Burris: Why Not Withhold Committee Assignments?
There’s been a lot of discussion about whether or not the Senate has the ability to refuse to seat Roland Burris–the guy Rod Blagojevich appointed to replace Obama. I see some merit on both sides, but above all, I see an awfully weird time to purport to discipline and rule of law.
That said, perhaps there is a reasonable solution which is entirely in line with other moves the Senate has made of late: seating Burris, but refusing to give him any committee assignments in the Senate, at least pending some resolution of Blagojevich’s affairs.
When long-serving Toobz Stevens was indicted, the Republicans took away his committee assignments. When Larry Craig got caught being gay, the Republicans took away his committee assignments. (Somehow, David Vitter’s solicitation of a prostitute didn’t require he lose his committee assignments.)
While, in both cases, the Senate chose not to move to expel the Senators, pulling committee assignments was a way pull the perks of the seat in an attempt to convince the Senator to resign. While both retained a vote, they lost any real influence in the Senate.
Burris would, of course, have a means to get committee assignments: he could caucus with the Republicans, if they would have him. Which would make it a lot harder for Burris to run as an incumbent Democrat in 2010. Not necessarily a bad thing, IMO.
Maybe a week hanging out with the family has made me all Solomonic, but withholding all committee assignments from Burris seems like a sound way to discourage him from sticking around with a tainted–but (by all appearances) legally sound appointment.
EW, there has indeed been a ton of discussion about Blago, and now it continues with a soap-opera-like fixation with the Burris appointment. Here’s a question for you. Why?
Why the hell has this temporary appointment, by all accounts completely legal, driven so much discussion? I can understand why CNN covers everything-Blago-all-the-time. They’re an inch deep and a mile wide. They’re shallow, vapid, useless talkers who have so little to do with actual journalism it’s pathetic.
But why is this story so important to you? What difference does it make in the american political landscape? I just don’t get it.
I’m having some problem with all of this. Sure Blagojevich is being childish trying to do as much damage as he falls…sure Burris may be using this for his own purposes (Clarence Page today said he always wanted the Senate in the worst way)..BUT it’s not like he is a Lieberman… his votes will be solid, he has to run for the office in 2 years… sounds like a better bet than Lieberman to me.
Baubles, beads and bangles, why do we have to keep getting hung up about the Illinois Governor- his goose is cooked. The law is ready. Let’s encourage our senators to get back to business. And by the way, they gave Bush/Cheney “respect”, approved their appointments, and everyone knew they should have been indicted. The governor of Illinois deserves at least the same It’s not like he has declared a criminal war, outed a secret agent, created a third world city in New Orleans, poisoned our rivers…
Let’s get our eyes back on the ball- Don’t sweat the small stuff
Long as you don’t go setting craptastic precedent; I am fine with it. This would steer clear of that and would be fine. Question – do you withhold privileges the entire two year period? Is there any way he ever gets treated like a normal member, or just a permanent leper?
bmaz, what does it matter, one way or the other? Are you truly afraid Burris will corrupt the godlike purity of the senate?
I don’t think Burris took the seat with the intent of being the best damn senator that the state of Illinois ever had. I think he accepted it because it’s a pretty good paycheck and likely nobody expects him to do anything in return.
EW- If I understood correctly, CNN reported a couple of hours ago that Burris will not be assigned an office or budget for staff. CNN suggesting that it seems a delaying tactic to get past the govenor’s impeachment so there can be a new appointment
So the Senate has finally found an executive branch it can beat up on. How brave. How noble. How principled.
Which is sort of my point.
Jane’s been hitting this hard–in a necessary way. Why not seat Burris if they’ll retain Joementum? Why applaud Toobz but not seat Burris?
This is all about the incumbency racket and it stinks–though Burris stinks too.
bmaz
If Blago’s replacement appoints him, he gets committee assignments.
CO and Palli
I’m mostly following this for Blago, not Burris. But I do think Burris 1) is a fascinating play in Blago’s game, and 2) must be turned into an object lesson for the hypocrisy of the Senate.
As for the Blago stuff, I intend to follow it at least until journalists stop reporting on it without reading the filings.
How many of those object lessons do we need before we get it? I was in the way of thinking that particular lesson had been learned.
Blago’s successor “appointing” Burris would certainly give the stamp of credibility I suppose. The problem with that though is that Blago’s successor may not have that power. If Burris gets certified, and it looks likely that the Illinois Supreme Court will so order quickly, why is he not the Senator from Illinois at that point? He will have been duly appointed; I don’t think the senate leadership gets to just bar him until they get a different governor and appointee they like better. Once Burris is certified, I think he has a legal claim to the seat.
Casual Observer – what the world are you talking about? Who do you think started, or at least was in on the starting of, the “seat Burris and move along fight” yesterday?
I’m sorry Bmaz–to which comment are you referring?
4 above.
Bmaz, what the hell difference does it make if he is on a committee or not. Honestly. What possible difference could it make in the course of human events in the next 2 years. I’d really like to know.
