On the Burris Appointment & the Democratic Circus
I’ve been watching the events in Illinois with much amusement. it is a nice respite from nursing our wounds in the aftermath of last month’s election to watch the Democrats attempt to contend with corruption in their own ranks.
They don’t want the man (or woman) filling the president-elect’s Senate seat to be tainted by the scandal swirling around Illinois’s Democratic governor, but want to make sure a Democrat holds that seat. So, they stopping talking about changing Illinios law calling for a special election when it appeared a Republican could win. Yeah, for the Democrats, partisanship reigns supreme. Can you imagine how the media would react if Republicans engaged in such shenanigans?
With Governor Blagojevich tapping a prominent African-American politician for the Obama seat, he has played the race card. Roland Burris is clearly qualified to serve. As Michael Barone puts it, “If Fitzgerald had not arrested Blagojevich and held his December 9 press conference, Blagojevich’s appointment of Burris would have gone unnoticed and would have been almost entirely uncontroversial.” But, with that arrest, in making the appointment, Blagojevich added another ring to the Democrats’ circus.
Barone links us to this witty column where John Kass sums up the whole situation:
Of course, Tuesday’s fiasco [the of the Burris appointment] could have been avoided. Democrats in the state legislature could have stripped Blagojevich of his appointment powers and imposed a special election. Obama also could have demanded it. But as he has done so often in his career, Obama avoided a confrontation and looked the other way.
12 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
The Senate Democrats will placate themselves by seating Al Franken.
Comment by LCRW — January 1, 2009 @ 2:36 pm - January 1, 2009
Democrats would not be facing this dilemma if their party had not decided that power mattered over principles. People knew of Blagojavich’s sleaze back in 2002, but the party rallied around him, the media rallied around him, and he was re-elected handily in 2006. If they had held him to the same standards and scrutiny Republicans are held to, he would have been outta there, and this controversy would have been avoided.
But I still think this is just a warm-up act for the next for years. With trillions of dollars in spending at stake, and a product of the same Chicago machine that gave us Blagojavich in the Oval Office, the corruption is going to be breath-taking. (Although those who rely on the MSM for news will probably not hear about it.)
Comment by V the K — January 1, 2009 @ 4:57 pm - January 1, 2009
Do you realize that Obama has not one, but three corruption scandals hanging over his head before the man has even taken the oath of office? There is the Blagojevich scandal, the Rezko sentencing, and Norman Hsu’s sentencing.
Michael Ramirez, as usual, sums it up beautifully.
Comment by American Elephant — January 1, 2009 @ 6:52 pm - January 1, 2009
You forget, AE, his Commerce Secretary, Bill Richardson was also doing the “pay to play” thing in New Mexico. Google: bill richardson pay to play
Comment by V the K — January 1, 2009 @ 6:58 pm - January 1, 2009
Oh, BTW, This Burris fellow tried to send an innocent man to death row even though he knew the man was innocent, because he thought it would help him politically.
Power over principle, it’s the Democrat way.
Comment by V the K — January 1, 2009 @ 7:54 pm - January 1, 2009
Dan, I think the MSM has covered this mess in Illinois pretty thoroughly and in most cases with critical comments about Illinois Democrats.
I strongly disagree with the one article which argues that President-elect Obama “could have demanded” that the Illinois Legislature strip its Governor of the appointment power.
While Obama certainly has roots in Illinois, once he became President-elect he has obligations to the federal system: Presidents have no business telling a state legislature what to do in such matters as gubernatorial powers.
Comment by Jack Allen — January 2, 2009 @ 12:14 pm - January 2, 2009
Adding to what American Elephant said, there is also a big controversy still hanging over Obama’s head in regards to his eligibility to become president. He still has never presented a Birth Certificate and the Supreme Court is still hearing cases even though the MSM isn’t covering it.
In regards to Burris, this guy is being awfully pushy about taking the Senate position. If it was me, I would have declined and stated it was because of the scandal. Me thinks he protesteth too much – did he already pay for the seat some time ago?
Comment by dsgawrsh — January 2, 2009 @ 6:24 pm - January 2, 2009
I’m just reminded of the old saying.. what is it? “Do not rejoyce in your enemy’s suffering, let G-d take it away.”
Comment by The_Livewire — January 2, 2009 @ 6:50 pm - January 2, 2009
I’m waiting for the Senate Sgt-at-Arms to block Burris’ way into the chamber – sort of like Alabama Gov George Wallace (D) standing at the entry to the University of Alabama to enforce segregation.
Talk about a Kodak moment! I’ll bring the popcorn.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — January 3, 2009 @ 1:11 pm - January 3, 2009
I like the remark at AoSHQ about senate Democrats … since they are now saying they might allow him to attend senate meetings, but not occupy a seat on the floor or vote — are treating him like 3/5ths of a senator.
Comment by V the K — January 3, 2009 @ 2:08 pm - January 3, 2009
#10 – Sounds like it, V.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — January 3, 2009 @ 11:09 pm - January 3, 2009
Looks like Dingy Harry just blinked. Burris will get seated.
Hypocrisy, thy name is the Democrat Party.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — January 7, 2009 @ 3:55 pm - January 7, 2009