Well. This is going to be ... baroque yet entertaining. Or it would be entertaining if it were happening, you know, somewhere else.. (The Minnesota senatorial election follies, for example; vastly entertaining from a state away. Probably not so much for Minnesotans, though.)
In a display of political bravado, disgraced Gov. Rod Blagojevich today appointed former Illinois Atty. Gen. Roland Burris to the U.S. Senate, challenging national Democratic leaders to reject the appointment of an African-American to the seat that propelled Barack Obama to the White House. The defiant move tests the resolve of Senate Democrats who said they would not admit anyone appointed by Blagojevich, who is facing impeachment after being accused of trying to sell the Senate seat for personal gain. And it reveals to a nation celebrating Obama's victory the underbelly of Chicago's race-based political scene.
President-elect Obama supported the announcement by Senate Democrats that Blagojevich's appointment "will ultimately not stand." Obama issued the following statement: "Roland Burris is a good man and a fine public servant, but the Senate Democrats made it clear weeks ago that they cannot accept an appointment made by a governor who is accused of selling this very Senate seat. I agree with their decision, and it is extremely disappointing that Governor Blagojevich has chosen to ignore it. I believe the best resolution would be for the Governor to resign his office and allow a lawful and appropriate process of succession to take place. While Governor Blagojevich is entitled to his day in court, the people of Illinois are entitled to a functioning government and major decisions free of taint and controversy."
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada now faces a difficult political situation amid uncertainties that an attempt to block Burris from taking office can withstand a legal challenge. Burris, Illinois' first statewide elected African-American, wants entry into a chamber that no longer has any blacks.
Democratic U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush of Chicago, appearing at Blagojevich's announcement at Burris' invitation, underscored the role of race in the governor's decision by using racially charged terms to defend the appointment. "I would ask you to not hang or lynch the appointee as you try to castigate the appointer," said Rush, who promised to lobby congressional leaders on Burris' behalf.
"That was excellent Bobby. Thank you," Blagojevich said to Rush. The governor then turned to reporters and said, "Feel free to castigate the appointer but don't lynch the appointer. I am not guilty of any criminal wrongdoing!"
While Democrats on all levels were quick to castigate the governor, who was arrested three weeks ago on allegations he tried to sell Obama's former Senate seat, they were careful not to accuse Burris of any taint associated with Blagojevich. Still, questions remained why the former three-term state comptroller and one-term attorney general, nearly 14 years removed from holding statewide elected office, would accept the appointment when others who had sought it shied away after the governor's arrest.
Burris has long sought a jump to higher office, failing in three primary bids for governor in 1994, 1998 and, in 2002 against Blagojevich, as well as campaigns for Chicago mayor in 1995 and U.S. senator in 1984. In accepting the appointment, he refused to discuss Blagojevich's alleged criminal activities or whether he believed the governor should step down. "I am not a tool of the governor. I'm a tool of the people of Illinois," Burris told the Tribune Tuesday evening. "If I was worried about the taint [of Blagojevich], I would never have accepted that. I don't have any taint from Gov. Blagojevich. [...]"
Well ... he's a tool of some sort, that's for certain.
I have to admit, I can't escape the feeling that Blagojevich did this to have fun at his detractors' expense. The Illinois secretary of state has apparently said that he's going to refuse to certify the appointment, but it seems fairly clear that he lacks the constitutional authority to do so. If an election were involved, it might be different, but he has no grounds to refuse to certify a duly appointed candidate. Reid of the US Senate has said that the chamber will refuse to seat Burris, but it actually seems fairly clear that the Senate utterly lacks the authority to do so -- there's a Supreme Court decision about the issue and everything! They can seat Burris, then vote to expel him, but the Senate has traditionally held expulsion for fairly serious offenses. Moreover, Rush's comment indicates that people may put the racial issue front and center.
Sad thing is, if it weren't for the circumstances, Burris would be a brilliant appointment. He's never been seen as corrupt. At 71, he's old enough that it's fairly likely that he'd be a placeholder appointment, so he'd get to end the most active portion of his political career on a high note and yet the people of the state would then be able to select him or someone else two years from now.The racial issue would be nicely defused, since you can't reasonably argue that Burris isn't of himself qualified. Seriously, if it weren't for the situation, it really would be almost a perfect selection. As it stands, one can only think that Burris is letting end-of-career political ambition override end-of-career political judgement.
Posted by iain at December 31, 2008 12:18 AM
