A new story in the Chicago Sun-Times indicates that, the day before Blagojevich's calls were taped, Harry Reid pushed Blagojevich not to appoint the three leading African-American politicians in Illinois (after Barack Obama, of course). According using "electability" as the rationale, Reid did advocate on behalf of two candidates, one of whom, Attorney General Lisa Madigan, attempted to remove Blgaojevich via judicial coup. If the Senate's move to block Roland Burris wasn't already viewed as a political move rather than one of ethics, this story should put an end to that once and for all.
Days before Gov. Blagojevich was charged with trying to sell President-elect Barack Obama's U.S. Senate seat to the highest bidder, top Senate Democrat Harry Reid made it clear who he didn't want in the post: Jesse Jackson, Jr., Danny Davis or Emil Jones.
Rather, Reid called Blagojevich to argue he appoint either state Veterans Affairs chief Tammy Duckworth or Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, sources told the Chicago Sun-Times.
Sources say the Senate majority leader pushed against Jackson and Davis - both democratic congressmen from Illinois - and against Jones - the Illinois Senate president who is the political godfather of President-elect Barack Obama - because he did not believe the three men were electable. He feared losing the seat to a Republican in a future election.
This story is not denied by Reid's office.
So, is Reid blocking Burris because of the ethical cloud surrounding Blagojevich, or because he thinks Democrats will lose the seat if Burris is the U.S. Senator from Illinois? The answer is probably both. Further, if Reid and Senate Democrats are motivated at least partially by "electability," to what extent is that "electability" based on fear of Illinois not backing another African-American, even after Barack Obama and Carol Mosley Braun previously held this seat? It is fairly obvious that played a role. Yet further, to what extent was Madigan's attempt to remove Blagojevich from office based on her personal Senate ambitions? It is also kind of funny that Reid considered Tammy Duckworth more "electable," even though she couldn't win a Democratic-leaning congressional district in Illinois despite receiving more DCCC backing in 2006 than any other Democratic candidate. She barely even won her primary.
One of the major problems here is the corruption associated with the concept of "electability" itself. Not only is it anti-democratic, but in truly retrograde fashion it reinforces oppressive cultural perceptions--such as African-Americans being unelectable, and Democrats needing to turn to veteran's in order to shore up foreign policy credentials--rather than challenging them. To a large extent, the Constitutional method of appointing Senators, rather than holding special elections, is itself to blame. Additionally, the lack of intra-party democracy and top-down elitism of our political process is also to blame. None of these problems would have occurred if we had simply held an election, and engaged in the radical experiment of letting the people decide.
Concepts like "electability" are part of a broader corrupting system. Selling Senate seats for cash may be obviously corrupt and illegal, but using political leverage to clear primary fields and rule out entire groups of people from holding office isn't much better.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment. blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
