Hi, folks, and welcome back. Our topic this week is, "Should the United States Senate seat Roland Burris?" Based on the flip of the coin, I will argue that Burris should be denied entry into this august law-making body.
It's important to note that, even as we argue the point, the wheels are turning and a decision may be finalized as the debate gets posted. This should not affect our arguments or your comments. In fact, any decision on Burris' fate may indeed make the debate more lively. Remember, too, that the ultimate decision could have affects reaching well outside the borders of Illinois.
It is important to begin by noting that, while some may question Burris' overall ability to be an effective voice for the people of Illinois in the U.S. Senate, no one has thus far questioned his moral character or intimated that he is privy to the scandal in Springfield. Burris, 71, was the first African-American to be elected to statewide office in Illinois and served as its comptroller in an admirable fashion. As Illinois' appointed Attorney General, he has avoided the odorous taint that often overwhelms high-ranking politicians in a state where a felony record is not required to hold high office, but often seems inevitable by the time the office holder leaves office and enters into custody.The fact remains, however, that Burris has tried and failed on numerous occasions to earn the trust of Illinois voters in an attempt to gain higher political office. He was defeated in a run for the U.S. Senate in 1984. He failed in attempts to become Illinois' governor in 1994, 1998, and 2002. He was trounced by Richard Daley when he ran for Mayor of Chicago in 1995.
One must admit that Roland Burris is no quitter. His desire for high office, and some would say his incredible ego, has led him to make comments that have raised questions among Illinois voters as to his desirability. According to an article printed in the Chicago Tribune in November of 1993, Burris claimed that he was "not some fluke or perennial candidate." In 1998, the Tribune quoted Burris referring to his democratic primary opponents as "non-qualified white boys."
The fact that Burris would play "the race card" in a state where many African-Americans had already made great strides toward overcoming racism is telling, and a very good reason for the Senate leadership to deny Burris' entry. Illinois Congressman Danny Davis, Governor Rob Blagojevich's first choice for the seat, is also black. But according to the Chicago Sun-Times, Davis refused the offer of the seat from the scandal-tainted Governor, saying, "It would be difficult for me to generate the trust level people would have to have in me" (see: www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/1363433.)
Illinois Congressman Bobby Rush, a former Black Panther, apparently views the issue as soley about race. According to the Sun-Times article mentioned above, Rush referred to the United States Senate as "the last bastion of plantation America." He told the Tribune that senate democrats would "have to come and ask for forgiveness" from black voters if they failed to seat Burris.
This style of politics has become, almost exclusively, the mantra of aging civil-rights-era veterans who, in large part, shunned the Obama candidacy in favor of Hillary Clintons's more traditional campaign rhetoric. But the change that President-elect Obama championed is based not on eliminating the pain of an "oppressed minority", but rather unifying Americans to face the challenges of new and uncharted territory, to the benefit of all. In spite of Rush's statement that the United States Senate "needs an African-American", what the people of Illinois, and indeed the entire nation, need is a Senator who can take his or her seat free of scandal and ready to meet the challenges and sieze the opportunities brought about by our recent history-making election.
My learned opponent will no doubt argue that Blagojevich, while under federal indictment for trying to sell the Senate seat to the highest bidder, is still the Governor of Illinois, and as such has the authority to appoint the successor to Barack Obama until such time as the people of Illinois, or the courts, take away that privilege. Such is not likely to occur any time soon. But the Senate also has legal authority to refuse to seat Roland Burris. According to Article I, Section V of the U.S. Constitution, "Each House Shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members." Section V goes on to say that "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings" (see: http://www.usconstituion.net/).
Thus it appears that Burris, should he arrive at the doors of the Capitol with certified election papers bearing the signature of the Illinois Secretary of State and the official seal of the State of Illinois, then he will be the legally-appointed Senator from that state. And should two-thirds of the Senate refuse entry to Burris, for whatever reason, he will have no recourse on the federal level unless the Supreme Court intervenes, which is highly unlikely.
So this is not a legal argument. Rather, it is an argument based on somber judgement, common sense and an eye toward the greater good. As the Sun-Times said in a January 6 editorial, "If Burris is truly taking this job for the benefit of the people of Illinois, as he insists, he'll do the honorable thing - not take it. This is not about race, this is not about Burris. This is about standing up for fair play."
