Imagine there is a vacant Senate seat in a midwestern state, and the governor appoints a black man to fill the seat. The governor is under an ethical cloud, but hasn't even been indicted. He remains in office, performing all the gubernatorial duties every day, and he appears to have made the appointment in accord with state law. Imagine that the appointee appears to have a long and successful civic and political career, with a much stronger resumé and more experience in elected office than the senator he's replacing.
Oh, wait — that's not hypothetical, that's the news.
Here's the hypothetical: Imagine that the Senate is still controlled by the GOP. Imagine that a bunch of white Republicans block the Senate chamber door and deny the black appointee a seat.
Can you picture it? Just imagine …
[No, I'm not rising to the defense of Roland Burris. He's rabidly anti-gun-rights and has worked for a national handgun ban (while owning one himself), and I'd rather not have him anywhere near a legislative body. I'm just struck by how once again different standards apply to Democrats. I believe this is example #694,371.]
On a somewhat related note, you might be interested in Dawn Trice's thoughtful column about "Magic Negroes" and "authentic" black men.
Cute, but no cigar!
Classy.
Second, how does Blago "preempt his own expulsion" by appointing Burris? He
doesn't. He's just decided that if he can't get a big check, he'll poke a
finger in the eye of his political allies who've "betrayed" him. I must
admit I grudgingly admire the audacity and cleverness.
Third, the very circumstances of the appointment make any funny business or
collusion between Blago and Burris highly unlikely. I suspect Burris was
picked at least in part because he seems to be as squeaky clean as anyone
in Illinois politics can be. Your truism isn't true, either for Bush or for
this situation -- unless you can present evidence to back it up.
That said, I hope your position prevails and the Dems keep him out. As I
said, I don't want him doing any lawmaking. :-)
Tab, your arguments distracted me and I almost forgot the most important
point: Burris was appointed in accordance with the law! It doesn't
matter what you or the Illinois Secretary of State or the Democrats in the
Senate think -- there is no legal basis for rejecting him.
RG:
In case you missed it, Maryland is NOT Illinois. If I could, I would
place a US map here so you could see for yourself. It is instructive that
you went all the way to Maryland to find someone you consider qualified to
be Illinois Senator!
John Adams was extremely myopic and naive - as are you! Sorry. But being a
nice guy, as you are, is not necessarily compatible with being realistic. I
prefer being a "sarcastic" realist to being an "Alice in Wonderland"
optimist. You see things as they should be; Tabacdo sees things as they
are. Those, who prefer to read fairy tales, I recommend Lewis Carroll or
RGCombs.
One Minor Correction: