Embattled Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich finally appointed somebody to take the U.S. Senate seat that was recently vacated by Barack Obama. The new guy is Roland Burris, a 71 year old African American who has held several positions in Illinois state government, including Attorney General. Here is the news article plus the Wikipedia piece on Burris:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/30/illinois.senate/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Burris
The problem with Burris is not necessarily Burris himself. The problem is Blagojevich. You see, Blagojevich has been taped saying weird things about selling the Senate seat to the highest bidder. Burris seems like a straight up guy, but the present that he has just received came from a hand that is apparently rather filthy. How do we know that there was no private conversation between Burris and Blagojevich about a quid pro quo? Like, if I get you this appointment can you be my friend when I get out of jail someday? Burris is probably a clean guy who figured that this could be his only chance to enter the U.S. Senate and did not find it in himself to say No. But there is really no way for us, knowing Blagojevich as we do, to get past the issue of job peddling. This deal is probably clean, but we cannot assert at this point that anything coming from Blagojevich can retain the APPEARANCE of honesty and legality.
Mostly, this appointment has gone over like a lead balloon. Obama, Reid, and company are all saying, we got nothing against Burris, it's just that we do not want Blagojevich appointing ANYBODY to the U.S. Senate, because that person will have a cloud over their head that nothing can disperse. Predictably, there has been a little bit of grumbling from certain african americans that refusing to allow Burris to take his seat amounts to racism. But that's a bit silly. Is Obama a racist? Didn't those who oppose Blagojevich's power of appointment issue that opposition categorically, as in, WHOEVER you name will be inappropriate, no matter how well qualified on paper?
The situation is this: good name or bad name, it does not matter, Blagojevich forfeited his power of appointment when he showed himself to be dirty. The Illinois Secretary of State has therefore said that he will not certify the selection of Burris. I am okay with that, despite Burris having the qualifications to serve in the Senate.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 33
This appointment thing is a cynical, self-absorbed, and jejune potato-in-the-tailpipe of the Republic. The resulting imbroglio is going to take up way more time and energy at the federal level than it is worth, at a time when the nation is hard-pressed to deal with crises foreign and domestic.
The impeachment cannot be voted too soon.
Burris is saying in effect "I am not going to worry about giving the appearance of being dirty, because I know that I am clean. Accept me because the end justifies the means".
I'm ethically troubled by both arguments.
Jim- yes, ancient Chinese curse, "may things be interesting!"
1. Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White, who is also African-American, says he won't certify Burris' appointment.
2. At the Blagojevich news conference, U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush dared the Senate to say no to Burris.
"This is not just a state of Illinois matter," said Rush, who hopes to rally the Congressional Black Caucus behind Burris. "Indeed, by this decision, it has tremendous national importance. We need to have an African-American in the U.S. Senate. I would ask you not to hang or lynch the appointee as you tried to do to the appointer."
Please, nobody is talking about lynchings. You just forfeited your ability to be taken seriously, Rush.
I agree with that sentiment; however, the significance of Blagojevich's capers has obviously gone beyond just the state level, to a matter of "tremendous national importance" as Rush says in the quote by Chris above.
I don't see much racial tension in this as it's all clearly fruit of the poisonous tree at this point.
Besides Blagojevich's game-playing and Burris's misfortune of being appointed under these circumstances, I'm actually bothered more by Rep. Bobby Rush's remarks. He effectively, as Politico puts it, "dared white officials to not seat an African-American."
“Let me just remind you that there presently is no African-American in the U.S. Senate.,” said Rush, an African-American, after Blagojevich and Burris had spoken. “Let me remind you that the state of Illinois…in their collective wisdom have sent two African-Americans to the United States Senate. That makes a difference. This is just not a state of Illinois matter…. But, indeed, by this decision it has tremendous national importance.”
As for Blagojevich, Rush said: “I would ask you to not hang or lynch the appointee while you castigate the appointer” — a line the governor appeared to appreciate, as he repeated it off-mic as he left the press conference.
He also said no senator would “want to go on record to deny one African-American from being seated in the U.S. Senate.”
[the quotes above all from Politico, 12/31/08]
To me this is extremely disappointing. Rush's entire argument had nothing to do with Burris's abilities or capabilities, or even Blagojevich's right to make the appointment. It was entirely racial - that the seat was effectively required to be filled by an African-American. It may well be that Burris is qualified and a good choice, as Chris, Carla and others have suggested. But the rationale for appointing him should be based solely on the fact that he is qualified and a good choice, and should have zero to do with the seat somehow being beholden to any one ethnic group. I don't know Rush at all either (obviously I'm not from Illinois), so I don't know if he is a good Representative or not, but his focus on the racial imperative in this case is, frankly, a major disappointment.
Kind of makes me question Burris' character considering that he must understand the situation he comes into. Is the Senate seat such an allure that he just couldn't turn it down?
“I would ask you not to hang or lynch the appointee as you try to castigate the appointor,” Rush said during the press conference. “Roland Burris is worthy. He has not, in 20 years of public service, had one iota of taint on his record as a public servant. He is an esteemed member of this state and this community.”
And yet, clearly his main point was as I had presented - that the seat itself demanded an African-American. I reiterate that the rationale for the appointment should be based on Burris's presumed capability to take on the role of one of the two Senators representing the state. In my opinion, and based on the incomplete reporting I have seen to date, Rush demeaned Burris and the process with his remarks.
The best solution to the Blagojevich problem would have been to impeach him. Unfortuantely, the impeachment process is a slow one, and the timing of the probe into Blagojevich's misconduct did not give the Illinois Legislature enough time to get him out of the way before he named Burris. It looks like this is not going to be an easy problem to resolve.
Since we just went through all the denials about guilt due to association, am I wrong in feeling this is a bit hypocritical?
Does anyone feel the incoming Presidential CHief f Staff was tainted by talking to the GOvernor and his office? If not, why can't we give Burris the same consideration?
I also have no problem if it turns out that the Senate changes its collective mind and decides to seat Burris. I'm sure that he would do a good job, and I'm nearly as sure that he would fail to be re-elected should he decide to run in two years.
He wouldn't be the first appointed Senator that couldn't survive the first election after their appointment.
My question is why are they (Harry Reid and his cronies) so quick to deny him the office when they were so quick to defend Obama and his associations with some very devicive, convicted felons, unabashed terrorists, and unsavory political machines.
The Senate, understandably I think, does not want to import that taint into their chambers. It becomes interesting now precisely because Blago has picked someone who is, by most accounts, above reproach. I may be in the minority in feeling that they should just seat him and be done with it, but I understand the concern.
Anyway, your last comment, extending your charge of hypocrisy now to Senate Democrats for denying the seat while defending Obama... if you really believe all that then perhaps you should be congratulating them for getting it right this time.
But I'll comment on one of your charges, because it's instructive here. To view Obama as a product of the Chicago political machine is far-fetched on any number of counts. Obama's early work as a community organizer was adversarial to the entrenched political bosses who "ran" the south side in the 80's.
After he received his law degree, at Miner Barnhill & Galland Obama... wrote a major portion of an appeals brief on behalf of a whistleblower who exposed waste and corruption in a research project involving Cook County Hospital and the Hektoen Institute for Medical Research and alleged that she was fired in retaliation. The case was settled out of court. The county agreed to pay the federal government $5 million, part of which went to the whistleblower, Dr. Janet Chandler. Hektoen agreed to pay $500,000 to the government plus $170,000 to Chandler for wrongful termination.
And Obama was part of a team of lawyers representing black voters and aldermen that forced Chicago to redraw ward boundaries that the City Council drew up after the 1990 census. They said the boundaries were discriminatory. After an appeals court ruled the map violated the federal Voting Rights Act, attorneys for both sides drew up a new set of ward boundaries.
Later, when Obama ran for statewide office, his support from local Democrats came only after he won the primary. He was not supported by the Chicago Democratic machine in his unsuccessful bid to unseat Bobby Rush for Congress (yes, the same Bobby Rush who is supporting Gov. F-Bomb's appointment of Burris). The same is true through his primary race for the US Senate. In 2002, Roland Burris opposed Rod Blagojevich (the Chicago Machine candidate) in the gubernatorial primary. Obama supported Burris in the primary.
I understand that Chicago-bashing has become somewhat of a blood sport, and the accusing finger can find many targets of opportunity. But get the facts straight first.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/02/20/
obama_got_start_in_civil_rights_practice/
I apologize for any confusion I have created.
My frustration is that I kept hearing about Obama not being tainted by associations, now those same people are claiming Burris is tainted, which tainting to we accept or not accept? And if Burris is tainted because of his association through CHicago political machine and Obama was supported by that same machine how do we tell which tainting to decide on?
AS best I can tell the Chicago politics has been a "blood sport" for farther back than you and I put together could remember, it isn't new with the current GOvernor.
I wonder if the surprise is that this had been so public or that the politician in and around the CHicago machine are shocked that anyone would really be that greedy?
I do feel that that Fitzgerald did a great service to the COUNTRY by making the whole situation public before it would taint the incoming administration. I also believe that the GOvernor will not be convicted because Fitzgerald went public before a crime was committed.
AS far as I can tell Burris has done nothing wrong and I have not heard he did anything wrong as the Attorney General and the prescribe process has been followed so he should be seated.
It is Reid and his cronies that are the ones I see as being politically expedient and I believe they would have accepted anyone the Governor appointed (even heralded Burris) if this whole process would have not gone public before the appointment.
By looking at the facts, and not vague and unsupported diatribes.
What I am seeing here is that many people are unable to understand nuance. It reminds me of how we got into Iraq. Saddam is going to kill us all. No he is not. Saddam is a bad guy who loves to kill his own people. Yes, quite true. But tell the truth about our reasons for doing this, because nothing ends well that starts with a lie. In the same way, I am unwilling to give Burris a pass, despite his credentials, because there are untruths that are being used to justify him as a candidate.
As to double standards being applied to Burris and to Obama, I don't buy it Duane. But I would admit that there are few absolutes in politics, and that Obama did not get where he is by absolutely refusing to talk to Illinois politicians with dirty hands. He has in general been on the side of those wishing to clean things up. that's enough for me, I don't need for him to carry a flaming sword of righteousness.
When it comes to politics I am a skeptic because of history. WAsn;t there a recnt New York governor who claimed to be there to cleanup whatever he could, and yet the people he was least honest with was his family. So simply because a politicain has good intentons doesn't establish his character.
I wonder what you feel about the business people who who work with proven crooks and yet are ethical in their personal businesses. Let us presume that there are a few investment companies that had reason to believe that Madoff was perpetrating a Ponzi scheme and yet did nothing more than keep their clients out of it, what do you think of their ethics?
The appointment of Burris could be construde as playing a race card, if the man is capable and personally untainted why not let him have the seat? If other politicians in Illoinis believ that they shold have a minority Senator how it that not a race card?
Dave A.,
Are there any facts that show Burris has done anything unethical to be appointed? If not, then on the facts he is not tainited. Simlarly I saw nothing Obama did that showed he was tainted so I see he should have his high office.
It seems that the Democratic of leadership of the Senate doesn;t seem to hold to the same standard, one the will deny office and the other the supported for office. TO me that is hypocracy, but you seem to feel it is okay since it is only politics.
Let's try this: we agree that Burris is not tainted through the appointment. We both have certain difficulties with the current position of the Senate majority regarding (not) seating Burris. You basically see only Burris' qualifications, and the process be damned. I see a tainted process where the lunatic governor wants to shove a selection down the nation's throat--and he's picked a perfectly clean, senior Illinois politician of at least minimally adequate skills, and an African American to boot.
You see the Senate as hypocritical essentially because you see their reluctance to seat Burris as an unfair judgement of Burris. For you, seating Burris would reflect greater integrity on the part of the Senate; balking reflects a compromise in their integrity.
Whereas I don't blame the Senate for balking, even though I'm slightly in favor of their overlooking the crappy process--sadly, I favor expediency over what could be defended as the highest standards of integrity.
Thanks for your remarks.
As I see it the system is flawed, but when people get invovle what system isn;t. My view is that Harry Ried and his cronies want to pick who is slected and the Governor gave them an excuse to make that decsion. In this case the appointee has been "vetted" by the Illionis electorate and deemed acceptable, he has shown no reason that he sholdn;t be a US Senator (he has more political credentials than Caroline Kennedy), and he even meets the expectation of adding racial diversity to the Senate.
If being tainted by the process is the only criteria, should JFK have been President? I have yet to hear anyone deny that the CHicago Democratic political machine delivered over 6 figures worth of corrupted votes for him and he won by less than that many.
I blame Harry Reid for for balking, I don't see the need for expeidency. As I understand it the when this situation occurs with a Congressional office thre is a special election (for a term of two years) how is this situation so different that it couldn't be applied here?
RIED MY LIPS HARRY REID AND OBAMA SHOULD BE STAND UP MEN
THEY SAID IT NOW STICK BY IT
( THAT THEY WOULDNT ACCEPT ANYONE BLAGOVICH APPOINTED, THAT ANYONE HE APPOINTS WOULD BE TAINTED)
HAVE A BACKBONE
BE A MAN!
RACE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS
NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO BEND OVER BACKWARDS TO ACCOMADATE ANYONE REGAURDLESS IF THERE GREEN, BLUE ORANGE OR PURPLE
SAYING OTHERWISE IS RACIST!
REVERSE RACISM!
LOL
NOT ME, I CAN CARELESS!
A MAN IS A MAN, I SEE NO COLOR
IF HE WANTS TO BE A "TOKEN BLACK" HOW FAR HAVE WE REALLY COME TO MARTIN LUTHER KINGS DREAM OF JUDGING A MAN BY HIS CHARECTER AND NOT HIS SKIN COLOR?