Fair play - not a common term used in political discourse over the last century, especially in Illinois. But in light of an historic election in the midst of uncertain and tenuous times, strong leadership and fair play may well be the only things that save our great nation. Illinois, and the United States Senate and the people it represents, deserve no less.
Posts
10 comments:
Good work, once again, Pal.
If I boil your post down to its basics, I think you are saying that Burris shouldn't be seated because he isn't wanted by Illinois voters and he's not qualified to do the job (or maybe he's just an ambitious "power hound"). In any case, your reasons have nothing to do with Blagojevich's propriety or ability to legally appoint Burris, nor the U.S. Senate's ability to legally block his entry. It seems you would have the same complaints about Burris if he were appointed by a well-respected, non-embattled Governor. Am I right?
I think I expressed to you privately my belief that, while Burris will probably not do a lot of good work on behalf of Illinois residents, he probably can't do much harm, either. He would be, after all, one of perhaps 58 Democrats in the Senate, so his voice is relatively dilute in that body on national issues. But even on Illinois-specific issues, his is only one junior vote. As I said, the appointment appears to be legal, and the people of Illinois can correct this "mistake" in the next election cycle.
My biggest problem with the Senate blocking Burris is the hypocricy of it. These are law-makers, and, as such, they should respect the legality of Burris's appointment, even if they don't like it or don't like him. They've even misread their own rule to make it sound as though there exists a REQUIREMENT that Burris's credentials be signed by the Illinois Secretary of State. There is no such requirement in their rules. The U.S. Senate is risking the appearance of illegitimate partiality on this one, and I think if they don't seat him, it will come back to bite them in the butt.
I think Dano won this one, which as you both should know by now, pains me to admit. Nothing like socking it to Dano after all :)
Reed, I think you left several stones unturned in the arguement of why Burris shouldn't be seated. We know there are taped conversations involving Blago and "negotiations" about the appointment. What we don't know is who all are on those tapes. It's possible that Burris is discussed somewhere on those tapes and its possible favors were mentioned surrounding Burris' name. We don't know for sure, but certainly the indictment of Blago places a cloud over any appointment he makes at this point.
If it is revealed that Burris was involved at all, then the "right" thing for the Senate to do -- if they had already seated him -- would be to impeach him. That can only harm the country. I'm surprised the damage to the county that could come wasn't prominent in your arguement. Better to be safe and not seat Burris then sorry for seating him and having a summer impeachment of a senator.
I think Burris may have been more likely seated because the politics that were present on the Jan. 6th flipped a bit by Jan. 8th. Republicans started asking that Burris be seated. And at least one powerful Democrat senator who was initially opposed to seating Burris flp-flopped after it was rumored that he was on the Blago tapes asking, essentially, that a black not be appointed to Obama's seat.
I think most people think its dispicable that Blago would appoint someone considering the circumstances, but I'm actually surprised it took him so long to do it. I figured he'd do it immediately after his indictment.
I predict Burris will be one of the most ineffective senators the people of Illinois could get since he's appointed under such a cloud that its unlikely most senators will associate with him. But then again it may not be a major loss, since Obama didn't do a heck of a lot in that seat while he held it anyway -- except use it to run for president. :)
The Democrats used the lack of a signature/seal from the Illinois Secretary of State as reasoning not to seat Burris -- which was very lame. Secretary of State's all across the nation are responsible for affixing the seal of the state on official documents and executive orders from their governors. I guarantee there are many documents for which those Sec's of State affix their seal to which they disagree. Their affixing the seal is never meant to be the ability to veto those actions by NOT affixing the seal.
I pointed out in my argument, as did Dan, that it appears both Burris and the Senate have legal legs - Burris can submit all necessary certification, and the Senate can legally refuse to seat him anyway. So we need to put that argument aside for now and concentrate on what is best for all concerned.
I cited extensively the editorial and factual background on Burris simply to demonstrate that, while apparently he was effective as comptroller, his ambition for higher office has been repeatedly thwarted by the voters. And regardless of whether or not he can do "much harm" in two short years, the harm was essentially done when he accepted this appointment. And in regard to Twilley's surprise that it took the Governor so long to pick a replacement, who's to say he didn't start making calls the day he bailed out of jail? We know of one prospective candidate, Rep. Davis, who I mentioned, who turned it down flat. How many others were there?
