevich's confrontational, autocratic style caused his popularity numbers to plummet and nearly paralyzed the legislative process into the late summer, Democrats harrumphed and thundered in protest, but didn't stir themselves to begin a formal inquiry into impeachment.

They also failed to try to amend the state law that gives the governor sole authority and discretion in the appointment of replacement U.S. senators.

After all, it's not like this vacancy resulted from a fatal car crash or heart attack. Obama was the presidential front-runner since early January in most polls.

And it's not like the succession law was obscure. I started writing about it, quoting chapter and verse, back in February, and numerous commentators whiled away idle hours over the summer analyzing Blagojevich's options.

Given all that warning, the legislature could have tried to amend the law to give the choice of a replacement senator to voters, to the caucus of the outgoing senator's party or to a bipartisan panel that included the governor.

But no.

Madigan and the Democrats waited to begin their impeachment inquiry until six days after federal agents arrested Blagojevich on corruption charges early last month. And they're still dithering about when and whether to try to call for a special election.

Why, given all this warning, didn't they act early enough to block this looming political and perhaps constitutional crisis that's creating an ugly rift in their party?

The cynic in me imagines devious plots involving intentions to advance the career of Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan, the speaker's daughter, by allowing a weakened Blagojevich to limp to the end of his term.

The realist in me attributes it to indecisiveness and inertia.

Either way, with the millstone of the uninspiring Roland Burris, the Democrats are getting no more than they deserve.

[Rockfish]

Fair points about Blago, Burris, Rush, and Madigan, Larry, but we go to Congress with the Illinois we have, not the Illinois we might wish or want to have.

Sincerely,

Not Donald Rumsfeld

[Woodburn]

Isn't it at least 10,000 spoonfulls of irony that George Bush has been able to make boucoup lifetime appointments to the federal district and appellate courts in the last 12 months while the Democrat governors of New York and Illinois are meanwhile stumbling through the politics of filling two Senate seats to fill out the few remaining years in Hillary and Barack's terms.

Faithfully,
Not Alanis Morissette

[Woodburn]

Harry Reid was fast making himself a witness in Blago's case this morning on Meet The Press. By telling Blagoyevich who was and wasn't acceptable as interim appointments (probably on tape), he's become relevant to the prosecution and defense. What a mess. Reid is getting outfoxed and starting to stumble.

[Larry Smith]

Reid is a buffoon.

Burris is an idiot who is an egomaniac. He'll likely get seated and then hopefully lose in 2010