Sure, Harry Reid has managed to trap himself now on the subject of Roland Burris, and is getting a lot of criticism for it. But how many of you saw his dilemma coming? At the time the Blagojevich scandal broke, did Reid and the Democrats really have any choice but to distance themselves as much as possible, and assert flatly that they wouldn't seat anyone that he nominated? Did they really have any reason to expect that a quasi-credible candidate like Roland Burris would actually accept Blagojevich's nomination (as opposed to someone like, say, Patti Blagojevich?)
I think Reid can be criticized for one thing -- for failing to advocate for a special election. But even if the Democrats had made a more earnest push to hold a special election, that would still have provided for the possibility that Blagojevich would attempt to nominate someone in the meantime. What were they supposed to have said? "You know Rod, we really have no legal grounds to block your nominee, so please pretty please with a cherry on top don't do it?"
1.07.2009
On Harry's Hindsight
@ 2:23 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
105 comments
Is it too late to appoint Patti? Fuck that fucking Harry Reid shit, that's change we can fucking believe in!
With Burris being seating after all the other incoming Senators, does that mean he is behind them in seniority? Had they seated him after he was appointed he would be ahead of them.
You know, the issue isn't that Reid got out maneuvered in this one instance by not calling a special election. The problem is broader, that Reid always gets out maneuvered. This is one instance that is part of a much larger trend. (I can think of another ten situations just off the top of my head.) Reid's leadership is ineffectual, and we expect, ney' we need more, from a Senate majority leader.
Personally, a lot of us saw this coming. We are not professional politicians, but Harry Reid set himself up by drawing a line in the sand. He dared Blago, who was concerned and trapped, to try something wild and crazy. Blago made a BRILLIANT political decision that will not help his impeachment in any way, but did lay the smack down to the paper tiger, "the warning letter".
Humorously, when Obama let it be known that Burris should be seated, lo, it shall come to pass. When Reid say NO WAY, he forgot to ask for the right to extend and revise his comments.
Blago has to be the most arrogant democrat I've ever come across. You almost have to admire his moxy. He's pushing around Reid and the Democrats in a way usually reserved for the most underhanded Republicans of the Cheney/Rove variety. Maybe the party could learn something from his powerplay!
andrew, I agree, his ballsiness is almost admirable. Apparently he might even show up at the inauguration: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/07/blagojevich-may-show-up-a_n_155868.html
Maybe he can crash the Netroots Nation party?
Nate,
I think you're going too easy on Reid. First, it was foreseeable that a quasi-credible candidate would emerge: Senate seats are desirable things, and there are a lot of pols in Illinois who want one.
Second, Redi's original letter to Blago left Reid wiggle room to seat a subsequent appointee: "we would be forced to exercise our Constitutional authority under Article I, Section 5, to determine whether such a person should be seated." The problem was not what happened before the appointment, but after. Too much of the we're-not-going-to-seat-Burris rhetoric came after Burris was appointed. It was then, when there was a quasi-credible candidate, that Reid had a chance to walk it back, invite some law professors to testify, and seat Burris without losing face.
What would I have said if I were Senate Majority Leader when President-Elect Obama's seat came open and it was apparent Blago would try to fill it?
I would have expressed my displeasure, said I would explore all options and then do what was best for the citizens of Illinois. In this case, accept the legally appointed Senator-Designate and work to get Blago impeached.
To my layman's eyes, this case looks similar to Marbury v Madison, except that Burris DOES have an avenue to require the IL Secretary of State to sign the certification.
Interestingly enough, I think the Office of the President-Elect did not say too much about this subject, but is doing a good job of minimizing the amount of time this story remains a story.
wv: inessn How Red Sox fans watch Jerry Remy and Don Orsillo on their phones
You said it yourself, Nate. He could have pushed for a special election, and the Dems in Illinois could have passed a law in one day stripping Blague of the right to appoint. Sure, it would have sat on his desk for 60 days before becoming law, and sure, he could have appointed someone in the interim, but Reid's stance would be a whole lot stronger (and less subject to caving) if he could say that the Illinois legislature removed the power of appointment from Blague and we should wait to seat the winner of the special election.
One thing that drives me nuts about my party is that it's leadership (Reid included) has no idea how to play hardball. Blago has nothing left to lose. He's going to jail, he's lost his grip on power, he's soon to lose his source of income, and he his name is now synonymous with political sleeze. What the hell can we threaten him with? There's nothing left to take away! You've backed him into a corner.
So of course Blago is going to make this difficult on everybody. He knows he's going down, so he might as well take as many people with him as he can, particularly the people who have been attacking him the most, being his own party.
Had this matter been handled discretely, had we offered Blago an out instead of pulling the trigger and sending in the FBI and alerting the press, thiings could have gone more smoothly. Blago retires for 'health reasons', and the investigation is handled away from the press. His family is spared the humiliation, and he has a very strong interest at that point in keeping things quiet, so he plays along and declines appointing anybody.
I mean, c'mon, Kennedy fucked Marilyn Monroe the night before she died, a far more splashy scandal than this, and one more understandable to the general public. Yet, they handled that mess professionally and smoothly, minimizing the sideshow. That's how we should have handled Blago.
What's worse about the position Reid put himself in is that he has now foreclosed the Senate from exercising its constitutional authority to judge the MN election itself and seat Franken immediately. His "no valid certificate, no seating" cop-out will leave Franken and MN waiting for months to have full representation.
Reid would be comical if he wasn't supposed to be on our side.
Reid is a dolt and set his own self up for this mess. Step down, Harry, let's get a real leader. That's change we can believe in!
Experts agree: Reid is a jackass.
Nate,as Joe The Fake Virginian says,a lot of us saw this coming!
We posted that Reid was screwing this up,as he usually does,and that the quicker Burris was seated the better.If Reid hadn't taken his moronic initial stand,there wouldn't even had been that negative Gallup poll that was thrust into the public consciousness.
And what the hell is taking the Illinois Supreme Court so long to issue that Writ of Mandamus! (Maybe Durbin should lean on White to sign the certification ASAP.)
Seems to me that Reid is mostly motivated by trying to avoid Republican criticism. Of course it never works, and it makes him get in his own way all the time.
But why work so hard to oppose Burris, and yet never force the Republicans to actually filibuster?
SnW,
One problem. Blago only cares about himself. The rest of the Illinois has been trying to get rid of him for awhile, to no avail. Getting him to play along would have wasted time and effort.
He doesn't care about being discrete or acting appropriately. He's the kind of guy that would hang his family out to dry if he could gain some benefit from it.
Plus, Fitzgerald isn't one to play nice with his prey. He's too much of a straight shooter to broker a background deal.
Did Reid have a choice?
Of course, he did.
He could have simply stated that he preferred a special election, but that he would ABIDE BY THE LAW.
Gun, foot bang!
Just voted on the 2008 Weblog Awards.
Our beloved 538 is racking up 49.7 % of the votes!
I point us all back to the polls (unscientific) that Nate offered us on Monday.
By nearly a 60%-40% outcome, respondents said Burris SHOULD NOT be seated. However, a 75%-25% outcome, respondents said Burris WOULD be seated. 45% thought it would happen either immediately or within two weeks.
Harry Reid: Unable to tell the difference between what SHOULD BE DONE compared to what CAN BE DONE.
That sounds like a good lesson for leadership.
Straight shooting looks great in Hollywood. Those Dead or Alive posters with Bin-Laden's face on them were an example. Sadly, the Reality does not play by Hollywood's rules. Remember 'Shock and Awe' during the Iraq invasion? Well, we're pretty shocked at Rumsfeld all right, and we are all in awe of how stupid we were for falling for it.
Cowboy bluster hasn't done us much good lately. I say it's time for a subtler technique. We need legal ninjas, not legal cowboys.
I have a hard time believing that Blago cannot be coaxed into compliance. Everyone has a soft spot for something. I saw something on 60 minutes about an investigator that got Saddam Hussein to confess by feigning an interest in his poetry. Which was reportedly awful, but he endured it and pretended to be moved by it, and it worked. Surely Blago has some weakness if even an insane mass murderer like that does.
@Statler "my party"
I am impressed I do not think I could do it. I could never call the Democrats "my party". Do I vote and volunteer for Dem candidates? Yes. Have I ever voted Republican? No-
But I do not think I will ever be able to call them "my party". True the Democratic party houses many brilliant and accomplished public servants. But there are lots of inert lifers who seem to pay more attention to keeping their "seat" with minimal hassle than to public service.
imho Obama is playing hardball party politics- I think the hardest ball that has been hit at this point is Leon Pannetta as the CIA Director. Obama hit the ball right into the face of some of those lifer Dems that have not been doing their job. Let's hope it works.
Are you sure about JFK and MM?
@Joe TFV Where, when, and how did Obama give the nod to seat Burris?
Hey what is the ETA for Franken?
@ mhz
I neglected to post the link to the Huffington Post in this thread. I did it in an earlier thread.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/07/dem-aide-obama-wanted-sen_n_155909.html
Sorry about the way I posted the link. :(
mhz,
I said, "Blago's Parrty."
I also said Harry Reid coould not play hardball. Reid is not Obama.
Yes, I am quite sure about JFK and MM.
Once long ago, people believed in subtlety and persuasion. Now, brute force rules the day. Brute force only works if you can annihilate your opponent in the first move.
Also, I am a Democrat, and what of it? I am registered as a Democrat, I donate money to Democrats, and I volunteer to promote Democratic candidates. So yes, they are "my party".
So what?
I guess I'm the only one that thinks Reid didn't do so bad. The end result? Burris, a qualified guy, might actually get seated, and dems still get to come out against Blago. To me, forcing Blago's pick to be confirmed by other Illinois officials, when the constitution allows for Blago to make that choice all on his own, is slap in the face.
It would have been a shame for this to end Burris's political career. He made a ballsy move and deserves the seat.
Reid is an attorney who should now how to give himself wiggle room. He didn't, he's an idiot.
Maybe he's a Senator because he sucked in court, just a thought.
I doubt anyone has anything personal against Burris. If we're seating Caroline Kennedy, Burris is at least more qualified than she is.
What we're taking issue with is the attack ads not yet written. In 2010, Burris will be suspected of having paid Blago something for the seat. That is almost certain defeat for a man who will have only 2 years to build a reputation upon. If defeated in the primary, his opponent will have even less time to establish their credibility with the public before the general election. Seating Burris now means a Republican will take that seat in 2010. The GOP doesn't even need to pick anyone qualified. If they select anyone who isn't a total trainwreck, they,ll win that seat.
With President Bush set to leave the White House less than two weeks from now, here's a "Then and Now" to show what the United States looked like when Bush was entering office and what it looks like now as he's leaving. The "Then" is the best-available figure as Bush was taking office in 2001. The "Now" is the most recent figure.
UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
Then: 4.2% (Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 2001)
Now: 6.7% (Bureau of Labor Statistics, November 2008)
DOW JONES INDUSTRIAL AVERAGE
Then: 10,587 (close of Friday, Jan. 19, 2001)
Now: 9,015 (close of Tuesday, Jan. 6, 2009)
BUSH FAVORABILITY RATING
Then: 50% (1/01 NBC/WSJ poll)
Now: 31% (12/08 NBC/WSJ poll)
CHENEY FAVORABILITY RATING
Then: 49% (1/01 NBC/WSJ poll)
Now: 21% (12/08 NBC/WSJ poll)
CONGRESS APPROVAL RATING
Then: 48% (1/01 NBC/WSJ poll)
Now: 21% (12/08 NBC/WSJ poll)
SATISFIED WITH THE NATION'S DIRECTION
Then: 45% (1/01 NBC/WSJ poll)
Now: 26% (12/08 NBC/WSJ poll)
CONSUMER CONFIDENCE (1985=100)
Then: 115.7 (Conference Board, January 2001)
Now: 38.0, which is an all-time low (Conference Board, December 2008)
FAMILIES LIVING IN POVERTY
Then: 6.4 million (Census numbers for 2000)
Now: 7.6 million (Census numbers for 2007 -- most recent numbers available)
AMERICANS WITHOUT HEALTH INSURANCE
Then: 39.8 million (Census numbers for 2000)
Now: 45.7 million (Census numbers for 2007 -- most recent available)
U.S. BUDGET
Then: +236.2 billion (2000, Congressional Budget Office)
Now: -$1.2 trillion (projected figure for 2009, Congressional Budget Office)
From MSNBC First Read
A lot of people identified the possibility that the Senate could not refuse to seat an appointment for the senate seat (look at TPM for a lot of the discussion on that topic). Reid maneuvered himself into his own corner and hasn't shown much political ability at extricating himself or the other democrats he brought with him on the issue. So yes, I think it is fair to blame Reid for a lack of political foresight and poor execution to boot.
Nate is completely right. The best way would have been a special election.
Burris himself is actually a personified definition of a placeholder: old, same political background as the person he replaces (black democrat), 2nd tier politician, uncontroversial - if Rep. Rush had not explicitly mentioned race as a factor, it would have been a flawless move.
I also think that Reid didn't do too bad, though he really didn't have other options anyway. Outside of the political blogosphere, people will just see that the Democrats really didn't want Burris to be seated because of Blagojevich's taint. That scene yesterday was as far as they could go. Any more resistance against the seating would not be justified according to the law. It was just one more step to seperate Blagojevich from the Democrats. And luckily, his behaviour has been so over-the-top that people think of him more as a single person than of a typical Democrat... a pay-to-play scheme of "ordinary dimensions" (like what we'll see in New Mexico if the allegations against Governor Richardson are true) are much more dangerous.
Anyway, the symbolic protest against Burris was important. But the legal basis for more isn't there. The partisan democrats probably want to see more from Reid, but to be honest, they don't matter to the Senate majority leader, he looks towards moderates.
@Nate
FiveThirtyEight is a 2008 Weblog Awards nominee in the category of 'Best Political Coverage', not that you should go and vote or anything like that.
