So, a month and a half ago, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin and other Democratic leaders stood staunchly opposed to Roland Burris’ seating. The Chicago Tribune then said there was no good reason not to seat Burris, smirking at Democrats’ impotent rage and declaring that Burris would be a fine, competent Senator.I'm hoping both Obama and Reid will tell Burris to go to hell and resign next week...but he won't. And for once, something stupid the Democrats in the Senate did won't be Harry Reid's fault.Now that Burris is pretty much confirmed as the asshole we all thought he was, the selfsame Chicago Tribune is asking why Democrats are silent on the issue, and why they have no moral compass to oppose the most terrible man who’s ever held any office...ever.
I’m not the biggest fan of Harry Reid, but the guy steadfastly opposed Burris taking the seat, as did Obama. It’ll be interesting to see how the media handles this, by which I mean it’ll be interesting to see how long it is until we get a special segment on how Harry Reid let the fox walk into the henhouse and even pointed the way to the tastiest hens.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Reid Was Right For Once
My views on Harry Reid are legend, but for once the old man was right: the Senate should never have seated Roland Burris, as Jesse Taylor reminds us over at Pandagon.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Be careful what you wish for. I live in Illinois and while I deal with this issue in my own blog in more depth the short version is this. At the time Burris was appointed we did not know that he had discussions about a fundraiser with Blagos brother (which he never did hold). Blago had every legal right to select a senator. This was investigated by Lisa Madigan and it was agreed it was legit. Burris job was to give Obama a yes vote until the next election in which time a Democratic primary will be held and the voters can select who they wish. The problem now is that because of the lack of full disclosure the pressure is on acting governor Pat Quinn to hold a special election thereby allowing a Republican, most likely my representative Mark Kirk a Republican they try to package as an independent even though he voted with Bush around 90-95% of the time, a chance to grab the seat. Pat Quinn has stated he is in favor of a special election even though he has every legal right to appoint a Democrat! HOW DUMB ARE THESE GUYS!! If the roles were reversed do you think the Republicans would allow an election that might put a Democrat in when they were under no legal obligation to do so? The Republicans are desperate to block Obama anyway they can (think Norm Coleman's endless challenges to Franken). A Democrat won the election and a Democrat should keep the seat. Period. If the voters want to change the way special vacancies are selected they can hold a referendum next election. The stakes are too high to give the Republicans ANY opening.
You've got some good points there, Dolphy. There are very real political implications right now for Burris to resign. I think there should be a special election, but you're correct about the very real fact that anti-Democrat sentiment in Illinois is higher than even Obama can counter, and could see a GOP Senator elected.
It's a rough situation where doing the right thing, the just thing, and the necessary thing are three different choices.
Post a Comment