In Which Zandar Answers Your Burning Questions

Josh Marshall asks:

Alright, how long do you give Burris?

As dolphy pointed out in the comments of my last Burris post, there's a decent argument for "January 2011".

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?

And you know, that's a very decent point. This whole mess started with the Law of Unintended Consequences. A special election could very well put a Republican in the Senate right now from Illinois.

Pat Quinn really can't appoint anybody now after saying he favors a special election. The GOP would absolutely jump on the chance to take Obama's old Senate seat...it would be a massive symbolic victory for them. Short term, Pat Quinn looks very much like he's doing the right thing. Long term? I guarantee you the Village and the GOP will mobilize for all out war to take this seat. Better to contest it in 2010 when the GOP has so many other seats they have to try to keep then allow them to focus 100% on Illinois.

The just thing to do is for Burris to resign and Pat Quinn to appoint a new Senator, that's the law. The right thing to do is for Burris to resign and a special election to be held, what the law should be. The necessary thing to do is for Burris to stay in the Senate, and that's just political realism.

Which choice will be made is not up to me, and I'm not sure I could make it.