Hey, Nate, you live in Chicago where the rule is, "Vote early, vote often." :-)
@Statler N Waldorf- It is not a criticism at all. It is my unwillingness to face the reality that we are stuck with two these parties.
@JTFV- thanks for the link.
Is it really going to take months to seat Franken. Bummer!
@Statler N Waldorf:
Excellent point, but I just don't think it's going to matter. A democrat is going to win that seat no matter what the baggage is. Especially in 2010 when the news cycle is going to be even faster and attack ads will be even less effective.
The democrats might not have had any choice but to distance themselves from Blago, but the choice to publicly threaten to refuse to seat anyone he appoints could have been avoided. They practically dared Blago to do it. So he did. He called Reid's bluff. Just like everybody else does.
The Reid just kept pushing it. Talked about the senate's "legal authority" not to seat Burris.
As soon as Burris was nominated we all knew how this was going to end. Well, all except Harry Reid.
The problem with what Reid did is that he took a stand that he couldn't legally back up and then immediately caved. If he had stood on "principle" for a week and then conceded that he wasn't holding the cards, he wouldn't have looked like such a spinless twit. By handling it the way he did he managed to alienate both people who wanted to seat Burris and those who didn't. Although I suppose "not sure" might have empathy for him.
Basically he pushed all in on a bluff despite the fact that everyone at the table could see his cards. And yes, plenty of people saw this coming.
Nate: All those who argue that Reid didn't have a choice are wrong. He did and still does! He could choose NOT to seat Burris, let Burris take his court case and damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead! He might have lost, but he would made his point that the Burris nomination stinks to high-heaven and he's not going to just roll over and accept it. If the Federal courts want to jam it down the Senate's throat, fine. Let them take the heat.
From my earlier post which it seems no-one read:
"Democratic leaders are not going to seat Roland Burris immediately, but are waiting for the outcome of pending court cases and Burris’ testimony in the impeachment of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich before signing off on his entry into the Senate.
All of this could unfold before the end of the week."
Well, the patented Democratic table pounding, followed by a complete surrender like the French army at Sedan is now fully accomplished! Hurrah!
Harry Reid is officially an expert at shooting himself in the foot over and over again.
Was there really a down-side to allowing Burris to litigate (and possibly win) in Federal court? NO!! The Senate refuses to seat him. He sues and wins. They shrug and seat him.
Republicans can't use this to tarnish Democrats because they can blame it on the courts. NO legal precedent is established that future scumbag Republicans can use to hard-ball refuse to seat some Democratic Senator (and they would if they were in the majority don't kid yourself).
Win-win-win. Sen. Dem's save face, Burris wins in Court and is seated, no bad precedent is created.
But, of course that would require Reid to actually be something other than a total doormat who folds at the first sign of pressure. He'd have to hold out for several months, not 4 days.
And that thought apparently left Reid and other key Democrats trembling in fear.
So, here's the actual plan:
One aide said one complicating factor to reaching a deal is the fact the Burris is scheduled to testify at Blagojevich's impeachment proceedings in Springfield on Thursday.
Seating him Wednesday before those hearings could be problematic if embarrassing details emerge, the aide said.
So, Reid is forced to not collapse and surrender until after the Thursday impeachment hearings, when presumably nothing too incriminating about Burris will come out, thus enabling Reid to announce that he's withdrawing his opposition to seating Burris in light of the "evidence" that Burris is not personally "tainted."
That's a rather puny fig-leaf to cover a rather large fatuous ass, but it's nothing new to Senate Dems. Inventing pathetic and transparent excuses for waiving the white flag is part of their well developed culture.
This is pretty much the last nail in Reid's coffin. DiFi (still po'd she's not treated as one of the leaders of the Senate) has flexed her muscles at both Reid and Obama, and can point to victory of a sort in both manners. I think that's a foretaste of what's to come, with Obama's biggest fights being with other Dems who don't trust Reid's leadership.
Fact is, Nate, Harry Reid has been damaged goods for a long time and is the total opposite of a teflon politician, not to mention he's become the poster boy for wimposcrats. He has to step down as Majority Leader for the sake of the party, and more importantly, himself. He needs to focus on getting re-elected. I'm actually starting to think Obama wants keep him around as a punchbag for the left. This isn't a snark, but Harry Reid is starting to make Nancy Pelosi look like a ballsy leader.
Russ Feingold for MAJORITY LEADER!!!
first rule for ANY politician-
NEVER SAY NEVER
reid should have known this by now- he is older than the hills.
now is a good time to post my top ten rules for politicians-since everyone here is clamoring for them!
10. SEX WITH CONDOMS ONLY. the the no protection kind can leave traces on little black dresses!Thanks bill for this gem.
9.DO NOT RECORD ANYTHING THAT GOES ON IN THE OVAL OFFICE OR ANYWHERE ELSE FOR THAT MATTER. We have tricky dick to thank for this one.
8.ONLY START A COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY WAR THAT YOU WILL QUICKLY WIN.
Endless wars for no reason will eventually become unpopular. we have that little thought from Hitler-who knew a thing or two about killing.
7. ONLY ACCEPT "ILLEGAL" GIFTS THAT CONGRESS OKAYS. With so many perks, book deals, lobbying money, and defense companies throwing cash your way -dont get too greedy.
6.STAY OUT OF PUBLIC RESTROOMS. If you have to twinkle your toes they have specialty bars for every persuasion.
5.NEPOTISM IS EVERYONE'S FRIEND.
-heck it even runs in the family!
Do not be born without a major politician in the family.
4. REWRITE HISTORY.
So you REALLY SCREWED THE COUNTRY- just change what happened and everyone will believe you. Remember the public is just as dumb as you (they voted for you in the first place) and they will believe anything! a ghost writer can help with this one since you probably have trouble with exactly what constitutes a sentence.
3. MARRIAGE IS A MUST.
kids can help here too. those photo ops will gloss over a multitude of sins. And if by some chance the press grows some you can bring the spouse and kiddies to the pressers and bring an end to that truth in journalism
nonsense.
2. MONEY! MONEY! MONEY!
Never and i mean never forget who you work for- the rich! they bought you your seat and expect a fat return. Give Govt money to any corporation for any reason and you'll be okay. Just dont get carried away and give it to the poor, sick, or elderly-you owe them nothing!
1. DON'T BECOME A POLITICIAN FOR ALL THE ABOVE REASONS!
kind of self explanatory...
Just watched the Daily Show's take on Roland Burris THE MAN. Fucking embarrassing. No wonder Blagojevich was smirking when he announced the appointment.
@Cugel
Everything you write is correct except the legal analysis. I think there is a real danger Harry Reid would win the court challenge (i.e., Burris would lose). See Morgan v. U.S., 801 F.2d 445 (per Judge Scalia).
@Statler Waldorf - Bobby Kennedy is rumored to have had an affair with Marilyn Monroe shortly before her suicide, not JFK.
mhz
I call myself a Democrat not so much because of anything the Dems have done to earn my fealty. In truth, it is because the GOP has become the anti-gay party.
Were this the sixties/seventies and I were Black and living in Alabama, I would belong to any party that opposed George Wallace and stood a solid chance of defeating him.
The Republicans decided to make it personal. This post has become too dramatic already, so I'll keep it short. The danger I feel from the Right is more acute than it was in the past because it is now directed at a group to which I belong, to which I cannot nor would desire to resign membership from, and which is extremely vulnerable to attack. Having learned that groups which do not fight back wind up in ghettoes in Poland, being handed disease-infected blankets in America, or being placed on slave ships deporting from Africa, I have opted to not allow the quiet, systematic and well-planned destruction of my community members and self thereby. I wish I could claim there was some altruistic goal motivating me, but there is not. It is the fight or flight instinct. Flight for me is impossible at the moment, as few foreign governments would consider the attacks against GLBT people in the US severe enough to warrant granting refugee status to those that flee such conditions. Therefore, my only real option is to fight back in whatever capacity I can.
Besides, I do happen to love the US, even if it does not love me back. I've no desire to abandon it when the possibility still exists to develop a niche within it.
I am a Democrat merely because if I am to see the GOP reform itself into a less than bigoted organization, it will have to suffer massive electoral defeats. As third parties have yet to seat a single Congressional or Executive candidate, I must therefore throw my weight behind the Dems. Once the GOP returns to it's more traditional role as watcher-of-the-money and moves away from it's current bigotry, I shall resume my previously neutral political stance.
Statler - what you call subtlety others would call a cover-up. Watergate and the Pentagon papers pretty much stopped this sort of "subtlety" - and most people think that's a good thing (although the way US Congress gets all up in arms over Blago/Burris but let's the Bush admin slink out without charges does frustrate me to no end).
Fitzgerald built his case for years, and everyone in state government knew Blago had issues. A handful of true believers bought his innocence, but most people were just waiting for the other shoe to drop and trying to make some positive change in the meantime. Blago, though, was apparently convinced of his own righteaousness (or thought himself bulletproof) per the tapes.
Convincing Blago to resign would have required there to be someone (or a group of someones) he'd listen to who could convince him to do it, line up a parachute for him given his apparent financial straits, and work out a deal with both Fitzgerald and the state Legislature to drop their inquiries. But Blago's inner circle consisted almost entirely of underlings, ex-aides and others with no real ability to pull off that kind of finesse - he burned everyone who had enough juice to make the impeachment issues go away, much less get Fitzgerald to call off the dogs. Think Nixon at the end, only without ever realizing that as innocent as he thinks he is, the reality is he's leaving one way or the other and all he can control is the time the helicopter leaves.
BTW, sounds like Palin has similar issues with what's left of the power base in Alaska (self-dealing, absent from critical votes, suspicious favors for family and friends, combative attitude to local press, deep divide with traditional power brokers like Murkowski). With any luck she'll replace Blago as scandal-ridden Gov. of the Month sometime next year.
PorridgeGun, ditto what you said. Reid out ASAP. Feingold in would be gravy.
Reid could have said it is a matter of law, he preferred a special election.
What BUGS me about all this is how easily our lawmakers, from the President to the Congress, decide to ignore law and claim they can do whatever the hell they want!
Reid is corrupt too, he is pissed at how Burris was named so f*ck the law, the constitution, the rules, f*ck everything because he wants to pout about not getting his way.
This country is in deep trouble because this attitude that the Constitution and written laws can be ignored until a court orders you to obey it permeates our government at every level, federal, state and local.
It is sickening. So yes, Nate, Reid should have employed any method besides lying and law-breaking. Burris is a blowhard fool, but it isn't HIM that's tainted. It is the guy that has repeatedly wiped his ass with the Constituion, Reid!
@ livemild
In the interest of historical (and lasciviousness) accuracy,Monica's dress was blue,not black.
opus- messed up there! Im the one with the little black dress...
TPM has Reid now saying that Stevens shouldnt do jail time because he is a war hero. Can heroes break the law?
what about all those other war heroes on street corners asking for handouts or a job? guess reid just cares about ex-senator war heroes.
The NEW Congress met for its first session yesterday.Unless I'm mistaken,don't its members caucus shortly to select their party leaders?
Isn't there any hope that the Senate Democrats will,for once, stifle their self-destructive impulses and select a new Majority Leader?
The time is ripe to dump His Ineptness!!!
Oh, I can absolutely blame Reid.
Before the Burris appointment, Reid should have pushed harder for a special election, but not pretended that he had the ability to refuse an appointment.
After the Burris appointment, Reid should have immediately realized that his bluff had been called. He should have accepted the appointment as legal, and attempted to organize an expulsion vote as soon as Bagojevich was replaced as governor. If the new governor signs off on Burris, then everyone wins.
Reid badly mishandled the situation at every step.
Also, Statler, I completely get your position. I have relatives whose only choice sixty years ago was to stand with the Communists of Stalin or Nazi Germany. The Communists were the bad guys from their perspective, since they had disregarded treaties, invaded, taken over their homes and businesses, deported their leaders and targeted anyone with a high school education or higher as a dangerous threat to be eliminated.
Granted, the Nazis were targeting jews, gypsies and others, too (and secretly planned to kill all of them once the war was over), but they seemed like an army of liberation. In that sort of setting, you don't have the luxury of choosing your loyalties carefully or insisting on a idealogically "pure" option - not when it seems like a matter of survival.
It did lead to Grandma saying some pretty awkward things years later, though.
Feingold wouldn't get the votes - think Feinstein (who lost to Reid last time the leadership was contested) or Schumer. There's no time for a fight now, but there will almost certainly be a challenge to Reid in 2010 - esp if there's any loss of seats in the midterms.
@ Statler
the GOP returns to it's more traditional role as watcher-of-the-money
From my viewpoint,that GOP role has always signified an "ignore (maybe "starve" would be more accurate) the poor and underprivileged"
P.S. Not to get overly emotional,I found the rest of your post very moving.
Now that Senator-Designate Burris "issue" is definitely a Kabuki dance, the question moves to Senate Majority Leader Reid.
Is Harry Reid being hung out to dry by Diane Feinstein, the future White House and any other democrat with an ax to grind?
Didn't he talk TOUGH about Joe Lieberman NOT STAYING IN THE CAUCUS? How did that work out? But Harry Reid "does not work for President-Elect Obama.
wv: sinsm - How most political junkies viewed the Burris appointment.
@ Berkely Bear
There's no time for a fight now
No time? What do you mean? There is going to be a vote one way or the other.
Vote The Putz out!
Sigh, I really wish Democrats, especially Reid, would grow a pair.
Sometimes you fight a losing battle simple because its the right thing to do. Legally, they will probably have to seat Burris, but morally they are not required to make it easy.
Instead, always concerned about the cameras (even when the viewers AGREE with the moral stance), they fold like a house of cards.
Is this going to be the next four years where every bluff doens't get called? Where "we will filibuster!!!" is all that is needed for Democrats to go "oh shucks, lets not fight, what pork do you want?".
Reid either needs to find his backbone or step down and let someone else do his job for him.
So how does the Majority Leader thing work? Does the majority leader serve for a specific term? Does the majority party specifically vote on a new leader after every election cycle? Or do they just vote on a leader whenever a vote is called for by members of the caucus?
Just curious.
Berkely,
Thankfully, with the possible exception of Lyndon La Rouche, the Democrats of the current day do not advocate polices as odious as those of the Nazis. I have the luxury therefore of advocating for them while remaining confident that I will not later have to apologize for anything.
The truth is, my political leanings are possibly closer to Social Democrats, if any existed in the United States. The party closest to my personal values would be a Canadian one, called the New Democratic Party or NDP. I consider my views to be pretty mainstream int hat they are largely evolved from John Locke. Since the US Constitution is essentially Locke in the popular vernacular of the US at the time in which it was written, I feel my beliefs are none too alien. I resolve the conflict between the NDP's platform and Locke's lassiez-faire approach to economics thusly; Locke did not have the luxury of studying Abraham Maslow as I have. Maslow theorized that human beings, indeed all animals, tended to address their immediate survival needs prior to anything more theoretical, such as morality or self-actualization. When the belly is full, one can argue the existence of God. When one is starving, one believes in whatever God the people handing out the food tell you to believe in.
If our society is to benefit from the informed participation of the people, we must feed them to ensure that they are capable of focusing their attention on matters concerning the State. The State cannot long survive without the renewal that comes from popular discourse and changing ideas, as history has proven time and again (The Hapsburgs come immediately to mind). desperation yields desperate thoughts, and therefore we must not allow our people to slide into desperation lest the thoughts informing our society are driven by desperation rather than reason. Aside from the Revolution and Civil War, the Great Depression brought us closer to collapse than we have ever been, because of the appeal of extremists to the minds of the hungry. Therefore, I am willing to sacrifice Lockian lasseiz-faire economics in favor of social programs that serve to de-cloud the minds of the people by putting food in their bellies and a roof over their heads.
It is my firm belief that none of us will know where the next Ghandi, Hypatia, Buddha, Rumi, Jesus, Mohammad, Moses, Einstein, Darwin, Schweitzer, Mussourgsky, Coltrane, Mozart, Beethoven, Curie, or the like will be born. At any moment, a child who will later grow to fundamentally improve the lives of all of us could be coming into being. But if that child does not survive to adulthood, or becomes trapped in a system that prevents her/him from developing their talent, we all lose because of it. Therefore our mutual survival impinges upon social programs that will allow for such a transformational figure to reach maturity, physically and mentally. The playing field must be leveled, so that any person stands a chance of success if they apply themselves. Nobody should ever be restricted from growth and development on any basis other than a lack of merit.
Further, if we agree that reason is more likely to develop if the belly is fed than if it is left empty, foreign policies which seek to improve the lives of those in other countries rather than kill them create the greater likelihood that a child whose talent will benefit the world will reach maturity. The Salk vaccine did not merely save American children, it benefited the world in the same manner the sun benefits all people.
I believe we have seen far too many sunsets, and not enough sunrises. Surely the vast potential of our minds can be applied to something better than war and creating death and misery. Surely we are not so obsessed with borders that we would blindly seek advantage for those living on one side of the frontier while allowing those opposite them to starve. We are better than that. I believe religion at it,s core is meant to inform us of this, and yet it is too often perverted to convey the opposite message. I therefore believe that every man should seek the God of Love within their hearts and the God of Reason within their minds over the dogmatic God whose priests would abuse int he manner of a Mob Lawyer who manipulates the law for personal profit at the expense of others.
The Democrats are not in line with all of this. But some elements within the Dems are close to it. I hope that whatever contributions I have made to their party will nudge them int he direction of these principles to which I admire.
And may I apologise for my prolix int he above post. I normally write much better and more concisely (hell, War and Peace was more concise), but I guess I had alot of ground to cover there.
All apologies!
Nate, with i have no idea how many precincts reporting:
2008 Weblog Awards winner in the category of 'Best Political Coverage will be 538.com
It is looking like a landslide victory at this point.
Anyone can project an overall result, SNED.
What we expect here is a projection of the final % tally, complete with margin of error, based on extrapolations from previous years' polling.
Why did Reid or anyone else think they could demand a special election, when Illinois law gives the power of appointment to the governor? How long was Illinois supposed to be underrepresented in the Senate, while the grandees tried to rewrite Illinois law? Reid and the other Democrats should have distanced themselves from Blagojevich and otherwise kept their big mouths shut. In their self-righteousness, Reid and his allies have now put themselves on the wrong side of the law.
Rico,
Reid is abiding by the law. The Constitution says quite explicitly that Federal Law trumps state law. It also says the Senate decides who is a Senator and who is not. Whatever Illinois law says is completely irrelevant if it is contradicted by the US Constitution.
Chicago,
would you do me a favor and vote Lizard People as a write in candidate? Pleeease?
@BBiI
What do you think constitutes DiFi's victory with respect to Obama? I am guessing that you are referring to Panetta's appointment, and her response to it.
@BBiI and SnW-
I am happy that we have some options that are clearly superior to Stalin's communists and Hitler's Nazi's.
BUT WE NEED TO DO BETTER THAN THIS.
It is horrific that Cheney and his kind have had so much impact on our country and this world for so long. Cheney has been going at this since Regan was in office, and many of the lifer Dems have been letting him and his kind do it.
I am so impressed with the Obama 2008 Campaign. It motivated and facilitated a level of responsible citizen engagement that is very impressive. I only hope that this current series of events are trans-formative enough.
Reid has the spine of a jellyfish and he picks fights that he can't win which leads me to think he has the intellect of a jellyfish. Maybe he should have read the fricken Constitution before saying he could use it to block anyone Blagojevich appointed.
Special election? No, no, no!
If you're looking at this from a Democratic (not democratic) perspective , why in the world would you want to risk losing a seat? That's a terribly stupid idea. Did Republicans call for a special election in Mississippi when Cochran retired? Hell no! They're not that stupid.
mhz
You see, that's just the thing. I'm not really a joiner under normal conditions. I definitely feel repulsed by people screaming at me IN ALL CAPS about how 'we' have to do anything. The only two things I have to do are pay taxes and die. The rest is optional.
I've pretty much spelled out what I believe in. Those are personal values, and they're not intended as a prescription of what 'we' have to do. If you agree with me, fine, if you don't, that is also fine. I think each of us should give thought to what it is that we as individuals think, and arrive at a consensus through reasoned discourse in a civil (that is, NOT SHOUTED) forum.
As for Cheney, he is to become unemployed in less than one and one half weeks. I will not miss him. I am not a fan of conspiracy theorist rhetoric, so don't try to drag me into some shouting match over how he planned 9/11 or was in league with the Illuminati or whatever. If you want to prosecute him, fine. I personally will be very relieved when he has left DC, and could care less whether he moves back to Wyoming or some prison cell. I would like to see some action taken by the courts to ensure that the excesses of Bush-Cheney will not again blight our Republic. Whether this involves vengeance taken out on Cheney personally or just a condemnation of what he did and a clear legal proscription against similar excesses is all the same to me. Just don't expect me to join in the bloodletting.
