Wikipedia defines “the race card” as “the act of bringing the issue of race or racism into a debate, perhaps to obfuscate the matter.” Stick with me for awhile, you’ll see where I’m going here.
So some of the big news out of Illinois is that under-scandal-governor Rod Blagojevich nominated Roland Burris, Illinois’ former AG, to Obama’s vacated Senate seat. Blagojevich you’ll recall is the guy who was arrested for the Eff-Bee-Eye for trying to see how he could pad his bank account by selling said senate seat. Immediately following the arrest came a bunch of “I’m innocent, I’m innocent!” from Blagojevich, a bunch of “Grrr, we will stop you!” from the Illinois state government, and a lot of, “If you fail, Illinois State Government, we will stop him!” from Democrats in the Senate.
Well, clearly, the Illinois State Government failed — all that talk of stripping the governor of his power, or, I dunno, impeaching him or whatever their options were to remove him from office — because Blagojevich nominated Burris for the seat.
(Let me say this about the nomination: I think it’s probably pretty righteous. I think Blagojevich actually figured out who would be the best candidate for the job, sort of like when you’re a kid and you try to steal something from a store but get caught, and you make a show of taking it to the register and paying for it. “See? I wasn’ going to steal it NO HOW!”)
And then of course you’ve got all these Democrats — including our President Elect — who’ve been very public about stating that whoever was nominated by Blagojevich wouldn’t be seated. Perception is everything in politics: I got that line from The American President, and it’s absolutely true. This is one of those situations where even though every bit of me tells me that Burris didn’t buy his seat, and that Blagojevich actually did his job properly and honestly, but I still don’t see how I could ever read a CNN article or watch a CPSAN broadcast speech about Burris and not think “Oh, yeah, he’s a total fraud.” In that sense, Democrats have no choice but to refuse to admit Burris: he’s unfortunately tainted his whole self, because no one will ever be able to view his accomplishments outside of the “Blagojevich” lens.
As for Burris, I think the guy’s got some issues: you’d have to, to build a monument to yourself on your tomb with your resume on it. And it’s either an indication of just how silver Blagojevich’s tongue is, or how desperate Burris is to get into national politics, that he said “Sure thing!” when Blagojevich asked him to be Illinois’ senator. You’d think that if Burris wasn’t smart enough, someone his staff would’ve had the brains to suggest that being tainted by the Blagojevich brush might be tantamount to political suicide. On the other hand, if Burris is convinced that his nomination is righteous (and he must be!) he’s probably hoping that Reid and other Senate Democrats will recognize this and allow him to take his seat, and that in the time between now and election day, he can put enough space between himself and Blagojevich to be elected.
Also, I couldn’t help but read Ruben Navarrette’s commentary. He compliments Blagojevich for asserting his “right” to the 17th Amendment, claiming that “under [it], governors alone have the power to appoint a replacement to complete the term of senators who are expelled, resign or die.” Except, of course, that the 17th Amendment actually says “the executive authority [read: governor] of each State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided [italics mine], That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.”
Now, I’m no Constitutional lawyer (or any sort of lawyer whatsoever), but it seems to me that the Constitution itself gives the state legislature the power to give the governor power to appoint a Senator. I wonder why the state legislature didn’t move faster (or at all) to limit or strip Blagojevich’s appointment power, but what’s done is done. (I’ll never understand why Navarrette didn’t at least wiki-search “17th Amendment.”)
The most hilarious thing about Navarrette’s column, though (and, yes, here I’m making some generalizations of political views which he might not share), is how he plays the race card, a tactic usually reviled by conservatives. How much do you want to bet that if Burris is able to take his position in the Senate, that by the time he’s up for election, Navarrette will have found some reason to question his integrity or honesty as a result of the “Blagojevich taint”?
Final Thought One: Honestly? Say what you will about Eliot Spitzer, it took him less than two days to resign.
Final Thought Two: Given the timing of both the Blagojevich scandal, and the possibility that Caroline Kennedy will be appointed to the Senate, I think it’s time to re-examine the 17th Amendment. Since it seems to be common thought (possibly backed up by numbers, anyone know of any?) that the nomination of a person to a position provides them a leg-up at election time, this strikes me as a way for a state’s political apparatus to thwart the will of their voters.