Blago Does All Us A Favor
This is a "gift horse", so to speak, and Harry Reid and company should quit bitching and seat the guy. We need the vote for the Obama agenda right now---next week; not two months from now.
Thank you Blago (you very creepy SOB)!
Thank you Blago (you very creepy SOB)!
Advertisement
Read Nate Silver on this issue of whether the Senate can refuse to seat him. Does Harry Reid really want to go the Supreme Court on this? What a freaking waste of time.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/12/senate-might-not-have-authority-to.html
December 30, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link!
December 30, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nate is a fine statistician, and I LOVE his stuff, but I don't think he is a constitutional lawyer, nor an expert on the Senate. The authority the Senate has over "elections" and "returns" of its Members in Art. I, Sec. 5, allows it to look behind any "credentials" (returns) presented if it wants to, to see if the selection of a Senator was tainted by corruption and/or bribery, or the like. This has been done on numerous occasions in the past by the Senate with regard to appointments by governors, and does NOT involve judging "qualifications" (age, citizenship, and inhabitancy) which was limited in Powell v. McCormack. Take a look at Roudebush v. Hartke, 405 U.S. 15 (1972), decided after Powell, and read the language about the very broad discretion the Senate has to seat or not to seat someone under the "elections" and "returns" clause. Its up to the Senate to decide how far they want to take this. (Of course, if he doesn't get "credentials" from the state, there won't be anything to present to the Senate.)
December 30, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point is the Republicans. They intend to try and block Al Franken from taking his seat. And if Illinois remains vacant for months while Harry (I only show guts when it hurts the Democratic Party) Reid litigates, could mean 2 less and very crucial votes for much needed legislation.
We are on the precipice here. Arguing over whether a perfectly qualified candidate who was appointed by a bozo should be seated or not is more than counterproductive.
Getting 59 votes locked in for the Obama agenda and getting 1-5 "moderate" Republicans to go along should be the SOLE FOCUS of our "esteemed" majority leader.
December 30, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes Candide and Voltaire agrees. This is bullshit.
Seat the guy for two years. He is a democrat and he is African American and he has a history in politics. We need the votes.
December 30, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Harry (I only show guts when it hurts the Democratic Party) Reid
Nice one. Thumbs up. As in Reid's thumbs are up his own ass.
December 31, 2008 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe Nate's not so dumb after all:
“I think the best reading of the text of the Constitution and the Powell case together is that the Senate has to seat Burris,” said Abner S. Greene, the Leonard F. Manning professor of law at Fordham University School of Law.
December 31, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good luck trying to make Burris understand that he's a seat-holder who needs to vote the way the leaders tell him to vote. He's probably already writing fundraising appeals for his 2010 campaign. Burris is the worst possible choice.
December 30, 2008 4:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you say this, Orlando? Chicago and IL people on the blogs seem to think Burris is not a bad choice.
December 30, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I lived in Chicago for nine years and had the pleasure of voting against Roland Burris twice. He has an overinflated view of himself, for one thing. For another, I have what I guess is a little pet peeve against people who keep running for office after they've lost (repeatedly). Burris hasn't been elected to anything since the 1990 election. Since then, he's run for governor three times, for senator once, and for Chicago mayor once. A few Illinois people saying they think he's okay doesn't account for the voters of Illinois saying no thank you over and over.
December 30, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this info, O...One of the many things I like about TPM is getting info direct from the trenches.
December 30, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
As long as he can be a reliable vote for the Obama agenda, I don't care a whit about his past inability to be elected.
Would he be a reliable vote for Obama? If so, let him be seated!
December 30, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your response, Orlando. Burris obviously has some problems.
But blago is not going to resign and a December 10 article in the WaPo said that the Illinois legislature is planning, or considering February 24 primaries and an April 7 general.
That's a long time to wait, especially since the seat might go to a republican and the Franken/Coleman brouhaha could very well be unresolved with Coleman the ultimate winner. There is so much to be done in the Congress and the republicans will be kicking and screaming the whole way. Sometimes I despair for my Party.
December 30, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's been said the the extreme corruption -- if that's true -- in IL politics is at root blamable on the electorate. If that is true, then they may have repeatedly refused to elect him because they perceived him as either not corrupt, or insufficiently corrupt.
Otherwise, re. all the bloviating over Blagojevich: I hadn't heard yet that he was indicted, tried, convicted, etc., so scratch my head that the vociferous pro-Democratic media critics are joining the media in piling on.
And what's with the attacks on his hair? Is the far-right that hating of The Beatles that it's trying to repeal the haircut in order to eliminate all visible signs that they existed?
December 31, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this might be a case of "Be careful what you wish for." Burris could end up towing the party line, like a good democrat, in which case, I can overlook my personal dislike of him. But I'm not so sure his ego can take being the junior senator from Illinois without a lot of petty pushback on his part.
Illinois has had an ineffectual democratic senator in the not-so-recent past in Carol Mosely Braun. Her tenure in the senate resulted in Peter Fitzgerald's election and he was horrible. Will Burris do damage in two years that results in a republican being elected to the seat in 2010? I don't know. I'd rather not find out.
December 30, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your insight here O. Your last two sentences of this comment say a lot.
December 30, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi O - I get why you don't like the guy, but I still maintain that his inability to get elected is a simple combination of timing, racism, and the impenetrability of the Illinois machine more than it is anything that he is or did. Burris was usually running in a strong Republican year or against the Chicago Machine.
Look at the elections he lost:
1979 - ran for Comptroller (won). Was the first African American to win statewide office.
1984 - he ran against Paul Simon for US Senate (primary election, lost). Simon was already popular - he was Lt. Governor to a Republican Governor and built support on both sides of the aisle. At that same time, Harold Washington had just left the US House to be Mayor of Chicago. Many in the city and downstate were (sadly) just plain unwilling to see another African American in a position of that kind of power.
1994 - ran for Governor (lost). Although I can't explain how he lost the primary, it's pretty clear that NO Democrat was going to beat incumbent Jim Edgar, so maybe no one cared about the Dem primary.
1995 - ran for Mayor of Chicago (lost). He ran in a primary against Daley which was just dumb. No way anyone could beat Daley. Even Obama would have a rough go of it.
1998 - ran for Governor (lost). Again, he lost in the primary but at the time everyone knew George Ryan was pretty much a sure thing - Edgar endorsed him, and Edgar left office on good terms. Here, Burris made his one big mistake by making the primary a racial issue. He lost a lot of support over that.
2002 - ran for Governor (lost to Blagojevich). Here, Dems had a chance because Ryan's corruption scandal was in full-force. Blagojevich had the full support of Dick Mell and the Chicago machine. Also, the primary was a three-way race diluting whatever support Burris picked up. The results were actually pretty close.
So I guess my biggest concern about the guy stems from the 1998 comments and what Cong. Rush said in the press conference yesterday - if he approaches the office as a societal victim then that might impede his ability to serve the state well. BUT, it could very well be that he'd be a great public servant but he's the only one who's known it all these years.
I found some articles on Lexis but my interwebs died mid-download (Comcast just left). I'll send 'em when I get 'em. :)
December 31, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
So you'd rather their be no 2nd Democratic Senator from Illinois? I realize you personally dislike the guy and he does seem like a doofus in his interviews, but the bigger picture here is that we got some stuff that needs to be done PRONTO; not next month or next year.
I'll take a blow up of doll of Blago as the next Senastor as long as it votes Democratic and GETS GOOD LAWS PASSED!!!!!
December 31, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
blago is v. creepy.
December 31, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are INSTRUCTED by the media to perceive him as such.
December 31, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
no, i think he's creepy to marry someone who says eff the cubs
December 31, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink