IL-Sen: Harry Reid On Meet The Press

by: Chris Bowers

Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 12:45


Harry Reid was on Meet the Press this morning and, in regards to the Roland Burris situation, actually broke some real news on the program. This includes denying a report from yesterday that he urged Blagojevich not to appoint any of three leading Illinois African-American politicians to Obama's vacant seat. No transcript yet, so here is the AP (more in the extended entry):
Chris Bowers :: IL-Sen: Harry Reid On Meet The Press
Reid also denies telling Blagojevich that appointing three African-American lawmakers - Reps. Jesse Jackson Jr. and Danny Davis or state lawmaker Emil Jones - would be unacceptable. He says Blagojevich is "making all this up."

Additionally, Reid pushed back against Bobby Rush's charge that Burris should be seated because there are no African-Americans in the Senate, by pointing out that Rush did not support Barack Obama in the 2004 Illinois Senate primary when there were also no African-Americans in the Senate. Zing!

Reid also said that he plans to meet with both Republican minority leader Mitch McConnell to find a "bi-partisan solution on what to do about Senate appointee Roland Burris." While Senate #2 Dick Durbin says "there are no plans right now for the Senate to seat Roland Burris in the chamber," Reid offered a far more open-ended response:

Speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press," Reid said he plans to meet with Blagojevich's choice for the Senate, Roland Burris, 71, the former Illinois attorney general, a fellow Democrat. Asked if there was room for a possible settlement, Reid said, "I'm an old trial lawyer. There is always room to negotiate."

A decent overall response by Reid, but I still don't trust him. Even if the Senate has the legal authority to bar whoever they want from the chamber, Burris would not be denied because of any charges of illegality surrounding either anything he did or his specific appointment. That is undeniably legal. Thus, denying Burris is entirely a political move based on the idea that Burris can't be an effective Senator entirely because he was appointed by Blagojevich.

In regards to this specific appointment, the bottom line for me is that is not a good enough reason to deny someone entry into the United States Senate. This is particularly the case because the Senate, under Reid's leadership, has repeatedly taken action not because of the rule of law, but rather because of the perceived political outcome. Enough is enough with this course of action in the Democratic Senate.

In regards to the more general issue of Senate appointments that has arisen over the past couple months, I stand by my assertion that none of the problems we have faced about corruption and aristocracy would have occurred if we simply take away the power of Governors to appoint Senators. To remedy the situation, we need a Constitutional amendment that reads:

When vacancies happen in the Senate from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

This provides for the U.S. Senate what the Constitution already provides for the U.S. House. This is the best solution, and another step toward making our Union more perfect.

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
IL-Sen: Harry Reid On Meet The Press | 21 comments
Agreed (4.00 / 1)
I also think denying Burris on purely political grounds opens a can of worms in the future, when the GOP could easily use this precedent to prevent/delay Democratic appointees from being seated.
Sorry I recomended but now I dont think I understand you. (0.00 / 0)
What do you mean?

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
[ Parent ]
Precedent (4.00 / 1)
I think existenz makes a good point. The Democrats, if successful in blocking Burris, would create a precedent for blocking admission to the Senate on tangential political grounds. After all, Burris himself is not involved in any scandal by his own merit, he is only guilty by association (and not even guilty, just associated).

What is to stop the Republican, in some future hypothetical where they regain control of the Senate, from blocking a legitimate, qualified Democrat (appointed or otherwise) because he or she has some remote connection to an ongoing scandal? The Republicans govern more by obstructionism than anything else. Do we really want to open another door for them to gum up the works?

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
First pass a law making elections mandatory, end appointments. (0.00 / 0)
Second there is law governing what who and when the Senate can rule whether or not a Senator has been appointed, and who may be appointed.

It has already occurred to Republicans to stop all Democrats from sitting in the legislatures of the land.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
It's simplistic to decry this as purely "political" (0.00 / 0)
Even if we allow that Reid et al are acting in their own political self-interests, that does not mean that they are acting contrary to the interests of Illinois residents (or the entire citizenry).

A good faith argument can be made that any senator appointed by Blago will be an ineffective representative of Illinois, even  if the appointee is pure as the driven snow.  One may rebut the argument by saying that such an appointee is better than the alternative - i.e., the possibility of having no one at all for a given time - but that doesn't mean that the argument entirely lacks good faith.

On a related point, I thought Reid was signaling some kind of compromise could be worked. He didn't suggest this, but how about if Burris indicated that he would agree not to run in 2010?  Seems to me that such a tack might allow everyone to save face and gain some higher ground. (And to be frank, Burris could always backtrack from such a pledge down the road, probably with little recrimination.)

Ewww (0.00 / 0)
Such machinations are the corruption of democracies. Appoint and be done with it, until it is no longer the law. And Chris Bowers is exactly on track with his prescription. But the kind of terrible convoluted dispiriting corrupt tactics you suggest is what Obama ran to help sweep away.
Burris could always backtrack from such a pledge down the road, probably with little recrimination.

Ewww

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky

[ Parent ]
Do we know what Illinoisans think about this? (0.00 / 0)
(That's how you say it, right - Illinoisans?)

I haven't seen any polls on the Burris appointment; does anyone know if there are any asking whether people want him to be seated or not?  

[ Parent ]
Blago is playing this rather well (4.00 / 5)
He's turning Harry Reid into the bad guy here. The leak about the Reid-Blago conversations almost certainly came from Blago's office, and combined with the insinuations of racism, and speculation about whether Reid would somehow block Franken from taking a seat, makes it impossible for Reid to come out a winner if he continues blocking Burris.

At the same time Reid's failure to push this hard on Bush's lawbreaking exposes him as a crass partisan dealer and ensures his moves get no support from any major part of the Democratic base.

I would go so far as to say Reid is finished after this - he may keep his post as Majority Leader for now, but he has lost what remaining power and influence he had.

Which to me would be a very good thing - he has been a total failure at his job. Shame it was Blago that finally figured out how to exploit Reid's weaknesses.

Yes (4.00 / 2)
Although this has now become a he said/she said between Reid & Blago, my gut says this is Blago's big "fuck you" to Reid for suggesting Burris won't be seated. It fits perfectly with Blago's recent strategy to inject race into the issue. Ultimately, I think the strategy will fail if Reid is backed forcefully enough by Obama. But at the same time, Reid looks a bit like an idiot for making this the one issue he finally stands up and puts up a fight over.
[ Parent ]
Yes, Reid is a failure at anything remotely (4.00 / 2)
resembling leadership. His election was flawed to begin with.  Reid is a business moderate aka Republican.  We have to tolerate these blue dogs, but we certainly should not give them any kind of powerful position.  He was compromised from the getgo.  He did not oppose corruption from the Bush gang.  He didn't say much about Ted Stevens or any other cronies who use every trick in the book to become rich without getting caught.

This is such a distraction from the heist of our money by the banksters.  The Senate is a foolish place and should be neutered like the Brits did with the House of Lords.

Did anyone else notice how conservative on all points Harry was this morning?  From agreeing with Bush on Israel's right to to whatever it likes in Gaza to tepid comments on the "bailout", this guy is an embarrassment.  He is weak.  He is intent on micromanaging instead of leading.

Get the hook.  His days on stage should be over. And we should be talking about how to push for something concrete like single payer health care, not arguing about who sits where on the deck of this sinking ship.

[ Parent ]
Reid is getting outmaneuvered by Rod Blagojevich! (0.00 / 0)
Pathetic.  
[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 0)
It does make sense - Blago is fighting for his political life, which gives him a strong incentive to fight back with everything he's got.

Reid was merely fighting for the country, which apparently have him little incentive to fight tough.

[ Parent ]
Is there room to negotiate? (4.00 / 1)
Reid says "there is always room to negotiate" but I'm having a hard time seeing what there is to be negotiated here. There's no in between: Burris is either seated, or he's not. If they end up seating him, it will be because they simply folded; any "negotiation" involved will be purely for the purposes of saving face.  
Geez, I hope this old whiner is removed. (4.00 / 1)
He's an embarrassment to the word 'change'.

Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.
This why his name is Harry and not Harold (0.00 / 0)
Reid is a douche.
Reid is getting ready to cave (0.00 / 0)
The LA Times account of Reid's appearance portrays Reid as indicating that he might give up this fight:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid opened the possibility today that former Illinois Atty. Gen. Roland Burris may serve in the U.S. Senate despite the aggressive opposition of Senate Democratic leaders to his appointment by a scandal-tarnished governor.

"I'm an old trial lawyer. There's always room to negotiate," said Reid, a Nevada Democrat, on NBC's "Meet the Press."

When pressed by host David Gregory on whether Burris might ultimately be seated, Reid responded, "That's right."

As I said above, it's hard to see what there is to negotiate over. What concessions could Burris offer? He's either the Senator, or he's not. The only possibility that I can see is if Reid is trying to extract a promise that Burris will not run for re-election in 2010. But Reid would have no mechanism for enforcing that promise.  

The deal Reid/Burris will make is (0.00 / 0)
After Governor Blagejovich is impeached and removed from office and Lt Governor Pat Quinn becomes Governor. Rolland Burris decides to resign his US Senate Seat which he will hold for a month and Quinn appoints a black candidate like Dan Seals or Kwame Raoul who ends up running for a first full term in 2010. This will give the Democratic Nominee for the 2010 IL US Senate Race- Incumbency advantage.  
[ Parent ]
What's in it for Burris? (0.00 / 0)
The thrill of being a Senator for a month? If they were going to do that, why not just let the seat stay vacant for two weeks?

Plus, the issue still stands of how Reid could possibly enforce such a deal.  

[ Parent ]
Remember in North Dakota(1992) when (0.00 / 0)
long time US Senator Quentin Burdick died in Sept 1992. His widow Joyce Burdick was appointed to his seat as a Caretaker. Kent Conrad who was retiring from the other ND US Senate Seat won the November 1992 Special Election for that Seat.

[ Parent ]
I have to be honest with you (0.00 / 0)
I do not remember that.  
[ Parent ]
Looking at Burris's electoral history in losing primaries during his last 3 races for Governor. (0.00 / 0)
Burris would have lost renomation in 2010. Madigan,Hynes,Giannoulus,Schakowsky,and Duckworth could run for the US Senate against Burris in the Democratic Primary and Burris would still lose.

Giannoulous 5%
Schakowsky 5%
Duckworth 5%
Hynes 25%
Burris 25%
Madigan 35%

Burris would lose.

IL-Sen: Harry Reid On Meet The Press | 21 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox