According to this report in CQ Politics
The director of the Census Bureau will report directly to the White House and not the secretary of Commerce, according to a senior White House official.
The decision came after black and Hispanic leaders raised questions about Commerce Secretary nominee Judd Gregg ’s commitment to funding the census.
What could possibly go wrong in bringing the 2010 Census more under the control of a White House Administration with ties to ACORN?
My guess is that we will see another push to create the decadal census numbers used for Congressional apportionment based on models, rather than hard numbers. In the past the claim has been made that the Census Bureau regularly undercounts urban areas and minorities. To make up for this supposed shortfall, it has been advocated that estimated numbers be used. Here is a PBS NewsHour segment from 2001.
Sounds like a way to strengthen Democrat representation at the state and federal level.
The director of the Census Bureau will report directly to the White House and not the secretary of Commerce, according to a senior White House official.
The decision came after black and Hispanic leaders raised questions about Commerce Secretary nominee Judd Gregg ’s commitment to funding the census.
What could possibly go wrong in bringing the 2010 Census more under the control of a White House Administration with ties to ACORN?
My guess is that we will see another push to create the decadal census numbers used for Congressional apportionment based on models, rather than hard numbers. In the past the claim has been made that the Census Bureau regularly undercounts urban areas and minorities. To make up for this supposed shortfall, it has been advocated that estimated numbers be used. Here is a PBS NewsHour segment from 2001.
Sounds like a way to strengthen Democrat representation at the state and federal level.
05/02: Business as Usual
No difference. We could have gotten this Nancy Pelosi stimulus from President Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, or John Edwards. Nothing original about scare tactics and name calling.
It was a wonderful couple of weeks to imagine a new day. It was fun to believe in a post-partisan transformational leader for a fortnight.
I deserve all the clucking coming my way from my conservative friends.
It was a wonderful couple of weeks to imagine a new day. It was fun to believe in a post-partisan transformational leader for a fortnight.
I deserve all the clucking coming my way from my conservative friends.
05/02: The Big Disappointment?
Fact: Barack Obama possesses a world-class intellect and appears to be one of the coolest political operators to ever sit behind a desk in the Oval Office.
Fact: the President has assembled a "best and the brightest" caliber team of economic advisers.
Fact: we face an economic day of reckoning in which government action is undeniably necessary to avoid cataclysm.
Question: how in Heaven's name did Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Charlie Rangel, and the balance of the usual Left Coast liberal suspects draw the assignment to write the trillion-dollar stimulus package?
I have been holding my fire, waiting patiently and confidently for the "miracle in the Upper Chamber," in which the new President quietly goes bipartisan and deftly disposes of the Pelosi abomination. But we are getting a bit close to the edge. The new rhetoric from the White House is a bit scary.
If we come out of here, in the face of this national crisis, with nothing more than an anachronistic big-spending, big-government, 1960s-style liberal appropriations package, with some added anti-Republican class warfare rhetoric as the icing on top, I will be crushed--and mad.
I know this is early--but it is not too soon to assert that President Obama is at a major crossroads. The content of this massive stimulus bill will determine the character of his administration and the future course of the United States of America. Good God, I hope he gets this right.
Fact: the President has assembled a "best and the brightest" caliber team of economic advisers.
Fact: we face an economic day of reckoning in which government action is undeniably necessary to avoid cataclysm.
Question: how in Heaven's name did Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Charlie Rangel, and the balance of the usual Left Coast liberal suspects draw the assignment to write the trillion-dollar stimulus package?
I have been holding my fire, waiting patiently and confidently for the "miracle in the Upper Chamber," in which the new President quietly goes bipartisan and deftly disposes of the Pelosi abomination. But we are getting a bit close to the edge. The new rhetoric from the White House is a bit scary.
If we come out of here, in the face of this national crisis, with nothing more than an anachronistic big-spending, big-government, 1960s-style liberal appropriations package, with some added anti-Republican class warfare rhetoric as the icing on top, I will be crushed--and mad.
I know this is early--but it is not too soon to assert that President Obama is at a major crossroads. The content of this massive stimulus bill will determine the character of his administration and the future course of the United States of America. Good God, I hope he gets this right.
03/02: Gallup Polling by State
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
The Gallup people are releasing on their web site some 2008 data broken down by state. Included are political party affiliation, and the importance of religion.
Adults esponding positively to the question "Is religion an important part of your daily life?" :
TOP TEN
Mississippi 85%
Alabama 82%
South Carolina 80%
Tennessee 79%
Louisiana 78%
Arkansas 78%
Georgia 76%
North Carolina 76%
Oklahoma 75%
Kentucky, Texas (tie) 74%
BOTTOM TEN
Vermont 42%
New Hampshire 46%
Maine 48%
Massachusetts 48%
Alaska 51%
Washington 52%
Oregon 53%
Rhode Island 53%
Nevada 54%
Connecticut 55%
No real surprises here. I myself put more emphasis on measured behaviors such as church attendance and giving, but I think this poll has value in a general way. One thing that stands out to me is how high the positive responses were in the bottom ten states. By the standard of Western Europe, even Vermont would seem a hotbed of religious fanaticism.
Here are the top and bottom ten Democrat Party states with the Dem party advantage
TOP DEMOCRAT STATES
District of Columbia 75%
Rhode Island 37%
Massachusetts 34%
Hawaii 34%
Vermont 33%
New York 27%
Connecticut 26%
Maryland 26%
Illinois 24%
Delaware 23%
BOTTOM DEMOCRAT STATES (or, top Republican states)
Utah -23%
Wyoming -20%
Idaho -15%
Alaska -11%
Nebraska -7%
Kansas -2%
Alabama -1%
Arizona 0
South Carolina 0
3-way tie 1
No real surprises. Note that the Top and Bottom Ten in each category have a slight correlation. None of the Top Ten states on the importance of religion is a Top Ten Democrat state, and two are Top Ten Republican states. None of the Bottom Ten on the importance of religion is a Top Ten Republican state, and four are Top Ten Democrat states.
Adults esponding positively to the question "Is religion an important part of your daily life?" :
TOP TEN
Mississippi 85%
Alabama 82%
South Carolina 80%
Tennessee 79%
Louisiana 78%
Arkansas 78%
Georgia 76%
North Carolina 76%
Oklahoma 75%
Kentucky, Texas (tie) 74%
BOTTOM TEN
Vermont 42%
New Hampshire 46%
Maine 48%
Massachusetts 48%
Alaska 51%
Washington 52%
Oregon 53%
Rhode Island 53%
Nevada 54%
Connecticut 55%
No real surprises here. I myself put more emphasis on measured behaviors such as church attendance and giving, but I think this poll has value in a general way. One thing that stands out to me is how high the positive responses were in the bottom ten states. By the standard of Western Europe, even Vermont would seem a hotbed of religious fanaticism.
Here are the top and bottom ten Democrat Party states with the Dem party advantage
TOP DEMOCRAT STATES
District of Columbia 75%
Rhode Island 37%
Massachusetts 34%
Hawaii 34%
Vermont 33%
New York 27%
Connecticut 26%
Maryland 26%
Illinois 24%
Delaware 23%
BOTTOM DEMOCRAT STATES (or, top Republican states)
Utah -23%
Wyoming -20%
Idaho -15%
Alaska -11%
Nebraska -7%
Kansas -2%
Alabama -1%
Arizona 0
South Carolina 0
3-way tie 1
No real surprises. Note that the Top and Bottom Ten in each category have a slight correlation. None of the Top Ten states on the importance of religion is a Top Ten Democrat state, and two are Top Ten Republican states. None of the Bottom Ten on the importance of religion is a Top Ten Republican state, and four are Top Ten Democrat states.
01/02: Not Too Big to Fail
During some pretty uncomfortable confirmation hearings, when faced with questions of delinquent taxes hurriedly brought current in the face of his impending nomination as Secretary of Treasury, the supporters of Tim Geithner argued that he was supremely and uniquely qualified for the position. That is, with the economy in free fall, the brilliant Robert Rubin-Lawrence Summers acolyte, Bush-appointed chairman of the Fed Bank of New York, and a man who inspired confidence on both sides of the aisle, was the only person suitable for the most critical position during the most precarious financial crossroads since the Great Depression.
For the most part, Republicans held their fire and passed on the opportunity for partisan gain, quietly believing that Geithner was much better than any other choice they could ever expect from an Obama administration. Too much was at stake. Irony be damned, some commentators observed wryly, his nomination was just "too big to fail."
Now, Tom Daschle, nominee for the Department of Health and Human Services secretary, faces some unsavory tax questions of his own.
Just a few days ago, Mr. Daschle amended his 2005-07 tax returns and paid $128,203 in back taxes and $11,964 in interest. The corrected returns reflect additional income for consulting work, the free use of a corporate limousine, and erroneously declared deductions for charitable contributions.
The devastating line that is making the rounds:
"A limousine liberal who refused to pay taxes on his limousine."
Is Tom Daschle too big to fail? Yes and No.
Surely, no one would argue that Mr. Daschle is anything close to "uniquely qualified" to run Health and Human Services, or, for that matter, even that the Department was somehow essential to the health and happiness of our republic. Surely, we can move forward and prosper as a nation--even without the experienced hand and comforting voice of the former senator from South Dakota.
But there is something else. Tom Daschle himself is a big man in politics. He has a lot of powerful friends in high places. The Senate is generally inclined to protect members of its incredibly exclusive club, especially when we recall that Daschle was not just a member, he was club president (one-time Senate Majority Leader).
In addition, Daschle and President Obama enjoy a special relationship. Just as the good people of Illinois were electing a new junior senator back in 2004, the misguided South Dakota electorate was cashiering a Minority Leader. Exercising his uncanny ability to hitch himself to the right star, the outgoing senator insinuated his staff into the office of the incoming senator on the rise. Theirs has been a very close friendship ever since--with Daschle swinging early support over to the insurgent Democratic candidate early on in his quest for the nomination. No question, President Obama is certainly indebted to Daschle.
Not surprisingly, news reports from the White House have the President unequivocally sticking by his man.
Many are asking: what would have been the reaction from the other side, and from the mainstream media, if this had been President Bush's nominee?
I have consciously avoided that brand of question over the last few months. Why? The answer is usually too obvious for a serious reply. But, more importantly, most of us agree that the treatment of President Bush at the hands of his partisan opposition and the mainstream media was unconscionable--and damaging to the American political fabric.
So, it is very important to me that we do not adopt a standard for dealing with this President that we know in our hearts is manifestly disruptive and unconstructive.
A better question: what would we expect from our side? What would we accept as a fair reaction to a Republican president's nominee in similar circumstances.
By that standard, this Daschle situation stretches our sense of charity and offends our sense of fairness. This nomination sends all the wrong signals. Even as the President scolds Wall Street for double-standards, he seeks to raise his tax-evading friend to high office. This nomination--coming as it does on the heels of some other recent ethically murky moves that we have let pass--leaves a bad taste in our mouths.
Tom Daschle: NOT TOO BIG TO FAIL.
Nice man--maybe. Innocent mistake--probably. Nevertheless, at this juncture, the administration should withdraw this nomination. If not withdrawn--the Senate should not confirm.
For the most part, Republicans held their fire and passed on the opportunity for partisan gain, quietly believing that Geithner was much better than any other choice they could ever expect from an Obama administration. Too much was at stake. Irony be damned, some commentators observed wryly, his nomination was just "too big to fail."
Now, Tom Daschle, nominee for the Department of Health and Human Services secretary, faces some unsavory tax questions of his own.
Just a few days ago, Mr. Daschle amended his 2005-07 tax returns and paid $128,203 in back taxes and $11,964 in interest. The corrected returns reflect additional income for consulting work, the free use of a corporate limousine, and erroneously declared deductions for charitable contributions.
The devastating line that is making the rounds:
"A limousine liberal who refused to pay taxes on his limousine."
Is Tom Daschle too big to fail? Yes and No.
Surely, no one would argue that Mr. Daschle is anything close to "uniquely qualified" to run Health and Human Services, or, for that matter, even that the Department was somehow essential to the health and happiness of our republic. Surely, we can move forward and prosper as a nation--even without the experienced hand and comforting voice of the former senator from South Dakota.
But there is something else. Tom Daschle himself is a big man in politics. He has a lot of powerful friends in high places. The Senate is generally inclined to protect members of its incredibly exclusive club, especially when we recall that Daschle was not just a member, he was club president (one-time Senate Majority Leader).
In addition, Daschle and President Obama enjoy a special relationship. Just as the good people of Illinois were electing a new junior senator back in 2004, the misguided South Dakota electorate was cashiering a Minority Leader. Exercising his uncanny ability to hitch himself to the right star, the outgoing senator insinuated his staff into the office of the incoming senator on the rise. Theirs has been a very close friendship ever since--with Daschle swinging early support over to the insurgent Democratic candidate early on in his quest for the nomination. No question, President Obama is certainly indebted to Daschle.
Not surprisingly, news reports from the White House have the President unequivocally sticking by his man.
Many are asking: what would have been the reaction from the other side, and from the mainstream media, if this had been President Bush's nominee?
I have consciously avoided that brand of question over the last few months. Why? The answer is usually too obvious for a serious reply. But, more importantly, most of us agree that the treatment of President Bush at the hands of his partisan opposition and the mainstream media was unconscionable--and damaging to the American political fabric.
So, it is very important to me that we do not adopt a standard for dealing with this President that we know in our hearts is manifestly disruptive and unconstructive.
A better question: what would we expect from our side? What would we accept as a fair reaction to a Republican president's nominee in similar circumstances.
By that standard, this Daschle situation stretches our sense of charity and offends our sense of fairness. This nomination sends all the wrong signals. Even as the President scolds Wall Street for double-standards, he seeks to raise his tax-evading friend to high office. This nomination--coming as it does on the heels of some other recent ethically murky moves that we have let pass--leaves a bad taste in our mouths.
Tom Daschle: NOT TOO BIG TO FAIL.
Nice man--maybe. Innocent mistake--probably. Nevertheless, at this juncture, the administration should withdraw this nomination. If not withdrawn--the Senate should not confirm.
Dan Gerstein, writing on Forbes.com, had it exactly right today: the "real story within the stimulus bill drama is the power jockeying going on within the Democratic family." Put it another way, the unfolding relationship between the Obama White House and the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, provides the key to understanding the course and character of the next eight years. Ironically, as Gerstein points out, this conflict is also the most neglected story in the Federal City right now.
First, how important is the stimulus package itself? Not very. Spending a trillion dollars we don't have is mostly a bad idea, but, nevertheless, one whose time has come. Whether we borrow another trill to sod the National Mall, make Planned Parenthood facilities more available to poor people in need of dignified abortions, or build bridges and roads, none of the details are very important.
We know it will pass. We can also safely assume that it will NOT have a salutary effect on the economy. But we can also predict that the economy will turn upward in the near term unrelated to the massive injection of federal money, the media will happily label the uptick the most astounding economic recovery of the modern age, credit the Obama administration for true genius, and laud the stimulus package as the vessel of our salvation.
2012: Happy Days will be here again. No matter what passes (and, once again, we all know something will pass), President Obama wins in the short term. America likes him. The media adores him. And we all want him to succeed.
But there is one trap he must avoid.
Barack Obama understands his political fortunes are directly related to how far he can distance himself from Nancy Pelosi and her extreme left-wing ideology.
Why?
San Francisco liberalism does not work--nor does it play well among regular Americans. Four years of Nancy Pelosi appearing weekly on Meet the Press setting his agenda is not a recipe for a successful Obama presidency. He cannot succeed politically or substantively, if Henry Waxman, Barney Frank, John Conyers, and Speaker Pelosi set the tone for his administration. She is arrogant, vindictive, and over confident. Her leadership means a punishing tenure for the minority in the House and a continuance of Bush Derangement Syndrome, featuring show trials and unhinged attacks on a villain in absentia. This will fly in the face of the post-partisan image Obama has so expertly crafted. In fact, such a circus might even be enough to blunt the unrelenting tide of disapproval for the beleaguered Forty-Three.
The President is an astute politician. He understands Pelosi is poison. He understands the public crucifixion of his predecessor (and/or our intelligence community) is a sideshow he does not need and cannot afford. Obama cannot allow the Old Radical Left in the House to run amok.
Can this President overcome his own party leadership?
I am encouraged by Obama’s choice of Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff, as Emanuel seems to be the only Democrat in Washington who can stand up to the Speaker. How will they deal with her? A public humiliation of the Speaker at the hands of the Team Obama is highly unlikely; it is not their style--and it causes another set of problems. Nevertheless, there is a significant wrestling match going on right now between Pelosi and the White House, which Obama must win to be successful. He is fully aware of this, and I expect him to prevail.
The stimulus is an important test of this theory. As I say, a trillion dollar stimulus in any incarnation is an ill-conceived notion--but it is going to happen. The test is how much of the old Liberal rubbish Obama is willing to force us to choke down. How much of the most politically embarrassing elements of the package can the Obama forces trim away in the murky cloakrooms of the United States Senate? How well can he co-opt Republicans in order to insulate himself against future attacks.
None of this will be easy. Obama is now forced to make a transition from back-bencher with no real responsibility to the owner of the desk where the buck stops. He no longer has the luxury of blending in with the crowd. Now that he is irrevocably in the spotlight, he really does need to stand up as a "New Democrat" and make a break with the Left Coasters.
Let's see what happens.
First, how important is the stimulus package itself? Not very. Spending a trillion dollars we don't have is mostly a bad idea, but, nevertheless, one whose time has come. Whether we borrow another trill to sod the National Mall, make Planned Parenthood facilities more available to poor people in need of dignified abortions, or build bridges and roads, none of the details are very important.
We know it will pass. We can also safely assume that it will NOT have a salutary effect on the economy. But we can also predict that the economy will turn upward in the near term unrelated to the massive injection of federal money, the media will happily label the uptick the most astounding economic recovery of the modern age, credit the Obama administration for true genius, and laud the stimulus package as the vessel of our salvation.
2012: Happy Days will be here again. No matter what passes (and, once again, we all know something will pass), President Obama wins in the short term. America likes him. The media adores him. And we all want him to succeed.
But there is one trap he must avoid.
Barack Obama understands his political fortunes are directly related to how far he can distance himself from Nancy Pelosi and her extreme left-wing ideology.
Why?
San Francisco liberalism does not work--nor does it play well among regular Americans. Four years of Nancy Pelosi appearing weekly on Meet the Press setting his agenda is not a recipe for a successful Obama presidency. He cannot succeed politically or substantively, if Henry Waxman, Barney Frank, John Conyers, and Speaker Pelosi set the tone for his administration. She is arrogant, vindictive, and over confident. Her leadership means a punishing tenure for the minority in the House and a continuance of Bush Derangement Syndrome, featuring show trials and unhinged attacks on a villain in absentia. This will fly in the face of the post-partisan image Obama has so expertly crafted. In fact, such a circus might even be enough to blunt the unrelenting tide of disapproval for the beleaguered Forty-Three.
The President is an astute politician. He understands Pelosi is poison. He understands the public crucifixion of his predecessor (and/or our intelligence community) is a sideshow he does not need and cannot afford. Obama cannot allow the Old Radical Left in the House to run amok.
Can this President overcome his own party leadership?
I am encouraged by Obama’s choice of Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff, as Emanuel seems to be the only Democrat in Washington who can stand up to the Speaker. How will they deal with her? A public humiliation of the Speaker at the hands of the Team Obama is highly unlikely; it is not their style--and it causes another set of problems. Nevertheless, there is a significant wrestling match going on right now between Pelosi and the White House, which Obama must win to be successful. He is fully aware of this, and I expect him to prevail.
The stimulus is an important test of this theory. As I say, a trillion dollar stimulus in any incarnation is an ill-conceived notion--but it is going to happen. The test is how much of the old Liberal rubbish Obama is willing to force us to choke down. How much of the most politically embarrassing elements of the package can the Obama forces trim away in the murky cloakrooms of the United States Senate? How well can he co-opt Republicans in order to insulate himself against future attacks.
None of this will be easy. Obama is now forced to make a transition from back-bencher with no real responsibility to the owner of the desk where the buck stops. He no longer has the luxury of blending in with the crowd. Now that he is irrevocably in the spotlight, he really does need to stand up as a "New Democrat" and make a break with the Left Coasters.
Let's see what happens.
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Best analysis of Obama's Inauguration Speech anywhere in the media.
This is funny right here. I don't care who you are.
This is funny right here. I don't care who you are.
Category: Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
All the Barak hype "I'm the new Lincoln" really grates on me. I am reminded of 1Kings20:11
"Let not him that girds on his armor boast himself as he that puts it off"
Or, in the TXVB (Texas Version of the Bible),
Don't brag climbing into the saddle like your're climbing down.
"Let not him that girds on his armor boast himself as he that puts it off"
Or, in the TXVB (Texas Version of the Bible),
Don't brag climbing into the saddle like your're climbing down.
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
I just read this Karen Tumulty piece in TIME on Caroline Kennedy's quest for "Camelot II," which is relentlessly critical. No caveats. No judicious presentation of "on the other hand." No mercy. And, worst of all for the Kennedy putsch, Tumulty gets it right.
When TIME mag dishes out this brand of unapologetically unsympathetic reportage of a liberal scion-slash-icon, it is worth noting.
One other not-so-subtle swipe at the heiress: click onto the above TIME link and check out the art. The pic of Caroline is absolutely hideous. The message: this is a woman much too unattractive to be a Kennedy or a senator.
When TIME mag dishes out this brand of unapologetically unsympathetic reportage of a liberal scion-slash-icon, it is worth noting.
One other not-so-subtle swipe at the heiress: click onto the above TIME link and check out the art. The pic of Caroline is absolutely hideous. The message: this is a woman much too unattractive to be a Kennedy or a senator.
31/12: Seat Roland Burris
Due to the elevation of its junior senator to the presidency of the United States, Illinois state law requires its governor to appoint a qualified candidate to fill the open seat for the remainder of the term, terminating with the regularly scheduled canvass for senate in 2010. Yesterday, the duly elected governor, Rod Blagojevich, appointed, Roland W. Burris, longtime Illinois public servant, to represent the people of the Prairie State. In ordinary times, this would all be pro forma and not much of a news story. But these are no ordinary times.
Backed up by the President-elect, Senate Democratic Leadership has drawn a line in the sand, forswearing to block the appointment, arguing that Governor Blagojevich, as a result of his recently discovered perfidy, is unfit to make the selection.
From the Senate Democratic Leadership:
"This is not about Mr. Burris; it is about the integrity of a governor accused of attempting to sell this United States Senate seat. Under these circumstances, anyone appointed by Gov. Blagojevich cannot be an effective representative of the people of Illinois and, as we have said, will not be seated by the Democratic Caucus."
Statement in full on PDF here courtesy of C-SPAN; interestingly, this statement is not available as of this writing on any of the usual Senate websites.
Democratic Leadership is wrong. It makes no sense to block a legitimate replacement appointment solely because of his indirect relationship with a politician about whom you are feeling guilty and politically vulnerable.
Burris is a qualified candidate in terms of the Constitution, which admittedly does not set a very exacting standard: 30 years of age, nine years a citizen of the United States, and a current resident of Illinois. More significantly, as all parties acknowledge, Burris is also an eminently qualified candidate in terms of reputation and political experience.
There is no reason to believe that Burris cannot effectively represent the people of Illinois. Harry Reid and his boys ought to take a deep breath, admit that Blago outfoxed them--and then stand down.
Granted Blagojevich is most likely a bad guy, which Harry Reid and company knew long before Patrick Fitzgerald made the man a pariah. What changed exactly? Legally, not much. This governor, who remains unindicted (at this point he faces only a criminal complaint), has all the formal power he did before December 9th.
UPDATE: Just now USA Patrick Fitzgerald asked for a 90-day extension to indict (breaking news via USA Today here). Really, what in the Sam Hill is going on with this case?
Thus far the Illinois legislature has not gotten serious on impeachment, nor have they enacted legislation that would have placed the replacement decision in the hands of the voters (legislation which Blogojevich had promised to sign). The common wisdom holds that the Democratic-run Illinois state senate balked upon considering the possibility that a special election might favor a Republican candidate in this atmosphere.
So, in the absence of action on the part of the legislature, the governor reasonably argues that he has an obligation to move forward.
According to the Constitution, the Senate reserves the right to refuse service to anyone it pleases. But this may well be a case in which the institutional "right" conflicts with right and wrong, and the fine print may not be in keeping with the "spirit of the law."
Bottom line: Harry Reid and company need to hold their noses (for public consumption), seat Burris, and move on.
Backed up by the President-elect, Senate Democratic Leadership has drawn a line in the sand, forswearing to block the appointment, arguing that Governor Blagojevich, as a result of his recently discovered perfidy, is unfit to make the selection.
From the Senate Democratic Leadership:
"This is not about Mr. Burris; it is about the integrity of a governor accused of attempting to sell this United States Senate seat. Under these circumstances, anyone appointed by Gov. Blagojevich cannot be an effective representative of the people of Illinois and, as we have said, will not be seated by the Democratic Caucus."
Statement in full on PDF here courtesy of C-SPAN; interestingly, this statement is not available as of this writing on any of the usual Senate websites.
Democratic Leadership is wrong. It makes no sense to block a legitimate replacement appointment solely because of his indirect relationship with a politician about whom you are feeling guilty and politically vulnerable.
Burris is a qualified candidate in terms of the Constitution, which admittedly does not set a very exacting standard: 30 years of age, nine years a citizen of the United States, and a current resident of Illinois. More significantly, as all parties acknowledge, Burris is also an eminently qualified candidate in terms of reputation and political experience.
There is no reason to believe that Burris cannot effectively represent the people of Illinois. Harry Reid and his boys ought to take a deep breath, admit that Blago outfoxed them--and then stand down.
Granted Blagojevich is most likely a bad guy, which Harry Reid and company knew long before Patrick Fitzgerald made the man a pariah. What changed exactly? Legally, not much. This governor, who remains unindicted (at this point he faces only a criminal complaint), has all the formal power he did before December 9th.
UPDATE: Just now USA Patrick Fitzgerald asked for a 90-day extension to indict (breaking news via USA Today here). Really, what in the Sam Hill is going on with this case?
Thus far the Illinois legislature has not gotten serious on impeachment, nor have they enacted legislation that would have placed the replacement decision in the hands of the voters (legislation which Blogojevich had promised to sign). The common wisdom holds that the Democratic-run Illinois state senate balked upon considering the possibility that a special election might favor a Republican candidate in this atmosphere.
So, in the absence of action on the part of the legislature, the governor reasonably argues that he has an obligation to move forward.
According to the Constitution, the Senate reserves the right to refuse service to anyone it pleases. But this may well be a case in which the institutional "right" conflicts with right and wrong, and the fine print may not be in keeping with the "spirit of the law."
Bottom line: Harry Reid and company need to hold their noses (for public consumption), seat Burris, and move on.