We will see about Obama. The Rick Warren thing has me worried. I have good feelings about Obama generally. The Rick warren thing was a little cold water in the face for me, though, and I am now suspicious of Obama in a way I was not previous to his announcement that Warren would be delivering the opening prayer of his Administration. This is coming from someone who invested heavily in Obama's election campaign financially and physically, not from some McCain supporter.
SO STOP SHOUTING IN MY FACE, OKAY? I'd like to think I'm adult enough to be reasoned with calmly.
Was there really a down-side to allowing Burris to litigate (and possibly win) in Federal court? NO!! The Senate refuses to seat him. He sues and wins. They shrug and seat him.
The answer to your question is YES!!! There absolutely is a downside, actually quite a few. First, refusing to seat him and requiring Burris to litigate prolongs a negative story being in the news and distracts the Senate from vastly more important business. Second, Democrats lose a vote during the key, initial phase of the Obama administration. Third, refusing to seat promotes infighting among Democrats who support Burris, especially African Americans, and those who don't. Fourth, refusing to seat Burris, who was lawfully appointed sets a bad precedent that a majority of the Senate can exclude a member for basically any reason.
Sorry Nate, I saw this coming. On my blog - even before Burris was Blago's pick - I said that legally, the Senate doesn't have much to stand on if it tries to deny him a seat.
Sorry, had to leave the post for several hours, so I'm a little late responding.
Statler - nice (if long) post. Wasn't trying to paint Dems as Nazis, just that when there's only two options with a decent shot of achieving a result, you go with what you perceive as the lesser evil (ie the folks who aren't trying to kill you/exclude you completely/etc. right now). It doesn't necessarily mean you agree with everything, and that's actually one part of Dem politics I've always liked as the "big tent" party. I still take advantage of my freedom to cast my allegiance with a person rather than a party, but I understand your choice.
Opus - as I understand it, any challenge to leadership had to happen before convening the Congress. Maj. Leader isn't as formal as Speaker or Committee chairs, but all of that stuff was dealt with last month and I assume a fight for leadership would be at the same time. That's what I was talking about.
mhz - I'd say the fact she got a royal kiss-up/smoothing session from Obama and Biden on Panetta and led the cracks in Reid's position that led to Obama basically calling for no drama are both notches in her belt. I really hadn't heard much from her in a while, and I think she's letting it be known that if Reid doesn't work for Obama, she doesn't work for Reid.
Now, DiFi probably can't get Leader if Pelosi is Speaker (too much power for one state, even if they don't see eye to eye on a lot of things) but if Pelosi's out she might get in next time around.
Update on Web Awards
18000 + votes
538.com has 58% of the vote (over 10K of total, next closest is under 2K)
It's official - Nate has a mandate from the Web to keep rocking the politics coverage (esp. the projections).
Statler N Waldorf said...
I mean, c'mon, Kennedy fucked Marilyn Monroe the night before she died, a far more splashy scandal than this, and one more understandable to the general public. Yet, they handled that mess professionally and smoothly, minimizing the sideshow. That's how we should have handled Blago.
What, you mean fuck him and kill him....?
"STepper said...
@Cugel
Everything you write is correct except the legal analysis. I think there is a real danger Harry Reid would win the court challenge (i.e., Burris would lose). See Morgan v. U.S., 801 F.2d 445 (per Judge Scalia)."
I've been arguing this for a week now, that Nate is dead wrong and that it's not all clear that the Senate CANNOT bar Burris under Art. I, Sec. 5, but nobody seems to pick up on this and we keep hearing people say "of course Reid has no choice" which is patent BULLSHIT! He has a clear choice and might even WIN if he chose to fight, but he can't seem to ever summon the courage to fight for anything, even to avoid looking like a total idiot and weakling!
Two points:
1. What's the "danger" involved in Reid WINNING a lawsuit? Burris, whose appointment was as corrupt as anything since the days of Tammany Hall (regardless of whether he personally paid anything for his seat), doesn't get appointed? How is that a bad thing?
2. The alternative of seating Burris without a fight is the worst of all possible worlds. It makes the Senate Dems look like weaklings and fools. It rewards Blago's corrupt move. It emboldens' Republicans and depresses Democrats. Fighting is much better, even if you lose.
If Reid lost, he could blame the Federal Courts. If he won, Burris is kicked to the curb and the new governor can appoint someone for the next two years.
3. Even if there's some binding precedent created by this case, it's the CONSTITUTION that's the "problem" so unless we want to amend the Constitution we're stuck with it.
A plain reading of Art. I, Sec. 5 supports the Senate's power to block Burris.
Nate and other's reliance on the Powell case is misplaced because it doesn't hold under Art. I, Sec. 5.
Quoting the Morgan court:"It is difficult to imagine a clearer case of "textually demonstrable constitutional commitment" of an issue to another branch of government to the exclusion of the courts, see Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217, 82 S.Ct. 691, 710, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962), than the language of Article I, section 5, clause 1 that "[e]ach House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members." The provision states not merely that each House "may judge" these matters, but that each House "shall be the Judge" (emphasis added). The exclusion of others--and in particular of others who are judges--could not be more evident. Hence, without need to rely upon the amorphous and partly prudential doctrine of "political questions," see [citations omitted] we simply lack jurisdiction to proceed."
As Stepper points out, there's a good chance that the S.Ct. would hold the same as the Morgan case and toss Burris out on his ass. Even if the Court decided differently, it would enhance the prestige of the Senate and show that Democrats aren't pathetically weak idiots on every possible occasion!
Hel,
well, that's not exactly what I had in mind, no.....
Berk,
The Dems are the less harmful of the pair. Alot of Dems are pretty close to me in terms of my beliefs, like Al Franken. But I never want to be in a position where I have to drink the kool-aid, because no party is immune to assholery. Tipper Gore and the PMRC spring immediately to mind. Under normal circumstances, I would not have joined up with the Dems, for fear of being taken for granted and for fear that doing so would result in a tacit endorsement of anyone bearing the Democratic label. These aren't normal conditions, however. I have signed up with the Dems because the GOP presents a threat to my civil rights. They scare the shit out of me, almost as much as the apathy of Democrats who have started conceding ground to the homophobes already.
Should the GOP cease being anti-gay, my affiliation with the Dems will end. I will not support the GOP, but I will refrain from the counter-attacks which will no longer be necessary. And should the Dems betray the gay community, I will be the first to attack them out of self-preservation.
I am not a 'team player' so to speak. I am doing my best to survive, nothing more. And right now, the GOP represents a threat to that survival, which requires me to work with their opponents. So long as the Dems will aid me in my continued survival, they have my support. Threaten it or fail to protect it, and that support evaporates. You cannot convince me to vote against my interests, so don't bother trying.
Having taken such a hard line, Reid should have more gradually retreated. Rather than an absolute refusal yesterday, the matter should have been referred to the Rules Committee.
That way, the Rules Committee could have given everyone cover for the changed decision.
@ Berkeley Bear: Oh heck, we've been waiting for the other shoe to drop with Rod for ages, haven't we --it's been the stuff of water cooler chatter and talk-radio snickering since before he ran for re-election, his indictment roundly reckoned to be but a matter of time.
It's why I, along with a third of all Democratic primary participants, voted for Ed Eisendrath in March of '06. It's also why I voted for the Green Party candidate in the general, knowing as I did that Rod would win at a canter but wanting to see him held under 50 percent. Success!
By the way, this is my first time commenting here after lurking for a good few months, and I've noted that you and I share something in common --to wit, when it comes to what goes on in our part of the world, we both know too much (Capri?!?). Oh the stories we could swap I'm sure lol...
Joe the Plumber going to Israel as a war correspondent!!!!
helanren: Somebody should fuck 'statler waldorf' and kill him- he sucks!
well literally sneaking Roland out through the rear service exit after their brief pow-wow this morning sure was classy & oh so symbolic, dontcha think ?
both Reid & Durbin came off as smucksters in their photo-op today imho
for Harry, hindsight is 20-200...
for the rest of us, the conclusion of this drama is coming into focus:
Burris - win, place & show
DiFi - major win w/ total smackdown to Reid & Obama [take that Leon]
Blago - successful bluff [with pocket nines]
Fitz - schmutz on his suit [the seat was not sold after all...]
IL pols & legislature - LOSERS
Obama - baby mama drama with more to come
Durbin - that's gotta sting...
Reid - emperor has no clothes
@ Berkeley Bear
Opus - as I understand it, any challenge to leadership had to happen before convening the Congress. Maj. Leader isn't as formal as Speaker or Committee chairs, but all of that stuff was dealt with last month and I assume a fight for leadership would be at the same time. That's what I was talking about.
Yes,y you are right.I assumed the Senate organized itself in similar fashion to the House (Pelosi was re-elected Speaker yesterday).Reid was re-elected Senate Majority Leader of the 111th Congress on Nov.18,2008 by the 110th Congress.
It's strange that the new members of Congress don't get to vote for their current leader while the old members not returning do!
CRAPO
well your name basically says it all...
which begs the question about your comment re: SnW
but I will play anyway - your comment above is neither constructive nor witty; merely 'shitty'
imho of course...
hehehe
watching a rerun of Rachel Maddow & luving her in the miner's hardhat riffing on the senate DEMS & Obama 'caving' on Burris
'senate spelunking' indeed
Rachel is competing with Jon Stewart & Colbert
although Colbert's gig with Colmes was funnee too
A man with a hostage has his back to a wall. He is some distance from you, armed, and can kill the hostage seconds before you kill him. You cannot shoot him before he kills the hostage. Or you, or both, or all three. He's desperate, has no way out, and is practically pissing his pants, and you can tell he really does not enjoy his current position. Assume you do not want the hostage to die, and possibly that you do not want the shooter to die either, or yourself.
Hollywood says you shoot anyway, and by some miracle of Tinseltown, the bullet will magically defy the laws of physics, and the hostage can walk out in John Wayne's arms to a sea of flashing cameras.
Reality says you try to talk him down. If you can get the shooter to drop the gun, or at least allow you to disarm him through trickery, you could save the day.
Hollywood is for children. Reality is for adults.
Now, substitute all references to the shooter with Blago, the victim with the Senate, and you with the FBI investigator.
Those who believe that the U.S. Senate doesn't have the authority to refuse to seat Roland Burris, or who believe that it's embarrassing to refuse to seat a nice man who would be the only African-American Senator, are ignoring two crucial realities.
First, a seat in the United States Senate is not the property of any governor who has the authority to appoint a person to fill a vacancy, and any person so appointed has no "right" to occupy that seat on such authority. The seat belongs to the people. This is a political process, and as the Supreme Court has said on many occasions, the Congress needs to be given ample leverage as a body representing the people and as a separate branch of government to conduct its affairs, unless some egregious violation of rights is being committed.
Moreover, the Senate is entitled to act reasonably to preserve its integrity as an institution. The governor who made this appointment was only a few weeks ago arrested by the FBI because a federal prosecutor believed he had sufficient evidence to indict him for making such an appointment in exchange for campaign donations or other favors, and the timing of the arrest was dictated by the prosecutor's fear that the governor could imminently make a Senate appointment after having solicited such donations or favors. The Illinois political process has not had sufficient time to impeach the governor and remove him from office, but that is predicted to occur in less than two weeks. Defiantly, the disgraced governor went ahead and made an appointment. It is impossible to know whether or not Blagojevich obtained any consideration from Burris for appointing him, but if the Illinois attorney general and secretary of state don't trust this appointment, why should the U.S. Senate? The Senate has every right to defend the integrity of its membership from any appointment made by this governor.
Second, no federal office should be occupied by someone appointed by an executive who is accused by a federal authority of extorting bribes from prospective occupants of the office. If our political leaders cannot prevent such an executive from using this kind of appointment for his own purposes, we can forget about discouraging corruption in our national political affairs. There is something much larger at stake here: the public's confidence in our democratic institutions. They will not believe that our politics is free from the suspicion or the fact of corruption unless and until it is.
Roland Burris is being used by Rod Blagojevich to enable him to cling to some appearance of political authority and effectiveness, in the face of impending impeachment. The Senate is not obligated to follow suit. This farce must end, without Blagojevich's appointee being accepted. If that is not the outcome, the public should assume that it will take much longer for our politics to undergo fundamental change.
Anyone should be blamed in this mess should be the Illinios State Legislature- Mike Madigan for not acting quickly in having a Special Election to fill the VACANT IL US Senate Seat or Give LT GOV Pat Quinn the power to appoint or require Blago get the IL State Legislature to vote to approve his pick for the VACANT IL US Senate Seat. It would be difficult for the US Senate to refuse to seat Burris when the IL State Legislature voted to approve Burris's appointment to the US Senate.
Thank you TP. I could not have said it better.
And this is the simplest reason why Clayton v. Powell does not control the Burris case. The Clayton case protected the electorate who had voted for him from being disenfranchised by a bare majority of Senators from other states. This is much more attenuated. The only thing Burris's seating would protect is the ability for Illinois to appoint a Senator in accordance (maybe) with its laws. That's fundamentally different, IMO.
I might add that anyone who allows himself to be used in this way out of sheer ambition and thus undermine the public confidence in our democratic institutions is not, in my book, a "nice" man.
BTW, no Senator Matthews from PA.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28549212/
Good, Tweety is no Democrat. Patrick Murphy FTW!!!
"quasi candidate"? Really Nate?
"quasi-candidate" = black
nice one Nate. Racist.
beanocook, don't be ridiculous.
538 at 60.4% in the Weblog voting - nearest rival 8.5%! Way to go Nate.
Beano Cook-
Don't be an idiot, Burris is a quasi-candidate because his electoral career had ended, and he hadn't won a statewide race in in more than a decade. His last loss was to Blago himself in 2002. So, is Burris really a candidate in 2010 without this appointment? No. Is Burris a truly credible guy who could have won this on his own? No. Is he credible from an experience standpoint? Yes. Thus, I think quaasi-candidate is a fitting tag.
Get over your race baiting.
TP made an excellent post.
Burris will be appointed provided he testifies that he didn't pay for the appointment, even though the person who appointed him has been indicted for attempting to sell the appointment. But is Illinois such a model of probity that Burris' testimony is certain to be true? Is this a satisfactory process for somebody to become a member of the United States Senate? No.
One of the reasons why Burris has won is that he is widely perceived to be a worthy appointee, but can that really be true? Would a worthy person accept an appointment offered in such corrupt circumstances? Would a worthy person so blatantly put personal ambition ahead of the interests of the public and its faith in the system of government? No, it must be concluded that he is not a worthy person.
But ultimately he is being appointed largely because of the extraordinary over-sensitivity to race in the United States. Senate Dem leaders announce that they will not seat anyone appointed by Blago. Blago appoints an Afro-American. Senate Dem leaders refuse to seat him. Senate Dem leaders are accused of racism. Eh? They would clearly have refused to seat a white man, but because they refuse to seat an Afro-American they're racists?
If Burris was white, he wouldn't have won. Burris is black and has won. If that's racism, it's a strange form of racism by any standards.
@BBiL and DCM
I am not sure DiFi's noises about Panetta are so important. Rachel Maddow's 1/6 MSNBC piece was very interesting. Obama and Biden might be willing, even compelled, to smooth her feathers after the fact, but so what? She has not threatened to block the appointment. Kinda reminds me of the line-"It is easier to get forgiveness than permission".
fwiw:
http://www.truthout.org/010709E
DiFi's support of seating Burris was a good call and may be seen aa providing the Dems and Reid an out. True, I wish Blago had simply resigned. But given that Blago didn't resign, I am glad that the second IL senate seat is filled with a person, like Burris, who is likely to attend every vote and who is likely to vote in favor of the best options on the table. I have no access to Burris's inner world but I think he will not be controlled by Blago.
Seems to me the question at this point is:
"what is going to work?"
not
"who is winning. "
@SnW- sorry about the caps and using WE. I do not mean to speak for others. Nevertheless, I do feel that the leadership in the Democratic party and the US public are responsible for allowing, even facilitating, the events of the last eight years.
It's okay :) I agree the Democratic party leadership has not been up to par since 1994 or so, perhaps earlier (we're wading into before-my-time territory there)
here, this will cheer you up. One reason I supported Al Franken is I sensed that things were going to be a little rocky for a while, and we can all use someone at the helm who has a sense of humor during tough times. Look at the bright side of things: Bill OReilly is losing his mind publicly over the fact that he isn't as influential as he thought he was. Despite this, Franken has kept his good humor.
I'm not saying we should laugh at our Republican colleagues for being so over-the-top. Nor am I suggesting we regale them with laughter whenever they start spouting extremist rhetoric at us again. But hey, we could all use a smile, and watching Franken eviscerate Ann Coulter is always something that meks you feel good about being a Democrat deep down inside :)
The single best argument I have ever heard for being a Dem is that they make better comedians:))
WV: supha- I think it is supha that Franken will be seated- I just hope it is in time to vote on the stimulus package!
Reid could have looked up the rules and said nothing, but it ask could have said the truth: "This is an Illinois state matter. As long as a replacement is made that follows Illinois and federal law, that replacement Senator will be seated." It was a damnable situation that he made worse by offering an ultimatum he couldn't enforce. Anyone should have seen that up front and not tried to take an opportunity to insert themself in the scandal of the moment. Obama mis-stepped here, too.
thanks for the torture joke Statler (not words I thought I would ever write!). Perhaps those noises heard from Reilly's office were the first rumblings to warn that his head is actually going to explode?
In some ways this is the best result Reid can get, he "gets stuck" with another reliable democratic vote who he fought because of the corrupt process. And in 2010, a reform democrat will wipe Burris and the bad taste he and Blago leave away.
A special election might win a little love from the eggheads in the press and a few good-government fans, but it might cost a senate seat, which is the coin of the realm Harry Reid lives in. Governors appoint Senators occasionally, it has been thus since 1913 and it will be thus for the rest of the history of the republic. Some of those senators suck (Zell Miller), some are great (Walter Mondale) and some are thoroughly mediocre (Wicker, Burris), about the same average as all the other Senators.
Now - any issues that actually matter to anybody?
I donno, why say anything? Wait until the gov did what he was going to do and deal with it then. I really don't see why the senate maj leader had to get involved in any way. If Blago had made an appointment that was clearly tainted, they could have dealt with it then. Seems like a federalism issue. The appointment is in the hands of the state; credentialing is federal.
Statler,
Interesting scenario, but look at what Rod's doing. I'd submit that, rather than about to piss himself, he's got the deranged look of a sociopath who's actually hoping you try to take him out so he can see if he can kill you and the victim before you get a shot off, and probably will shoot rather than listen. If he was really scared and looking for a way out, he wouldn't have hired Genson to represent him - he had very competent counsel who walked away rather than rep him on this stuff(pissing metaphors and Genson just go together, since his biggest win was getting a walk for R Kelly). If he was looking for a way out, he wouldn't have suddenly done more work in his official office than he has in about 2 years (it totally hacked off people who had been using his office as spare meeting space). He wouldn't interpret the bodies stacking up like cordwood around him as evidence of a grand conspiracy (which in his own words includes every single person who asked for his resignation, including Obama). I don't know how anyone deals with that sort of problem - other than trying like heck to keep him from killing you, too.
51st - welcome to the discussion. Amazing the amount of garbage Rod's in that the US Atty isn't even touching yet (Capri included), and the Legislature's report is focused almost enitrely on 2004-05 and the Senate seat, ignoring his reallocations of "vetoed" funds and barely scratching the surface of shenanigans on FOIA requests, executive orders, etc.
mhz - I don't think that's Obama's operational mo - much more of a Bush thing. I seriously think they underestimated her need to be consulted. Obama doesn't like public confrontations, and seems more apt to at least run his ideas by folks than just railroad them.
At the same time, I love the way he's laying out a comprehensive outline for stimulus that basically says to everyone on both sides this is a last, best offer. He will come in for complaints from people (Kerry, John and McConnell, Mitch) who really are more used to fighting than being productive, and I've no doubt he'll give them something to make each and every one of them feel better, but at the end you watch - he's going to get what he wants. I've only known a couple of people who can work a situation this way, and they are remarkably successful.
BeanoCook:
"quasi candidate"? Really Nate?
"quasi-candidate" = black
nice one Nate. Racist.
Nate did not characterize Roland Burris as a "quasi-candidate."
In point of fact, Nate characterized Roland Burris as a "quasi-credible candidate."
Given the well known circumstances of Burris' selection, Nate's characterization of him is spot on and says at least as much about the one who named Burris, and the mode and manner in which he did so, as it does about Burris himself.
In any case, an apology is indeed in order here, and it isn't Nate who ought to be bellying up to deliver it...
Now all of a sudden the far Left has a problem with Harry Reid? Funny they had no problem with him saying the war in Iraq was lost, or that making English the official language is racist. It's further evidence that the Left can't distinguish the important from the trivial.
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment