I think we now understand why Burris didn't turn the appointment down.

Obama must never look back to Illinois politics, lest he turn into a pillar of salt.

Maybe that's how Blago and Burris became friends - they bonded while designing their tombstones down at the monument store. In fact, it explains why Blago can't quit - the marker already says, in addition to "Best. Hair. Ever.", "Most popular two term governor in Illinois history." It would cost too much to change it to "Pretty Darn Corrupt, Even by Illinois Standards, and Brother, That's Saying Something."

The national Democratic leadership better think again if they naively think there's no political price to pay for their apparent conspiratorial attempts to deny Burris, a qualified and untainted man, his rightful seat in the US Senate.

Blago has only been accused, not indicted or charged with any crimes. Until then, Harry Reid, who's never won any fight that I can recall against Republicans, should think long and hard about this one. Blocking Burris to spite Blago is foolish. I say let Burris serve out his term, and in two years the chances are he'll lose in the primary to a more formidable Democrat. If he wins, then he's earned it. However, a contested Burris appointment only leads to, at best, a distraction for the new White House. A very avoidable distraction.

I think Blago has played a very good hand.

  I think Mrs. O. dreaded leaving Chicago and now she must be eager to escape. With her mom in tow she might have a different view of The Land Of Lincoln as it disappears in the rear view mirror.

  "Here is the difference between Dante, Milton, and me. They wrote about hell and never saw the place. I wrote about Chicago after looking the town over for years and years."

  Sandburg

Jhildner - comment of the day ;-)

Here's What I Hope:

I understand that this situation is one of Burris' own making by accepting the appointment, but what I hope doesn't happen it that we and the MSM begin the process of character assassination of a man who while yes, this is a stupid move, has been from what I've read a good and honest public servant (I'm speaking of Burris here).

RE: scrubbyoak's comments

  1.) "Blago has only been accused, not indicted or charged with any crimes." Yeah, and the President Elect, asked him to get the hell out of Dodge. He could have taken leave or explored the options of removing himself from this process. It would not have been an admission of guilt and might have proved he was concerned with more than his own power.

  2.) "I think Blago has played a very good hand." This isn't a game. Both Blago and Burris are Democrats and public servants who benefited from the advantages of their partisan identity & public trust. We demand law officers, doctors, attorneys or airline pilots to voluntary suspend their duties during an investigation.

  Would you be OK if your surgeon was bragging how he refused to take a break while awaiting the final verdict on his stroke? How about a cop who is accused of rape? Should he be patrolling pending the outcome of the investigation?

 There will be some great football and basketball in the next few weeks. The Blago Bowl won't send anyone to the Hall Of Fame and we shouldn't feed their egos.

michael,

what exactly is wrong with Burris being an interim Senator for two years?  What, you don't like him, and why is that? Do you think he bought the appointment?

Okay, so Blago is very stubborn and won't be leaving office anytime soon, are you suggesting the Democrats tie up a valuable Senate seat (in effect hurting themselves) just to teach him a lesson? What's the upside of that move?

I think you and many Democrats are so consumed with punishing Blago, no one has noticed the easy way out: accept the appointment of Burris, which, if there aren't any hidden bombshells, has no downside whatsoever. Then let the good governor deal with whatever fate awaits him with the Feds.

If Blago, say, commuted the death sentence of a convicted felon today, would anybody object, and wouldn't it stand legally? So why the objection to his appointment of a fine man? It's done, let's move on. And btw, has it ever crossed your mind that Blago could be innocent of a *crime*, or perhaps not found guilty by a jury? That is if it *ever* goes to trial.

lamh31, Burris has made no stupid moves yet. Unless the Democrats want to gamble with an early election, he'll be seating in the US Senate come next month. He's clean, humble, and a good public servant with nothing to be ashamed of. Why should he turn down a good job just because Harry Reid and his bumbling Senate mates are mad at Blago?  I wish he (Reid) had shown half this resolve against Bush and Cheney.

Scrubby,

Burris is a humble public servant?  Did you read the post?  Or for that matter, watch the Press Conference, where Blago and Bobby Rush tried to turn this into a racial kurfuffle?  The appointment's a joke, and Burris is a perpetual also-ran (never could reach the big office, be it Senator, Governor, or Chicago Mayor) who served OK in smaller statewide office, mostly going along to get along, and so he bought in for a sham appointment so he could finally get the brass ring.  The Senate should seat him why exactly?  How do we know he isn't on the wiretaps somewhere?  The appointment, whomever it is, is suspect because of who it comes from, and what we've already known about the circumstances.  

Meanwhile, the post cleared up a great deal for me.  And here I thought Burris's great legacy was accidentally shooting himself in the thigh, proving once and for all, that sweatpants do make a bad holster.

As for Reid "not showing enough spine" against Bush and Cheney, he did a good job staring them down as Minority Leader, stopping Social Security privatization and criticizing him on Iraq.  However, with a 51-49 majority, it's nearly impossible, even if LBJ's your Majority Leader, to actually pass things to limit the 49's President, especially when 51's a Lieberman, 50's recovering from a stroke, 46-49 are running for President, and therefore never home, and in the last 2 years of a term limited Presidency everyone's focused on the coming election, and so there's much less will to limit the incumbent when you can focus on replacing him, and making bigger changes that way.  Let's see how he does with 59-41 before writing him off, shall we?

  scrubbyoak asks, "what exactly is wrong with Burris being an interim Senator for two years?"

Consider my analogy to suspending a physician, pilot or law officer who us being investigated for a serious violation of official conduct. Imagine a surgeon had been arrested for terminating the lives of his patient..one of those angel of mercy dudes. The state provided wire taps and his colleges and others came forward with anecdotal evidence confirm a pattern of conduct. He had been asked to resign but denied the charges and has been showing up at the hospital, "I'm innocent, let me do my job!" he says.

  Now, you arrive at the the hospital at 3AM with a relative who blinked out. The nurses and techs confirm that things appear bleak and by dawn you should expect the worst. In marches the man the papers have name Dr. Decider. No, he did not recommend you pull the plug. But he will be back in a few minutes with "a plan". Do you:

      1.) Ignore the charges against the Dr. and accept his advice when he returns?

           2.) Demand another physician consult you?

  What "exactly is wrong with" (your words) rejecting any judgment, conclusion or advice of this physician? Your relative is alive, the scary doctor did not send him to the morgue.

  So, what is wrong with going with the plan of this Dr.? When he walks through the door do you have any reason to demand another doctor treat your relative? Is any advice from Dr. Decider that doesn't include terminating the life of your relative OK with you? It's you call!

"The Senate should seat him why exactly? "

Because: (1) he was legally  (and constitutionally) appointed. (2) There's no  -- not even a hint of -- corruption anywhere on his resume. (3) It's  an interim appointment that saves time, money, and countless unforeseeable  political headaches that comes with the inevitable Democratic infighting if he's blocked. More formidable Democratic candidate(s) could then be lined up for 2010 primary.

"How do we know he isn't on the wiretaps somewhere? "

Please! How do you know that your choice for the seat is not on the wiretaps somewhere?

"Did you read the post?  Or for that matter, watch the Press Conference, where Blago and Bobby Rush tried to turn this into a racial kurfuffle?"

Yes, I did. Besides this inane attempt of the post to character-assassinate Burris, what evidence do you have to tar him with hubris and arrogance? And, Burris has a long and immaculate public record, nowhere in it do one find any hint of racial politics. He's no Bobby Rush, neither is he Blago.

"...and Burris is a perpetual also-ran (never could reach the big office, be it Senator, Governor, or Chicago Mayor) who served OK in smaller statewide office,.."

I see you are unimpressed by his resume, but that's no disqualification.

All I'm saying, crock, is there's no evident harm in seating Burris. The alternative could be a political minefield. Happy new year.

michael, your analogy is not apt in this case. That's a life and death situation that involves a homicidal doctor. This, however, is politics with no life at stake. Not even the US Senate seat in question, unless of course the Democrats in their fit of rage, call Blago's bluff thereby leaving open the chance of a special election that the Republicans could win.

You've not -- and no one has -- given the downside of Burris being in the Senate. Everybody keeps skirting around that question because there's no downside, no?

  scrubbyoak  wrote, "All I'm saying, crock, is there's no evident harm in seating Burris." Barack Obama is on the record for asking Blago to resign, the preferred candidates from the Obama list have withdrawn their names and the Senate telegraphed they will ignore Blago's choice.

  Sure, evidence that Burris paid to play would be more harmful but everyone who has a stake in this decision has concluded that Blago is sufficiently tainted. I agree with everyone who has chosen to chose isolation rather than risk contamination.

  At best, Burris may be a pawn in Blago's hope for a plea, an innocent tool of Blago's to distract or the best of candidate who remained after Barack's choices withdrew. If this were the standard NASA used I'd prefer they scrubbed a flight rather than fill a seat on a shuttle mission using a standard of 'no evident harm'.

  At worst, Illinois may be stuck with a Democratic Party defending this decision in two years as the GOP will demand any candidate with a D address this as part of the campaign.

Barack Obama & most people holding office decided any choice of Blago should be ignored if only to draw a line and limit the damage. Blago is Typhoid Mary and his ability to infect isn't limited by his ability to survive.

  If you are bitten by an animal I hope you demand it is isolated pending proof it is rabid. It is your choice to decline inoculations but if you are lucky to survive don't expect to be called a hero. If only the foolishness of Blago and Burris could be limited to them and cease in a few months. Sorry, I think the GOP has something they'd love to apply in two years...

"If only the foolishness of Blago and Burris could be limited to them and cease in a few months. Sorry, I think the GOP has something they'd love to apply in two years..."

michael, again, Burris has done nothing wrong, and even if the "taint"of this appointment lingers for two years, then he would deservedly lose to another presumably clean Democrat in the primary race. Why are you afraid of the GOP's threat of "something they'd love to apply in two years"? They did the same with Gore in 2000, and he foolishly abandoned the idea of using Bill Clinton for his campaign, and lost.

Illinois voters are not idiots and I doubt they would punish Democrats for the sins of Blago, or the "foolishness" of Burris. Given what has transpired so far and what could transpire consequently if  Burris puts up a tough fight, I'd say an *interim*  Senate seat for him is our best option. I stand to be proven wrong however.

scrubbyoak, "Illinois voters are not idiots and I doubt they would punish Democrats for the sins of Blago, or the "foolishness" of Burris."

Yeah, Rush won't bring this up...ever...

Show me where the opposition doesn't relish running against any perceived legacy or association where the mere assertion allows them to avoid discussing their plan.

I assume you have a pristine record but would discourage you from using a mobster, child molester or a Detroit Lions Coach as a reference on your resume. You may think it was cowardly for Obama to shun Wright but people are usually faster and looser with punishing OK people, when they can and when they benefit. Barack didn't pal around with terrorists but good he didn't drag Ayers out on the trail to show he wasn't a scary guy.

Idiots or not, people do line up along tribal lines and scape goating, guilt by association and innuendo are tactics which offer utility where you work as well as state politics.

Few people or organizations find they are more popular or respected in proportion to the number of perceived slugs in their life.

Try forming a party of great and upstanding people who can't avoid swimming in a circle of crooks and thieves. Then tell the opposition you'll only discuss your good deeds and any reference to your crowd is out of bounds...

Alright, fair enough, michael. I acknowledge that the situation is a mess, but caving in and reacting based on a presumed potential GOP attack line in two years is exactly the kind of defensive political move that has bedeviled the Democrats for the last generation.

A drawn-out fight against Burris is fraught with danger. Yeah, I wish he wasn't appointed by Blago, but it's done and we shouldn't throw the baby out with the soiled bath water. I do not have the confidence in the Senate leadership's ability to manage the situation, and if we are not careful and insist on blocking Burris, things can easily get worse. We'll find out soon enough.  

Scrubby,

I find it most amusing that at the same time you are urging more fight you want Senate Democrats to roll over because you don't think they can win.  As for your first three responses:

1)   He was appointed by a sitting governor who faces imminent impeachment for attempting to sell that appointment, something already caught on federal wiretaps.  Moreover, the Senate has the Constitutional prerogative to be "judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members." The Senate in the past refused to sit a member from a disputed election, and surely would vote to not sit the winner of an election with broad hints of corruption.  Those broad hints are found here as well.

2) The wiretapped evidence, criminal complaint, and imminent impeachment of the Governor provides probable cause for the Senate to be circumspect in accepting any appointment by the Governor, no matter who he picks. Moreover, we do not know whether Mr. Burris may in fact be implicated in that corruption.  He may well be on the wiretaps, or have some other deal with the governor.  We do not know, but we also have reason to be highly suspicious of any appointee.

3) How does this save time and money?  Seating him is a political minefield.  It gives Republicans a way to make Blagojevich a national issue by sitting his corruption squarely in Congress.  And what Democratic infighting?  It seems the Civil War lines up, Entire Democratic Party vs. Blago, Burris and Rush.  That's infighting the way the 1936 Election was a squeaker.  Moreover, Burris would want to hold the seat, and it already appears he wouldn't be above stirring racial discord to hold on to it, which would be very, very dangerous for Democratic chances to hold the seat.  Seating him would be a disaster.  

As to the rest of your claims:  

Burris, like it or not, is fully posessed of hubris and arrogance.  He ran in 1984 for the Senate, lost. He ran for Mayor of Chicago vs. Richard Daley (now that's hubris right there), and lost.  He ran for Governor of Illinois, three times, and never made it out of the primary. The last two runs, he'd been out of office for four and eight years respectively. That's what we define as a perpetual candidate, who can't get the message the voters don't want him.  Moreover, look at the monument.  Is that not an ego trip?  Also, what kind of person named all their kids after himself.  That's George Foreman territory.

"Nowhere do you find any hint of racial politics"

query.nytimes.com/.../fullpage.html

"The race issue also surfaced last month when a television station showed a tape of Mr. Burris's referring to his opponents as ''nonqualified white boys'' while speaking to an enthusiastic mostly black audience."

No hint of racial politics, indeed.

In summation, not sitting Burris isn't sitting in a hole because the GOP might (will) make an issue of it in two years.  It's not sitting him because it's the right thing to do, politically and ethically.  It's a corrupt appointment because the man making the appointment is corrupt, and the appointment has been part of that corruption.  It avoids making an unforced error and giving Republicans an easy issue, and helps keep DC Democrats and the Democratic brand seperate from Blago's rampant corruption, which is already a national punchline.  Keep Blagojevich out of the Senate, wait til he's impeached and have Quinn fill it then.  

Right on Scrubby!

Scrubby makes many good points, although I'm becoming less convinced that his/her defense of Burris's personality is one of them.  I always remembered him as a nice, decent fellow.  As the self-inflicted spotlight shines on him today, I'm becoming more persuaded by Tribune columnist Eric Zorn's verdict, which is that he's a "disagreeable mediocrity."  I think that was his phrase.  

Anyway, I find two other points along Scrubby's line of thinking to be pretty compelling:  One, there is no real legal justification for denying Burris the seat.  I sort of have this old-fashioned, perhaps unpragmatic notion that we should not lightly break the law, even if it's application in a particular instance is annoying.  More on that in a second.  Two, is it wrong to want another Democratic, pro-Obama vote in the Senate during these important couple of years?

As for point one, my understanding is that the Senate probably has the authority to conisder, in deciding whether to seat a Senator, the *legality* of the appointment, in addition to the would-be Senator's constitutional qualifications.  I don't think that the fact that the appointor has been accused of planning (rather implausibly) to try to sell the Senate seat to others -- not Burris, who everyone knows was never under any serious consideration for the seat before -- is sufficient ground to find the appointment of Burris illegal.  Now, the Senate can make a game of it.  They can pretend that they doubt the legality of Burris's appointment and delay seating Burris as they ostensibly investigate same.  I find that icky as a general matter -- that is, taking advantage of procedural delay as a way to sidestep the substantive law.  The Senate could legitimately say, given the tapes, that they need to look into *Burris's* appointment before they seat him, to make sure that he didn't bribe Blagojevich, but we know that they've already made up their minds and that such an investigation would be a mere stalling tactic.  Nobody thinks Burris accepted a solicitation of a bribe.  For one thing, I don't think Burris has anything to bribe Blagojevich with.  For another, Blagojevich's appointment is no longer "golden."  Quite the other thing.  There are hardly any takers.  Accepting the appointment is basically doing Balgojevich a favor, not the other way around.

What the Senate may be within its rights to do today is deny Burris the seat because Sec. of State Jesse White -- a black Democrat, by the way -- has refused to certify the appointment.  Now, what *he's* doing is probably unlawful too, but Burris has to get that resolved in court, and the Senate can use that as an excuse in the maybe lengthy interim.  (Harry Reid has already literally sent White a thank you note.)  Of course, they could also take advantage of the delay surrounding Burris's eventual court challenge to the Senate's refusal to seat him, assuming he gets his paperwork in order, but that would be without a very good legal excuse.  Anyway, if we accept that the Senate is the judge of the legality of the appointment, we should also accept that they can see that White's refusal to sign a piece of paper is illegal and seat him anyway.  Suppose New York's secretary of state simply refused to certify an appointment of Caroline Kennedy because he just didn't like her.  The Senate would lawfully seat her anyway.

Some are now operating under the assumption that all the Senate has to do is wait out impeachment and removal, and that they would then be free to accept Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn's appointment, rescinding Blagojevich's appointment.  But Burris would have something to say about that.  Blagojevich will have already appointed him, and he will rightly argue that the seat is his and not a later appointee's -- something we would all agree with under a veil of ignorance.  But, of course, Burris's route to legal vindication may well outlast the remainder of Obama's term.

What I find disconcerting is that everyone in the universe seems rather intent on bending and breaking the law to avoid Burris's taking a seat that, even if we wish it weren't so, is rightfully his, all as they don the stomach-turning mantle of pious propriety.  Now, you could blame Blagojevich or Burris for this awkward state of affairs.  You could also blame the dysfunctional Illinois General Assembly, which is taking its sweet time on impeachment and which could have taken away the appointment power a long time ago -- by requiring a special election, or appointing a panel to appoint, or whatever.

There is a phrase, "thinking like a lawyer," that is used to mean many things -- some unflattering, some less so.  But one example of thinking like a lawyer is thinking seriously about rules, and thinking about rules means thinking about what following them, and breaking them, means next time, and the time after that.  The fact is that most folks would probably go along with a little Illinois coup if they could, but we thankfully take the law more seriously than that, and the law does not depend exclusively on the courts' sometimes inadequate enforcement power for its observance, particlarly by government officials sworn to uphold it.