Ah, vindication.
Yesterday, I felt like I was the only one criticizing the Roland Burris pick for Roland Burris (as opposed to Blagojevich having the gall to make an appointment in the first place).
Today, the truth about Burris and his planet-sized ego is coming out.
Some fun links:
Burris already has his grave site, complete with a massive memorial.
The Chicago Sun-Times documents Burris' belief that he is divinely directed to hold office.
Burris makes my point for me on MSNBC.
You have to read pretty far into this one for the payoff. Burris is described as friendly and honest. But he's also quoted as saying Barack Obama wouldn't have been possible without Roland Burris.
Friendly and honest, he may be. But he's still a putz. And one who has been repeatedly rejected by the voters of Illinois.
subscribe
One more:
Danny Davis, an Illinois Congressman who had expressed interest in the Senate seat, illustrates what happens when ego doesn't get in the way of reason.
Hi O - I get why you don't like the guy, but I still maintain that being a putz or having an ego does not disqualify him as a candidate. Moreover, saying he was rejected 4 times really doesn't tell the whole story. His inability to get elected is a simple combination of timing, racism, and the impenetrability of the Illinois machine more than it is anything that he is or did. Burris was usually running in a strong Republican year or against the Chicago Machine. Look at the elections he lost:
1979 - ran for Comptroller (won). Was the first African American to win statewide office.
1984 - he ran against Paul Simon for US Senate (primary election, lost). Simon was already popular - he was Lt. Governor to a Republican Governor and built support on both sides of the aisle. At that same time, Harold Washington had just left the US House to be Mayor of Chicago. Many in the city and downstate were (sadly) just plain unwilling to see another African American in a position of that kind of power.
1994 - ran for Governor (lost). Although I can't explain how he lost the primary, it's pretty clear that NO Democrat was going to beat incumbent Jim Edgar, so maybe no one cared about the Dem primary.
1995 - ran for Mayor of Chicago (lost). He ran in a primary against Daley which was just dumb. No way anyone could beat Daley. Even Obama would have a rough go of it.
1998 - ran for Governor (lost). Again, he lost in the primary but at the time everyone knew George Ryan was pretty much a sure thing - Edgar endorsed him, and Edgar left office on good terms. Here, Burris made his one big mistake by making the primary a racial issue. He lost a lot of support over that.
2002 - ran for Governor (lost to Blagojevich). Here, Dems had a chance because Ryan's corruption scandal was in full-force. Blagojevich had the full support of Dick Mell and the Chicago machine. Also, the primary was a three-way race diluting whatever support Burris picked up. The results were actually pretty close.
Better arguments to disqualify him from office:
1) he seems to be hung up on race-as-victim status which runs counter to the racial platform the Dems are trying to develop.
2) there are rumors that he only ran for governor in 2002 to siphon minority votes away from Paul Vallas to help out Blagojevich (suggests a stronger relationship and casts suspicion of that "taint" everyone's worried about).
3) I think someone else here mentioned it but he sought the death penalty for an innocent guy as a political stunt.
4) the Chicago Tribune (about 20 years ago) ran articles showing a strong correlation between contributions made to Burris' campaign fund and the awarding of state contracts. I haven't been able to find anything more concrete because most online databases don't go back that far (for free) and our university library is closed until the 5th.
In other words, there are better arguments out there as to why, with a little digging, Burris might not be a good choice. If you really think the Senate needs to block seating this guy they need to be presented with better info than "he's a putz."
And, yes, I'm admitting your instincts were more right than mine. But in my defense I *did* say I had concerns and was going to dig further... :)
Is it me or did both Burris and Blagojevich sound kinda drugged at the press conference? Espcially Burris. Unclear speech, slow and rather goofy I thought. I really don't like speaking in public under the influence but I guess there are those that might find it helpful.
And here I was concerned I wouldn't have anything to laugh about when Bush left office! The whole Blagojevich thing is so over the top now with the addition of Burris it's almost like a three ring circus. Throw in the Gonzolas WSJ interview and uncoming court apperance (I am SO hoping) plus the Magic Negro folderol I just don't know where to look next!
By the way, hope all had nice Christmases and will have a great New Year.
I've never trusted Burris since he found it politically expedient to leave an innocent man on death row. Eric Zorn at the Tribune explains it better than me. It's not surprising that this morally shallow man would take an appointment from Blagojevich. Mary Brigid Kenney for Senate not Roland Burris.
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/12/burris-fai...
I would appreciate more concrete criticisms of Burris than calling him a putz.
The guy was the first black person elected to statewide office in Illinois. He did pave the way for the election of Senators Moseley-Braun and Obama, two of the only black Senators any state has ever sent to Washington. So he's an important part of Illinois' tradition of electing people of different races statewide, which is a big deal. Illinois' neighbor states haven't generally done so, and I'm not inclined to minimize his career. You seem very impressed by the fact that he's lost a few elections. He's also won a few. He served in two different statewide offices, and as an lllinoisian throughout those times, I was unaware of any substantive criticism of him.
There are also no black Senators. None. Given the investigation and the Candidate Number Five thing, Jesse Jackson Jr. is not a viable replacement until the trial is over and the evidence aired. I think replacing the only African-American Senator with a non-African-American, while defensible, could be demoralizing to many.
So I'm not saying you're wrong not to like Mr. Burris, but I don't feel like you've offered an argument or facts to try to move me. The real problem here is Blagojevich making an appointment, of course. I'd appreciate more argument and more personal explanation from you as to what you find so objectionable about him aside from losing a few elections.
I think being rejected by the voters not just once, not just twice, not even just three times, but four times since he last held office is a fairly compelling argument for not appointing him. The voters obviously don't want him as a representative of their interests.
Also, I'm not trying to minimize his role as a trailblazer. I'm saying if it wasn't him, it would have been somebody else. However, his ego doesn't allow for this possiblity. He takes credit for it. Do you remember when he mused about the day that Illinois would be called "The Land of Burris?" I do. The guy's unbelievably arrogant. But most elected officials are. So what did he do as an elected official? Well, as state controller, he signed checks, so that's a really important job (sarcasm). As attorney general, as Winston pointed out above, he allowed Rolando Cruz to sit on death row. Rolando Cruz was finally exonerated in 1995, after Burris wasn't attorney general any more.
There are so many other qualified candidates--African American candidates. And I would certainly hope that we're past the tokenism. I agree that zero African American senators is unacceptable. But I'd rather have zero than have one who is a joke. He's not electable in 2 years, but he'll think that he is. So, he'll compete in the primary and maybe another Fitzgerald sneaks into office. Isn't it better to wait a few months to let this all shake out than to risk losing a seat to the republicans for six years? I think so. I also think Blagojevich knows this and he's giving a gigantic eff you to the voters of Illinois. And I hate it.
I'm cross-posting this one from TPM :)
Blago is still the governor, convicted of nothing and Burris was never alleged to have been part of the pay for play Senate scandal. Yes, we got punked by Blago and he gave an eff you to the Senate and Obama before leaving. But do we really want to drag out this circus any longer?
Step back and think if one senator for Illinois is more representative than two. Not to mention being without another Dem vote we may need to pass Obama's stimulus package early since the GOP is already throwing up potential obstacle signs (and I'm not sure how soon Franken will be seated)? Let's be honest - I don't see the Senate or Illinois Sec of State winning a legal battle here.
Burris will be there for 2 years when the Illinoiseans will get their say. I sincerely doubt he'll be elected. There's no question of where he stands on the issues or his commitment to public service - he's obviously very, very willing to serve (given how many times he's run and lost, and having served in elective office for 14 years I haven't heard a lot of criticism for what he did in office) . We have better and much more important battles to fight than this one.
I don't know much about Burris, but I disagree with the your rationale. If Burris is appointed, he will likely be the Democratic nominee in two years, so if he can't win, that's one less Dem in the Senate after 2010. Even if he loses, there may be a bruising primary, and Dems will go into the race without an incumbent. Worse, if he's as big a clown as O claims, he'll be an embarrassment to the party.
This is turning into an even bigger charade than it was before. It's a disenheartening way to begin the Obama's first term. (I realize that you were already disenhearted for other reasons, but I think that we can all agree to be disenheartened about this one.)
In the sense that Blago picked someone that it will be hard to re-elect as an incumbent, this is his attempt at jerking the Dems. Blago is not as dumb as he looks. But this is a losing legal battle - his attorney freed RKelly. They are going to make mincemeat out of the Senate lawyers who are still waiting for responses from all those Bush subpoenaed executive privilege documents. How can the Senate refuse to seat him if he was lawfully appointed by the Governor (which no one is disputing),Burris had no involvement in pay for play, and he is otherwise qualified to be Senator. So what does all this outrage against Burris do except further diminish the guy who is going to be seated eventually? Why not just start preparing for the bruising 2010 primary now (which was going to be inevitable anyway)?
And there's always a bright side - at least it's not JJJ who was indeed a clown and an embarrassment to the party in addition to being Candidate #5.
There is still some dispute about whether the Senate can block Burris, but I agree that the prospects appear dim. That doesn't stop us from being dismayed though. I've never believed that sound and fury from the blogosphere has much effect on anything anyway.
Yes, at least it's not JJJ.
The legal argument not to seat Burris or any Blago appointee appears invalid, given the Powell case. This is a chance to show disapproval of Blago, and both parties are using it. Danny Davis declining the appointment adds to the consensual show of disapproval. Barack Obama's statement of great disappointment in Blago adds to it.
The piece about the Cruz prosecution is the first argument I've heard on the merits about Burris that moves me. The law enforcement community was not convinced (as I was and as Eric Zorn was) in 1992 that the prosecution of Cruz was a sham relying on perjury. This was far from consensus then. But it still moves me because I know and knew then Zorn was right.
As to the comment that we should be past tokenism, I can't understand the idea that a guy elected to two statewide offices a total of two or three times is a "token." Or the idea that where there are zero African-American Senators, and three or four elected in modern American history, that there is no significance in replacing the only black Senator with another black Senator. Calling that tokenism ignores the fact that in almost every state, you have the reverse tokenism of the impossibility of electing a black man or woman.
The only thing that would problematize the re-election of Burris is the fact of his appointment by the seat-seller, and whether he has made inconsistent statements about the potential appointment or about Blagojevich. That is what we should be focusing on, not pretending that Roland Burris' resume of service to date is so much worse than that of Madigan, Schakowsky, Jackson, Jarrett, or others apparently considered. There's no argument to that effect in the two posts.
If O knows something we don't, which is implied but not stated in the pieces, I hope she puts it in context and explains it.
Congrats O on your first piece in the New York Times :)