I'm not someone you could call a blogaholic. I read a lot, but don't post often, rarely comment. However, the twaddle that's been coming out of some people in the blogosphere about the appointment of Roland Burris to be senator from Illinois has got me, as a citizen of the state of Illinois who hates corruption of any party, very upset and disappointed.
More down below.
The main talking point for the Blagojevich apologists seems to be: The appointment was legal, the vacancy occurred, Blago filled it, seat Burris, end of story.
While this line of reasoning is normally sound, it is important to take into account the backstory to the appointment.
The governor of Illinois has been recorded on tape as selling a United States Senate seat to the highest bidder. I quote:
"I've got this thing and it's fucking golden, and, uh, uh, I'm just not giving it up for fuckin' nothing. I'm not gonna do it. And, and I can always use it. I can parachute me there."
Think about that. Need I quote more?
But, the apologists say, Roland Burris is above suspicion! He hasn't a corrupt bone in his body! I say that it's obvious then why he was picked. Blago picked Burris a) because he has a reputation as a clean Illinois politician (and clean is a relative term) and b) because he could neatly tie in race if the Senate tried to block him.
Why weren't we all furious at the announcement press conference when Bobby Rush invoked the horrendous barbarism of lynching as a comparison to the scrutiny Roland Burris would and should face?
Why are there still people who think this is a legitimate appointment?
Now, at the core of this is Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution:
Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.
Notice the phrase "judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members". Returns, in the 18th century definition, basically means documentation.
In this case, the return is the appointment document made by the governor. If the Senate feels that the process that led to the return was corrupt, the Senate then has the right to deny admittance to that appointee. As it would if it found that the election of a certain member was corrupt (Norm Coleman, line 2?).
Clearly, the process that led to the appointment of Roland Burris was tainted. We do not know for certain whether or not Burris engaged in quid pro quo with the governor.
But should we, as citizens of the state of Illinois, have to wonder if one of our senators bought and paid for his seat? Do we not deserve fair and honest representation?
This isn't about race, not about Obama's first 100 days, or about leaving the Democrats short handed in the Senate. No, none of that. This about what has been done and is being done to the state of Illinois. Let us not pretend that this kind of idiocy is permissible because it's not a Republican that's doing it.
We should be unafraid to call this what it is: corruption of the highest order. We should not tolerate it because it is politically convenient to tolerate it. We shouldn't adopt the "yeah, he's a corrupt jackass, but he's OUR corrupt jackass" point of view. It's pretty basic.
If this governor's name were Bobby Jindal or Mark Sanford, we would be howling to the high heavens over such brazen disregard for ethics and law! Instead, we see comparisons of a corrupt buffoon, Rod Blagojevich, to a man that was truly railroaded, Don Siegelman.
Harry Reid is absolutely right this time. The Senate should not seat Roland Burris. It should not seat anyone Blago appoints. Neither the Senate nor the people of Illinois should have to wonder what kind of favors were done, if money was exchanged, what jobs were promised in return for the privilege of a seat in the halls of power. It matters not if it's Roland Burris, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Jan Schakowsky, Tammy Duckworth, Dan Seals or anyone else that has been proposed.
The governor let us down with his criminal activity. The attorney general, Lisa Madigan, let us down when she tried a legally dubious backdoor maneuver to get rid of the governor. The Illinois General Assembly let us down when they refused to take the appointment power out of the hands of a corrupt governor. Harry Reid and the Senate will let us down if they cave and seat a man who sold out his personal integrity for one more epitaph on his gravestone.