Was Burris mentioned in the taped conversations? I doubt it, because if he had been, after the tumult of the past week, someone would have come forward and said so. And that, in itself, indicates that even Blagojevich pegged Burris as a political lightweight and is using him simply to prop himself up in advance of his criminal trial.
Thus, and this goes to my original concerns, it behooves the Senate to refuse to seat the pawn of a disgraced if not convicted Governor, and rely on the people of Illinois to make their voices heard, preferably through a special election.
Twilley, I feel your pain. :)
Reed (and to some extent, Twilley), I appreciate the moral angst in your view...most of us feel it with regard to the Burris appointment. And you have made much of the "court of public opinion," both in your post and in your rebuttals; this argument seems designed to elevate public opinion to a higher level when it comes to policymaking and implementation. This, too, must be convincing and attractive, especially to those of you who are strong proponents of a more democratic system than we actually enjoy.
The problem in my mind is that public opinion is so very malleable -- it tends to be shaped by a "heirarchy of authority," which means that people's opinions are easily shaped by the public figures in whom they place trust (deserved or not). In order to combat irrational public responses (known in my criminological circles as "moral panic"), we have written law. Law is, in fact, the codification of the "collective conscience" of the citizenry (see the work of French sociologist, Emile Durkheim). It has evolved, in the U.S., into a rational legal system. Rational, LEGAL responses to political (and all) events MUST be based upon the ultimate supremacy of law, not on the penultimate importance of current public opinion or intuitive concerns.
Let's face it, in 17th Century America, the court of public opinion caused the government to put women and children to death because they couldn't prove that they weren't possessed by demons that made them witches. Yeah...that's rational.
Wow
Since this blog is all but dead.....I thought this might intest the authors and spark them up again. (Unfortunately the charts won't post on this kind of site.)
Why didn't I reply to Burris.....well it's pretty obvious I would think. Burris has no business in the senate. However he's a liberal so by definition, he should get it. However, it grows increasingly clear this was pure politics.
Barack Obama has written two famous, widely read books of autobiography -- "Dreams from My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope." Let me introduce his third, a book that will touch everyone's life: "A New Era of Responsibility: Renewing America's Promise. The President's Budget and Fiscal Preview" (Government Printing Office, 141 pages, $26; free on the Web). This is the U.S. budget for laymen, and it's a must read.
Turn immediately to page 11. There sits a chart called Figure 9. This is the Rosetta Stone to the presidential mind of Barack Obama. Memorize Figure 9, and you will never be confused. Not happy, perhaps, but not confused.
One finds many charts in a federal budget, most attributed to such deep mines of data as the Census Bureau or the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The one on page 11 is attributed to "Piketty and Saez."
Either you know instantly what "Piketty and Saez" means, or you don't. If you do, you spent the past two years working to get Barack Obama into the White House. If you don't, their posse has a six-week head start on you.
Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, French economists, are rock stars of the intellectual left. Their specialty is "earnings inequality" and "wealth concentration."
Messrs. Piketty and Saez have produced the most politically potent squiggle along an axis since Arthur Laffer drew his famous curve on a napkin in the mid-1970s. Laffer's was an economic argument for lowering tax rates for everyone. Piketty-Saez is a moral argument for raising taxes on the rich.
Podcast
Listen to Daniel Henninger's Wonder Land column, now available in audio format.
As described in Mr. Obama's budget, these two economists have shown that by the end of 2004, the top 1% of taxpayers "took home" more than 22% of total national income. This trend, Fig. 9 notes, began during the Reagan presidency, skyrocketed through the Clinton years, dipped after George Bush beat Al Gore, then marched upward. Widening its own definition of money-grubbers, the budget says the top 10% of households "held" 70% of total wealth.
Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute criticized the Piketty-Saez study on these pages in October 2007. Whatever its merits, their "Top 1%" chart has become a totemic obsession in progressive policy circles.
Turn to page five of Mr. Obama's federal budget, and one may read these commentaries on the top 1% datum:
"While middle-class families have been playing by the rules, living up to their responsibilities as neighbors and citizens, those at the commanding heights of our economy have not."
"Prudent investments in education, clean energy, health care and infrastructure were sacrificed for huge tax cuts for the wealthy and well-connected."
"There's nothing wrong with making money, but there is something wrong when we allow the playing field to be tilted so far in the favor of so few. . . . It's a legacy of irresponsibility, and it is our duty to change it."
Wonder Land Columnist Daniel Henninger on the latest autobiographical work from Barack Obama.
Mr. Obama made clear in the campaign his intention to raise taxes on this income class by letting the Bush tax cuts expire. What is becoming clearer as his presidency unfolds is that something deeper is underway here than merely using higher taxes to fund his policy goals in health, education and energy.
The "top 1%" isn't just going to pay for these policies. Many of them would assent to that. The rancorous language used to describe these taxpayers makes it clear that as a matter of public policy they will be made to "pay for" the fact of their wealth -- no matter how many of them worked honestly and honorably to produce it. No Democratic president in 60 years has been this explicit.
Complaints have emerged recently, on the right and left, that the $787 billion stimulus bill will produce less growth and jobs than planned because too much of it goes to social programs and transfer payments, or "weak" Keynesian stimulus. The administration's Romer-Bernstein study on the stimulus estimated by the end of next year it would increase jobs by 3.6 million and GDP by 3.7%.
One of the first technical examinations of the Romer-Bernstein projections has been released by Hoover Institution economists John Cogan and John Taylor, and German economists Tobias Cwik and Volker Wieland. They conclude that the growth and jobs stimulus will be only one-sixth what the administration predicts. In part, this is because people anticipate that the spending burst will have to be financed by higher taxes and so will spend less than anticipated.
New York's Mike Bloomberg, mayor of an economically damaged city, has noted the pointlessness of raising taxes on the rich when their wealth is plummeting, or of eliminating the charitable deduction for people who have less to give anyway.
True but irrelevant. Mayor Bloomberg should read the Obama budget chapter, "Inheriting a Legacy of Misplaced Priorities." The economy as most people understand it was a second-order concern of the stimulus strategy. The primary goal is a massive re-flowing of "wealth" from the top toward the bottom, to stop the moral failure they see in the budget's "Top One Percent of Earners" chart.
The White House says its goal is simple "fairness." That may be, as they understand fairness. But Figure 9 makes it clear that for the top earners, there will be blood. This presidency is going to be an act of retribution. In the words of the third book from Mr. Obama, "it is our duty to change it."
Write to henninger@wsj.com
JT never mistake impeaching a criminal for harming the country. It doesn't work that way. If Burris is really that bad he needs to be impeached. We will survive. Trust me on that one.
Anonymous,
Wow, back.
I must say, that while your tirade seems very informed, at the end, you have not offered any other solution to the problems that face the country. This is a common theme. Bitch all you want about what Obama or the Democrats do, but don't provide any particular alternative that makes sense. And, of course, you can't. Republicans did their best for the last eight years and sent us into an abyss that we will struggle mightily to get out of. Just because you can fine an economist (or two, or five) that disagree with Obama, doesn't mean he's wrong or you're right. Why don't you try thinking positively for a change? Could it hurt to say to yourself, "maybe this is better?"
dano,
Maybe this is better? Don't know that's its much different. Like the difference between an Amtrak circa 1970 and a bullet train. But they are both (Bush and Obama) going in the same direction with fiscal policy.
Just because Bush said in a post interview that he was "still a free-market" guy doesn't mean he ever was. Bush and the neo-con Republicans of the last 8 years became the very epitomy of what liberals have long criticized them of being -- a party for fat, wealthy, white guy. They made that perfectly clear in their policies.
Unfortunately in the process they did insufferable damage to those of us fiscal conservatives are such way because of principals and philosophy.
I'm a fiscal conservative because I believe in freedom. That what one earns should not be taken at the point of a gun and given to someone else. Just so happens that type of philosophy greatly helps the "top 1%".
The neo-cons used that philosophy as a veil to sheild their true motivations of helping out their fat cat buddies. The veil was pierced when they showed their aforementioned sworn-to philosophy of fiscal conservatism got in the way of their real agenda: helping their rich buds. Because the government was a more than adequate place to turn to help their friends at the country club.
The last post, which has been removed, was nothing more than a plagiarized news article, with no credit given to its author(s) or publication. This blog does not condone that kind of posting.
Post a Comment