« NM-03: Lots of Excitement on Rep. Ben Ray Lujan's First Official Day on the Job | Main | Albuquerque Teachers Federation Endorses APS Board Candidates »
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Reid, Senate Dems, Obama Caving on Burris in Senate?
Can anyone tell me what Harry Reid, the Dem Senators and Barack Obama are gaining from making Roland Burris' appointment into a three-ring circus? It seems inevitable that they'll have to back down from their continued and very public threats to deny Burris a Senate seat -- because there really are no legal grounds to do so.
Makes them (and us) look good, doesn't it? Out there spending valuable time and energy to fight a Senate appointment on purely political grounds while Rome burns, people are suffering and we need every Senate vote we can get. Just seat the guy and let's move on to the real battles and challenges we face. Sheesh.
Powerful Dem Senator Diane Feinstein, as well as Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. and now Sen. Russ Feingold, have publicly stated that Senate Dems are out of line in fighting the appointment, regardless of what their views on Blagojevich and Burris may be. This is not -- or should not be -- about personal opinions. It's about the law, pure and simple. And the law is on Burris' side.
It was initially reported this morning by the AP that the Senate Dems would accept the appointment of Roland Burris to the Illinois Senate seat Obama is vacating. Shortly thereafter, Harry Reid denied the story:
After a 45-minute meeting this morning by Reid, Burris and Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin, Reid said Senate Democrats would wait to see if the Illinois Supreme Court would order Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White to sign Burris' appointment by Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Also important, he said, would be Burris' scheduled testimony tomorrow before the Illinois House panel considering whether to recommend Blagojevich's impeachment.
Reid praised Burris as "candid and forthright. We don't have a problem with him as an individual," he said.
In an interview earlier today with WGN-AM 720, White said he intended to honor his pledge not to sign the appointment but said he would if ordered to by a court. He also expressed dismay that the Senate was using him as an excuse not to admit Burris, saying that his signature was "ceremonial." [emphasis mine]
Meanwhile, the Washington Post is reporting that Obama is softening his stance on Burris:
President-elect Barack Obama said on Wednesday he would accept Roland Burris as his replacement in the Senate, following the lead of Senate Democrats who have softened their opposition to the candidate chosen by embattled Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich.
"This is a Senate matter. But I know Roland Burris, obviously; he's from my home state. I think he's a fine public servant. If he gets seated then I'm going to work with Roland Burris, just like I work with all the other senators," Obama said at a press conference at his transition headquarters.
I didn't know that Presidents have the option of accepting or rejecting appointments to the Senate. Silly me, I thought the executive and legislative branches were independent, separate and equal arms of the U.S. government.
Obviously, Burris will get seated. The Illinois Secretary of State has willingly certified other governmental acts taken by Gov. Blagojevich, such as the setting of dates for a special election to replace former Rep. Rahm Emanuel in the U.S. House. What were Reid and the Senate Dems thinking when they decided -- or were convinced by Obama -- to try and make a case about something even the Illinois Secretary of States admits is ceremonial in nature?
The way Reid has handled this matter is in line with how he's handled so many others -- make a big, public stink claiming you'll fight to the end for a position, and then cave completely when push comes to shove. Unfortunately, in a Politico interview, Reid indicated his intention to keep a stranglehold on his Senate leadership job:
Harry Reid vowed Tuesday that he’ll lead the Senate until 2015 and beyond.
... Reid said he’s spent the last eight years as “a point on a spear going against George Bush. “That’s what I had to do to protect the United States Senate and the country,” he said.
Delusional. Is it just me, or has it seemed that Reid and the Senate Dems have blustered and then acquiesced to the right-wing Republicans on almost every single issue of contention over the past eight years? I've been hoping they've learned something from their past blunders, but the Burris story says otherwise. Drat.
Technorti tags: Roland Burris Barack Obama Harry Reid Diane Feinstein Jesse Jackson Jr. U.S. Senate Democrats
January 7, 2009 at 10:44 AM in Government, Obama Transition | Permalink
Comments
Circular firing squad comes to mind.
Think of how they accepted Leiberman.
Posted by: mary ellen | Jan 7, 2009 11:12:00 AM
It was a really dumb thing to do. There was no legal ground to stand on with an appointment like this, they all knew it. But Burris called their bluff and made them look like buffoons.
According to both the Illinois and U.S. Constitutions, Blagojevich can still appoint someone to the Senate. The real question is - why would Burris accept it? His career will forever be tainted by this action.
Posted by: Matt | Jan 7, 2009 12:56:58 PM
Burris would take it because his career will be over anyway -- he's 71 -- and his career up to now has been all about being an African-American political pioneer. Why turn down a chance to be the single African-American in the US Senate?
He's said he sees the appointment as legal, even if Blagojevich is accused of illegalities, so why should any "taint" extend to him? Remember that Obama and Emanuel were making noises about appointing Tammy Duckworth to the seat.
You may recall that Duckworth lost a Congressional seat after Obama and Emanuel helped push out a grassroots candidate who had come close to winning the seat the election cycle before, which pissed many people off in Chicago. Rahm isn't exactly a paragon of fairness in his dealings, and he's all for insiders picking candidates, not the people. Remember his nasty public attacks on Howard Dean?
Posted by: barb | Jan 7, 2009 1:05:48 PM
If Reid thinks he is a "point on a spear," it's a pretty dull point. What the Democratic majority needs to do is use the nuclear option. The filibuster is a dinosaur.
Posted by: Ellen Wedum | Jan 7, 2009 8:43:06 PM
This is par for the course for old-line (read: closet racist) democrats. Reid is just demonstrating his true colors, sad to say. Hopefully, the Nevada voters will find someone better next time. He's making Rove look like a piker. The whole country is watching this very closely.....and the citizens recognize that if the Democrats in the Illinois legislature had acted properly and quickly, instead of playing partisan political games, we wouldn't be seeing this spectacle played out on national television.
Posted by: Don Quixote | Jan 8, 2009 1:05:11 AM