The point is that it’ll make a difference to Burris.
It’s one thing to play Senate on TV. It’s another thing to PLAY Senate. ANd unless he’s on a committee or three, he’s basically playing dress up. Now, maybe that’s all he wants. But I doubt it–he wants power, which comes iwth Committee appointments.
And, again, a committee assignment is somehting you get for either being Joementum or playing nice with a party. Burris is not playing nice with the party.
ew and bmaz,
being castigated or banned by this senate might well be worn as a badge of honor. I would add that even corrupt Illinois governors can do good things. At least once in awhile. Personally, I have more respect for George Ryan than I do for Harry Reid. At least Ryan has achieved one good thing, during his life in public service.
I agree with you again. Jeez will ya just accept that? He heh.
Not sure if it does make a difference; that is why I was asking what the parameters of the ban were. My main gripe in all this is that, so far, I see the legalities playing out in a fashion such that he ought to be seated. I can live with committee bans because that is indeed a political act and not a legal one, thus it is at least legal. The question I then have is is it for the entire two year period, and will it hurt the caucus anywhere?
Just back from some time in Chi. My guess is that the optics would be as bad among Af-Am voters as would barring Burris outright; folks know all about the meaning of being Vice-President in Charge of Looking Out the Window, and even a guilty verdict against Blago wouldn’t carry over to Burris enough to erase that impression.
A smarter pol than Reid (a week ago, who’da thought Rod might qualify without even popping sweat, tho’ the Senate ultimatum did carry an odor of doom about it?), having somehow blundered into this needless mess, would probably find something else to do, as noisily as possible.
That is exactly why I was saying that, although I have no legal objection to that tact, I wonder for how long that goes on and how can it hurt the caucus? It is a real concern.
Quite so. I find the evident preference of our political class for scandal games and the like has really soured me on social pressures as control mechanisms. I realize that in the present matter there is no set alternative procedure that governs the behavior of others regarding an appointment that the Senate would wish not be made. But then, the same lack of procedure also raises the question whether the Senate should act, socially or otherwise, on its unguided will, since that’s about all that’s left after a concession that the appointment is legitimate. To compare to JoeLie, the standards for minimal partisan decency in a Senator who already sits as a member of a party caucus would seem to be far better established by practice than the standards of acceptability of an appointee with respect to criteria set by the incumbents of the Senate and caucus.
Actually, if Burris’ nasty streak were as wide as mine, he might have taken the appointment just to serve the crow to those who thought they could game their way out of this situation in ways that, from this perspective, seem no more edifying of the public good than the accusations against G-Rod.
If you aren’t familiar with the power of committee chairmanships, use the google and the wiki.
If you think Burris has even the slightest remote mathematical chance at a committee chairmanship, there is no spot on the interwebs that I can suggest to you.
At what point in the “resolution of Blagojevich’s affairs” would you have the Senate treat Roland Burris like an actual Senator by giving him assignments? What if Blago is impeached and the Lt Governor appoints someone else to the seat? How would that be resolved? What if Blago stays in office throughout his entire trial — at Fitz’s pace, that’ll take us well into Burris’s campaign for his own full term — would you have Illinois be punished by having a Senator-not-on-committees that entire time?
Until Burris shows up on any tapes Fitz has — and I think we’d have heard them by now if his name was mentioned, don’t you? — I think Harry Reid has been played, and badly, by a superior if corrupt pol. Harry’s well in the habit, having warmed up to being punked by Blago with W.
Trying to look all virtuous might work during the day for Harry Reid, but I bet it doesn’t keep those ghosts of Iraqi children from hanging around his bedstead at night.
Well, the whole point here is that IL’s people have been (allegedly) illegally deprived of Blago’s honest services. There’s no reason to believe tihs was any more honest than any of his other schemes (though the benefit for himself is more abstract, most likely). So how do you get to a point, most quickly, where they are again getting honest services from their representatives?
Quickly, sure, but also legally. How can we trade off a suspicion of malfeasance against an absence of evidence that the laws governing the legitimate transfer of power have been violated?
You mean how we trade off significant evidence of malfeasance against an absence of evidence of that same malfeasance?
One of the reasons I advocate withholding committee assignments is because it is a political act, not a legal one. It is, basically, a signal from the party it doesn’t want Burris caucusing with us (the same as should have been used with Lieberman).
The party as a whole wanted Blago to go away. Burris, fairly alone among party “leaders” in IL, decided he would instead help Blago stick around. That deserves a political response.
Uh, what evidence is there of malfeasance in the specific instance of Burris? Only circumstantial, based on prior attempt to sell the seat to others. A political solution is OK with me so long as Reid doesn’t set the precedent of excluding Burris at the time of seating, and withholding committee seats is a good tactic.
By restating your parallel structure, I was admitting that there is no evidence of malfeasance in this case–aside from the obvious fact that Blago picked an appointment based on how it would help him stay in power, not who would be good.
But see, if the same pick would have been a legitimate (though mediocre) choice if it had been made by another governor in different circumstances, and no actual consideration passed hands, then what is the actual basis to object to Burris? Who, under those circumstances, is the injured party?
I just don’t understand why we are paying for top legal teams (as I assume we are for Reid.) and not getting results.
OT–Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to both of you, EW and Bmaz. I hope you had a great holiday. I look forward to arguing with you in the coming year.
EW-I wish FDR had a private message capacity because I don’t want to work this too far but… I’m old enough to remember Adam Clayton Powell, and more importantly, watched every other sanctimonious dirty, corrupt, sleasy, lying, selfish white public servant/senator/vice-president before and since then. You need object lessons. Go after the big guys, the hypocrisy of old-timers. It’s the respected and accepted hypocrisy that seeps into the cracks and breaks down foundations of truth.
This is harsh and I don’t mean to demean your careful and critical analysis of political twists and turns, but this Blago/Burris is too easy, too fleeting, for your herculean energy and effort.
Somebody please ’splain me why/how a Blago impeachment, indictment, or conviction undoes the Burris appointment…? Is that an assumption that the Senate would vote 2/3 to expel, or is there some other unravelling rule I don’t know about at work there? What if there is an indictment, but then Blago wins at trial — doesn’t expelling Burris upon indictment alone damage Burris? Of course I know the evidence looks terrible now, but I’m asking about principles.
Burris will take the Senate seat and run with it.
He will draw a salary.
He will draw a pension.
Nice benefits also.
He will go down in history. Senator Burris!
If he is not wasting a lot of time with committee assignments, he can spend that time running for re-election back in Illinois. He will not have to worry about party discipline for they will have nothing to hammer him with.
In the meantime if the Democrats can somehow not let him be actually seated or delay it, then they will lose a Democratic vote.
Or if he is seated by the courts and the Democrats make him feel like a second class citizen, then how reliable a Democratic vote will he be. He doesn’t have to join the Republicans but he can toss them a crucial vote now and then just to make his presence felt.
Reid is going to get burned on this, but that is par for any course.
Then too, I would expect that when Obama is installed as President, he will probably reach over to the Senate and lay hands on the Democrats and make everything OK, so that he can get about his business with as few distractions as possible.
I see this issue at a minimum a dead end for Democrats, and at worse a real burr under their saddle.
I arrive at quite different conclusions.
Premise: there are multiple audiences. Key audiences include:
– Lefty Blogistan
– The MSM, which still takes its cues from Rove (I assume some sort of holdover effect of some weird “identification with the aggressor” psychological damage.)
– Low info voters who absorb VISUAL info, but don’t read (or for the most part hear) the news.**
– Bidness Interests like homebuilders, realtors, small biz, insurance agents, etc.
– Lobbyists
– Foreign observers
– Wingnuts
– Markets, Wall Street, Finance
– Rove, et al
Of those groups, some care about legitimacy:
– Lefty Blogistan, some foreign observers, maybe some lobbyists
Some want to damage legitimacy, because a legitmate, empowered Dem Senate scares them:
– Rove, et al, some foreign interests, some lobbyists, and plenty of biz interests who want to limit government to bailing them out, but not investigating WHY it is being asked to do that. They badly need a kerfuffle, and they want to delegitimize the Dems. All they need for that is a good set of photos showing Burris sitting in the Senate chambers.
This is not about elegant arguments.
Lose the words on this one.
Imagine photos lined up of Burris, Blago, Reid, Schumer…. Political disaster.
When people think “Burris” or “Blago” they need to categorize them in the area of the brain that they store “Abramoff”.
The Dems are complete idiots to even have a photo near Blago or Burris. This is about making quietly clear to the public that Reid would not accept an Abramoff nominee, nor will he accept a Blago nominee.
THIS IS A TEACHABLE MOMENT.
This is a chance for Harry Reid and the Dems to say, “This time, it isn’t about partisan politics. It’s about criminal conduct and The Law.”
Then, when Rover pees in fury, it will be all the more obvious what kind of rancid political stench his activities have stained this nation with for far too many years.
Time to MoveOn, as they say.
** Includes adults with learning disabilities, people averse to politics, and those too intimidated, tired, or frustrated to pay attention.
Well, then why aren’t people calling for some real distance between the caucus and Rangell?
1 Rangell is familiar.
2 Rangell is not today’s hot news.
3 Rangell is not today’s political soap opera.
Burris is.
A better explanation is this: ‘Rangel’ is already associated in their minds with a cluster of semantics including: ‘Congress’, ‘Capital’, ‘Representative’, ‘Committee’, yadda, yadda.
Burris does not have those associations.
He is associated with sleazy “Bleeper Blago”.
If you were Harry Reid, is that really what you’d want to absorb into the public perception of “Senate”?
OTOH, it would suit Cheney, Rove, and Bush’s interests to perfection.
Well, to switch hats and consider the political aspect for a minute, so would one Dem Senate seat going empty or flipping to a Rep seat. Which is what excluding Burris could well amount to.
Why are we putting semantics and political appearances over the law, Supreme Court precedent and the designated order of Senate succession of the State of Illinois? Is this not the very kind of horsepucky we have been fighting and decrying for years here?
This may be showing a difference — not that either’s inherently better — between folks here who are more outcome-oriented, vs. those who are more process-oriented. I notice this dynamic in groups a lot. In my experience, most teams need both types to get anything significant accomplished. And frequently it causes disagreements about tactics. Predictably enough.
Heh, I delude myself by thinking I am both – results within the process. But the process, when it come to the rule of law and due process comes first for me. That is why I do not necessarily object to the committee stripping EW suggested (not positive i am in favor or not; but it is not legally objectionable at least).
Yeah, I agree with you and EW on seating but basically shunning. Not allowing seated Senators to exclude incoming ones is very very important for me, as I mentioned the other day I see a super-dangerous coup hole if that precedent ever gets established. A Senator should be able to vote on their own expellation, otherwise you could have coordinated assassinations of one party and the survivors could legally take over the show.
Of course the most irritating personality in any room is the guy with the intuitive approach, who’s sometimes outcome-oriented and sometimes process-oriented, but usually just plain contrarian. Oh wait that’s me! No it’s not! Yes it is!… (Repeats and fade.)
Okay, I’ve made too many comments so will apologize and sign off, but I have seen over, and over, and over that you cannot get the right outcome if you fail to follow the correct process.
I’m saying that the process in this case cannot be co-opted by Blago.
Blago does not get to call all the shots.
The Senate also has a process, and it needs to follow it.
Outcomes that ignore process ends up perverting the results. “The means” never, ever justify the ends because if you don’t follow correct processes then you can’t ever actually produce an outcome with integrity.
But at the same time, you can’t be fooled by what I call pseudo-process.
FWIW, I am convinced that both Cheney and Addington are brilliant at designing, implementing and following ‘pseudo-processes’. They appear to be legitimate, because they ‘look like’ the processes that are familiar.
In this case, Blago claims that he has the right to name a Senator.
He has already shown himself willing to sell the law, yet he claims the right to appoint someone to make federal laws.
Blago has lost his political legitimacy.
Harry Reid has to do nothing more than acknowledge that simple fact.
Blago has lost his legitimacy; therefore, he has lost his claims to exercise the law and Reid has too much critical work to move through to waste too much time on it.
The GOP will then use their conniving to screw the Dems.
But people are sick of the GOP bullshit.
People are sick of the partisanship.
They want action but they also want legitimacy after two stolen elections by GWBush.
We’ve had enough illegitimate people holding office.
It needs to stop.
And Harry Reid is evidently the one to face down this particular demon.
Gack. My bad:
Should have been, “the ends never, ever justify the means.” Cutting corners does not work.
For more info, google ‘Wall Street’ + ‘CDS swaps’.
And that’s just for starters.
I think it’s fascinating that you and bmaz both utterly believe you are arguing for the absolute supremacy of following the correct process — you just have totally different definitions of what the idea ‘the correct process’ means! For you I hesitate to try to summarize for fear of getting it wrong, but here goes: it seems about a feeling for justice in your heart, because we know what horrors happen when we stray away from that. For bmaz it’s about the Constitution and the law, both statute and precedent, again because we know what horrors happen when we stray away from that. And that difference in the definition takes you to polar opposite positions, even though you’re both committed to the same underlying concept. Fascinating.
That is patently a false statement. The illinois Supreme Court, in flat out rejecting Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s petition, directly upheld Blagojevich’s political competency. That is dead nuts on point against what you are arguing. And that is a final decision on a singularly state law matter. Neither the federal government, nor the Senate, has the province at this point, in this instance, to disturb that ruling.
since when do the courts rule on political legitimacy?
i think this is the nut of the problem. legality is being confused with legitimacy. in a just society legality would be a necessary, but not sufficient condition of legitimacy.
Competency. If he is legally competent to act as governor, he is legally competent to make the decision on who to appoint because Illinois law gives that power to the duly elected governor, and that is Blagojevich. If a legally competent governor makes a legally competent appointment, pursuant to crystal clear Illinois succession law, it is a legally legitimate appointment. That is really all that is controlling; the rest is fluff.
the comment was on the political not legal legitimacy. something i don’t think the courts weigh in on. but then ianal.
Right, exactly. The courts — that is, the legal system — doesn’t weigh in on questions of purely political legitimacy. So, you can’t use political illegitimacy as a basis to undo something that a process prescribed by law and lawfully executed has established. Especially in regards to transfer of power. You would need a legal way into a court, in order to try to undo it. Whereas Reid has no such legal ground to stand on to exclude Burris, because none exists in law. So any attempt by Reid to exclude Burris, even though many people in IL and elsewhere consider Burris’ appointment politically illegitimate, would be legally illegitimate. Essentially, it would be an extra-legal political power grab. This is also known generically as a coup. And that would be a very very bad thing for the Democratic Party to be associated with.
is what reid is doing actually illegal? seriously – i’ve been asking that question and no one before has told me that it is. and if it is, is there any reason to think the courts won’t slap him down?
Sure. Would you agree that in a just society, suspicions of impropriety would be a necessary, but not sufficient basis for depriving qualified people of lawfully attained office?
You can’t just take something away from somebody because you think the person may have acquired it wrongly, not without getting law enforcement involved. That would be profoundly un-American. And even then only a court of law can legitimately permanently take it away if actual lawbreaking is found. The Senate on the other hand is not a court of law, and as a result may not take away lawfully attained office except as provided in the Constitution, which does not provide any grounds as subjective as your powerful but frankly dangerously malleable concept of legitimacy.
I really love your tenacity. Personally I find I always gotta look at stuff from the other perspective and try to poke holes in it, to make sure I’m not missing important stuff.
ah, i’ve been thinking that the senate seat actually belongs to the people of illinois – that it is not the property, as we understand property rights, of a politician.
finally, i’m not here to defend reid. the question i came to ask is why aren’t we asking what the voters of illinois are entitled to? why aren’t we advocating on their behalf? why aren’t we calling for burris to withdraw or stepdown (depending on how you see the current situation)?
Bingo!!!!!!!
law = words
semantics = meanings (of words)
Human brains categorize things.
That’s how we function.
Right now, ‘Abramoff’ = criminal, destructive, corrupt, etc… all ’semantics’, but evocative in their meanings.
Right now, ‘Blago’ is also associated with ‘words’ whose ’semantics’ or ‘meanings’ so utterly, fundamentally contradict the law that it makes me disgusted.
So how is allowing someone who has VIOLATED the law — yeah, okay, he’s not yet convicted, but bear with me — being allowed to claim the high ground here?
Blago man SOLD ‘the law’.
He sold influence, access, and the right to MAKE the law in the form of a US Senate seat.
Who else SOLD the law? Jack Abramoff.
Who else sold influence, access, and the right to MAKE the law — in the form of lobbying influence, rather than a Senate seat, but how many hairs do we really want to split here?
So everyone – including low info voters — know that Blago doesn’t respect the law. It’s worth whatever amount of money he can get in exchange for it. Kind of like Jack Abramoff, Ralph Reed, and endless other ‘associates’ of K Street — including Tom DeLay.
So one thing that Harry Reid should frankly say to the GOP is, “Oh, why are you failing to support THE LAW? Why are you still continuing the K Street philosophy of selling ‘the law’ for whatever price someone can barter?” Because that’s exactly what’s going on here.
If Harry Reid allows Burris to enter that Senate, then my attitude is: ‘F*ck this bullsh*t. Just put the Senate on eBay, and the hell with American politics. eBay would be more transparent, we could all see what the current prices for the Senate seats from individual states are selling for, and things would really be much simpler that way.’
Harry Reid needs to do the RIGHT thing, not the ‘legalishly’ thing.
That kind of procedural fetishism leads to places to Guantanamo, and I for one did not put energy in to the last two elections to end up there.
As to the Senate seat, Blago most certainly did not sell the law or anything else. He is alleged to have attempted to, but that case against him is not nearly so strong as most think, at least from the evidence we have seen to date. Now I do think that the evidence appears much stronger on the older hospital and contracts corruption allegations to be fair. And I think chances are decent that the case on the Senate seta actions is firmed up as well, but that is by no means a given. Irrespective of any of that, however, ther are no allegations, not even a whiff or rumor, as to Burris. Once the appointment is made and certified, assuming it is certified, Burris is legally entitled to be seated. At that point it is about him, not Blago. And I am simply not in favor of perverting, warping and contorting the law just to foster an ugly battle.
;-)))
You are thinking like a criminal defense atty!
I’m trying to think about how my auto mechanic, my grocer, and my doctor view all of this.
Legally, you are almost certainly correct.
But legitimacy is a huge political issue, and that’s why I think this is so key. This is more about political legitimacy than about nuances of specific legislative statutes.
This is not so clear that Harry Reid doesn’t have some latitude.
And Blago looks really rancid.
what are the voters of illinois entitled to? for the progressive blogosphere why is this about blogo, burris or reid instead of the people they are supposed to represent?
how would it be a contortion of the law for the progressive blogosphere to call for burris to step down pending the impeachment process? how would calling for a legitimate, as well as legal process, pervert anything?
since when is it our role to defend the status quo and the rights of politicians over the rights and interests of the voters?
i so don’t get this.
Not that you asked me, but a call for Burris to step down would be fine and peachy in my book, IF there was clear evidence that that was what the IL people wanted. The only thing I object to is the idea of preventing Burris from being seated, as the Constitution and laws governing the legitimate transfer of political power seem to strongly call for. We shalt not mess with those laws, or rather do so only at our future peril. Once he’s in, the Senate can throw him out on his keyster by a 2/3 vote as far as I care. I do think it would be wrong if a national prog movement tried to push Burris out if there wasn’t real support for that in IL itself.
i agree that our actions should be guided by the people of illinois. we’ve got several of them here – and i have yet to see any of them defend burris or blago. just the opposite.
btw, i’m not keen on what reid and the senate Ds are doing – mostly because i think the senate has some other issues they should be working on (little things like preventing a depression, ending torture, rewriting fisa, etc). their hypocrisy is mind blowing. but i haven’t seen anyone claim they are breaking any laws either.
how lame is it that stupid, spineless reid and the senate Ds, probably by accident, are the only people defending the interests of the illinois voters? in my book it should be us doing it.
Well, we’re just a buncha pajama-wearing commenters on a foulmouthed feminist blog. (insert sardonic smiley here.) Of course I know you knew what I meant was evidence of real support numbers in IL, something more than anecdotals.
absolutely, completely agree.
but isn’t asking the people we know (who are from illinois) better than ignoring them as we are doing now?
It is a fine idea, but it is of no legal moment whatsoever. If every single citizen in Illinois agreed with you, it would not weaken Burris’ legal claim on the position one iota.
He isn’t stepping down.
and that means we can’t say he should?
No, please do. I will join you. But it ain’t happening; he has made that quite clear.
Also, I think there is something of a use-it-or-lose-it aspect to political power in the US, and by that line of reasoning I think you could argue that by (1) making Blago gov despite knowing him to be a scumbag; (2) not insisting on a special election to replace Sen. Obama; and (3) not insisting on a speedy impeachment of Blago in December, the people of IL may well have squandered their power to pick a replacement Senator of their own choice. They handed it to Blago, and it’s not — and arguably should not be — within the power of Americans outside of IL, nor most especially of people inside the US Senate, to fix that for them. In a democracy, one has to stand up for oneself and participate, things don’t just get handed to you.
SciAm this month has a piece by a shrink, complete with footnotes, on how hypocrisy or even just its appearance affects the valuation of advice and positions.
Rangel’s a Cheshire Cat, complicated, quick to find his feet, entertaining, as flush with contradictions as with cash, seemingly never at a loss for words, at least as liable to represent the citizens of his district as his own interests [leaving aside how often those might coincide]. Both chambers have lots of his type, though few as brazen.
Rangel’s almost like a living embodiment of several of the most memorable parts of the habitually late [often unconscionably so], frequently apologetic [though never unquestionably sincerely so] Congressman Adam Clayton Powell – – who I’m thinking if he could he would express sincere disappointment [and may even mean it] that his precedent was being raised in support of Burris – who, in stark contrast to both Powell and Rangel, has all the charm and social utility of a cane toad – hell, in contrast to a cane toad as well – and regardless his fate otherwise, is currently focussed on executing on a life plan to perk up his personally commissioned combination mausoleum & self-tribute; but now, regardless his success in this latest move, is doomed bear a far more enduring monument: the mark of MacBlago – – for ever more.
Silly toad.
If Reid were to say that, then he would be vulnerable to criticism (shudder!) because Blago’s evil genius move has been to pull off the Burris appointment wholly within the law. Not seating Burris has no clear legal basis. It might win on these facts after a who knows how long appeals process, but that’s far from obvious.
This is an instance where the law is not entirely clear.
That means, Reid has to follow the SPIRIT of the law and let the chips fall where they may.
And let Rover froth in the meantime.
Every sentient person – even those who can’t read – know that Blago’s a jackass.
Reid needs to be calm, cool, and serious.
And he needs to DO the right thing.
Because for too long, people have done the wrong thing simply because they didn’t have the guts to be tough enough to do the right thing.
I didn’t put money and effort into the last two elections to watch this festering bullshit go on.
Total sympathy, and total respect. We just have two different perspectives on the right course of action here. I say eyes on the prize big-picture-wise, and let the wheels of Justice slowly grind their way. Blago will be dealt with quickly, and if the courts decide the Burris appointment was wrongly made, then that might take a little longer to sort out. Meanwhile there’s a hell of a lot of important work to be done in Congress, and the times demand it get done ASAP. (I just read Krugman’s current book, can you tell?)
I do not think the law is all that unclear. I am not saying that an argument to support Reid cannot be made, but I will say that it is much more contrived and weak than the argument for Burris at this point. Much more.
Sorry, but I’d suggest that we stop this self-defeating line.
The guy may be ‘evil’, and this was a devious move.
But it was NOT any form of ‘genius’.
For ‘genius’, see: Lincoln, FDR, Gen George Marshall, Elizabeth I, and assorted others. Blago’s nowhere near that group, and we shouldn’t even pretend that he is.
He’s a punk, he’s scared (as he should be) and he’s scrappy.
None of that makes him anything more than a scared, devious thug.
Sorry for any confusion, I meant the term ‘genius’ to denote magnitude of smarts alone, not the quality of goodness in any sense. ‘Evil genius’ isn’t usually meant as admiring, I don’t think, though there is a hint of snark there.
Oh, gotcha ;-)}
I misread — sorry!
De nada, mi amigo or amiga as the case may be.
I agree with EW about the Rangel angle. But, more importantly, as much as I want to agree with your sentiment, I just cannot abide the spitting in the face of law and the principles of orderly succession that it would take to do that. The process is more important than the feel good whims of the single incident here.
First, as someone who gave up voting because I was so collassally fed up with craven, corrupt government and butt-covering politicos, I’d say that you are arguing for politics as it’s been played far too long.
Second, as someone who DID vote in 2006 and 2008, AND who gave money, money, money, I’m damned if I followed the Siren Call of Howard Dean back to the land of political activity just to watch the Dems find some elegant sub-sub-sub-sub-clause of a minor amendment with which to appease their consciences.
Third, when was it EVER ‘right’ or ‘legal’ to let the criminals run the show?! That’s what’s been going on for at least 30 years now, and although it’s worked for Dick Cheney, some of us are fed up with it.
Fourth, as someone who has spent hundreds of hours in meetings, etc, with some of those ‘biz types’ that I mentioned — some of them home builders — it’s been my experience that they do not recognize boundaries unless they are forced to do so. That means someone ELSE has to point out to them that no, that’s actually a violation of the law. So their next move is to change it — or in the case of Bush’s EPA, alter the studies. You do not deal with that class of asshole by accommodating them. You deal with them by being tougher, and having more resources, and more stamina than they do.
I truly respect you, but in this instance the Dems need to lose the words and just take a pair of scissors and cut out the images and put them down on the counter:
Do they want the Blago, Reid, Burris, Abramoff, Schumer, Rove, Cheney, Dodd mashup?
Or do they want the Dems to ‘look like’ something: Reid, Boxer, Dodd, Feingold, Tester, Udall, Udall, Webb…
I hope that I’ve made my point with reasonable clarity given that I’m stuck doing it with words.
Second.
No, I think the Teachable Moments wafted off into the fireworks of Shock and Awe, the wails of the tortured and the laughter of the torturers
To drive home my point: this is a battle of visuals being fought by the letter of law.
Recall that John McCain’s VERBAL comments in the first presidential debate were not stellar, but also not awful. His visual language killed his candidacy. He wouldn’t even look at Barak Obama.
Many people with learning disabilities have totally clear understandings of right and wrong. But legal minutia… forget it. They will get all their info from teevee or the Web.
For those people, if they SEE Reid standing by Burris, if they SEE Burris in the Senate, they’ll have a sense of unfairness without being able to follow the finely diced legal arguments.
This is not a time for long winded explanations. Send the Sgt At Arms to bar Burris’s way, make clear that it’s about a LEGAL matter and change the subject.
The more Rover rants about the wrongness of the Dems, the more he exposes his nastiness.
I don’t think Reid is screwed. Unless he seats Burris.
I doubt if very many people will even recognize Burris, standing by Reid or not…frankly, I wouldn’t want to stand by Reid. Burris has done noting wrong, accept accept a tainted job…but the work for the people of Illinois going forward doesn’t need to be tainted.
Really… Do you really want to stand at the door of the Senate Chamber and use force to bar an African American appointed politician from the Midwest and let an appointed white school superintendent slip into Salzabar’s chair.
Talk about symbols!
The good citizens of Illinois don’t deserve 2 senators? Americans don’t deserve at least one African American Senator? … for at least a while?
THE TEACHABLE MOMENT WAS JANUARY 20th 2000. Reid missed it. Every Senator missed it.
Well, what can I say?
I’ve taught. Sometimes badly.
Sometimes I didn’t hit that sweet spot in the classrooms where I took some bad swings.
It didn’t make me say, “damn, why bother?”
It made me say, “Damn. Missed that one. I’m not gonna miss the next time.”
And I didn’t.
Just because Harry Reid missed one teachable moment doesn’t condemn him to none for the rest of his life.
We’re humans.
Humans LOVE to learn.
It’s one of our very finest traits.
Who’s going to be taught during this teachable moment?
Burris?
Blago?
Illinois dirty politicians?
Illinois tax payers?
Mitch MacConnell?
Rangle?
Larry Craig?
Cheney?
Little boys and girls who want to grow up to be a senator?
Appointed New York senator?
Blind-folded Lady Justice?
Is the law for sale?
Is it worth more than money?
Are there some things that are worth more than money?
What are they?
One of them is a group of laws, courts, and a system of justice that by allowing people to work out their differences and honor obligations allows for prosperity and opportunity.
It’s a fairly important lesson.
And after 8 years of BushCheney, I’d say that people might even be interested in paying attention.
I have to think alot more about all this…but I have a gut feeling that this is all so disproportionate.
Cheney and Bush sold the lives of thousands of world citizens…influence, access, and the right to opine the law.
It’s not easy to bar them from the halls of government.
But it is easy to sit 2 appointed senators and bar one appointed senator.
Unintended consequences usually aren’t.
I am sorry, but this group of laws, courts, and system of justice that often dis-allows people from working out their differences and honor obligations and doesn’t necessarily allow for prosperity and opportunity for all.
Blagojevich has not yet been indicted and he got nothing for this senate seat. How is Burris illegitimate now?
Bush and Cheney will receive taxpayer pensions for the rest of their lives. Sarah Palin thought she could be vice president. Her kid can get paid for having a baby. My mother couldn’t vote until she was thirty five. Norm Coleman wants the count his votes. My neighbor lost his company retirement pension…
Who’s legit?
Palli, I absolutely agree with every one of your very astute points about the unjustness and corruption that so many of us seem to be seeing.
I’m saying, “I’m fed up with it. I’m fed up with allowing lame-ass jerks who think they can sell a Senate seat for personal enrichment then be able to appoint someone to that same seat on some technicality. It’s corrupt, it’s wrong, and it’s perpetuating a terribly corrupt, stupid system.
Bush and Cheney were never, ever legitimate.
They were hampered from Day 1.
And so many of us never trusted them, and always suspected them, and things turned out worse than our wildest fears.
And I’m saying ‘enough.’
Either the person who appoints is legitimate, AND the person who is appointed is ALSO legitimate, or we need to hold a new election.
The Dems are foolish to seat anyone whose claims to hold office are not clear. And that includes Franken, who’s going to win by very few votes. But who’s winning ‘fair and square’, rather than by asking some court to appoint him the victor.
Compromise? When idiot Reed is looking forward to the spectacle of the ONLY black US Senator being forcibly denied entrance to the Senate? What the hell of the Democratic Senators smoking these days?
I think I can say this much and sign off too. There is more than one process…there is the process of the law. Over the years I have overcome some of my distrust in the that slow and ponderous step by step blindfolded process.
But I see another process of eyes wide open moment by moment. Will Pidilla benefit from the law? Society might, but his mind and body in the here and now? Will Illinois citizens benefit from a showdown on the Senate floor? Are the citizens of Illinois protesting the appointment or only the vested polititians? Can the other new appointed senators slip right past and not be tainted also?
I agree “the ends never justifies the means”…but these means are not illegal… ill-advised…in- convenient, yes…but not illegal.
gotta try to get some sleep. doesn’t look like this one is going away…. bbl to argue some more… nite all.
If we are going to give judgement on legitimacy, we need to be Illinois citizens. As much as I believe, Mitch, and Coleman, Lieberman, Boehner, and Bachman et al…are illegitimate purveyors of American governance…tough.
This whole dilemma is just the backdrop for the denial of Al Franken looming ahead…
I’m more worried about planes falling out of the sky and fewer informants for Seymour Hersh come January 20th. Goodnight
this guy was appointed legally right?
he’s a senator right?
why the dems would take cues on how to handle this from republicans (deny committees) is confounding
this is chris matthews territory
Well, there’s not just that, it also puts them down another man, and sets up the not-seating of Al Franken rather nicely. So it’s a 3-fer really.
I just feel sorry for all the poor pixels who had to give their lives to sum up blagoff’s greed and stupidity
Burris has become a sort of Lar “America First” Daley politician in Illinois, a man whose opinion of himself is as big as all outdoors. Just ask him; he’ll be happy to expound on himself—grandly speaking in the third person. That he would suggest he be appointed U.S. Senator, with a publicly funded office, staff, and all the perks to go with it, while not actually doing any actual legislative work, ought to suit him right down to the ground.
This mess is the fault of the Illinois General Assembly and its Blago enablers, who should have impeached him two years ago. But his highly placed enablers apparently wanted to keep their personal gravy trains chugging along.
Both Burris and Bobby Rush forcefully, and correctly, called for Blago to resign and strongly criticized him when his arrest was announced. Now they’re singing a completely different tune, and so you will forgive us Illinoisians if we wonder what they’re getting for their change of heart. Mike Royko was only half kidding when he suggested Chicago change its motto to “Where’s Mine?” Now it looks like it could be extended to cover the whole state.
It’s good morning all around…after last night’s discussion I had another Cheney destruction dream…
We are all so mad about what has happened to our country, It is so evident in our exchanges over Blagojevich.
Governor Blagojevich is that traitor in our midst to the ideals we want to see again in all our public actions. He was exposed to the larger world at just the moment when we most needed to trust politicians presumably on our “side”, the rebuilding one. But we have been gravely disappointed. well… This won’t be the last time. Charletons are everywhere.
Our job now is to get our Senators all working for the nation, listening and discussing intelligent ideas and making thoughtful considered decisions. Burris should know that- whatever questionable circumstances brought him to the Senate -he is expected to contribute to work at hand, the un-doing and the re-doing and the new birthing of a just society. All else is obstructionism and it is not democratic…with a very small d, we are so young at this.