Rejecting Burris: Democrats do battle over Blagojevich's appointment of Roland Burris to fill Obama's Senate seat

Image via Wikipedia

FoxNews.com: Not So Fast? Campaign to Contain Blagojevich Hits Roadblocks

The question everyone in Washington and Chicago has on their minds this New Years Eve is whether or not the Senate Democrats, led by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, have the authority under the Constitution to reject the appointment of Roland Burris to fill Barack Obama's vacated seat by Illinois Governor Rod Blogojevich? 

I am of the opinion that Senator Reid and his fellow Democratic Senators would be well within their rights under Article 1, Section 5 of the US Constitution, which states each chamber "shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members", to reject Mr. Burris when Congress reconvenes after the first of the year.

There are several constitutional provisions which the Majority Leader can use to prevent Burris from being seated, but it is unclear which makes the most sense considering the extenuating circumstances of the federal investigation into the integrity of the appointment process and the pay-to-play politics practiced by the Blagojevich administration. In his defense, the Illinois Governor and Burris can cite recent precedent of the courts rejecting such measures by Congressional leaders to assert such authority.

Adam Clayton Powell Jr. (See photo on right)  was refused his seat in the chamber in 1967 over corruption allegations, but the Supreme Court overruled the House of Representatives, finding the lower house was in violation of its constitutional authority when refusing to seat a member elected and qualified to serve. Reid rightly argues the Powell case does not apply under the current circumstances because the candidate is himself not questioned, but rather the integrity of the process itself that was in question.  It seems clear that Blago chose a man well qualified and fit to serve as Illinois' junior senator, but Burris was not elected by the voters of Illinois.  Ultimately, the question will be the conduct of the governor, making this appointment now under a cloud of suspicion stemming from the highly publicized federal investigation into his corrupt way of conducting business.

It is unclear how the president-elect feels about the situation as Obama takes a much deserved vacation in Honolulu, but I would bet he will probably want to put this whole ordeal behind him and his administration as quickly as possible.  He and Burris are close political allies and Burris does not carry a lot of political bagage himself, so if the former-Illinois Comptroller and Attorney General can charm the brass on Capitol Hill, Barack may be able to give him the political leverage he needs to secure his place in the upper chamber of the legislative branch.

Meanwhile the Federal prosecutor has filed for a rare 90-day extension of the Blagojevich grand jury, so maybe the drama won't be so easily put behind the president-elect as he seeks to implement his agenda in the first 100 days of his administration. That said, he does already have a near filibuster-proof majority with or without Burris, so the newly inaugurated President Obama better take care of it fast if he hopes to keep it from becoming a convenient distraction as the Governor continues to drag Chicago politics to even lower lows.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Senate posturing vs. State sovereignty
• Blagojevich playing a game of racial 'chicken'?
• Bobby Rush (D-IL) Dares Democrats Not To Seat An African-American
• There is no Bull Connor in the Democratic caucus
• Hermene Hartman: The Governor's Audacity to Appoint
• Democrats Seek to Block Appointee

Harry Reid tells it like it is, they can't win White House unless US loses in Iraq...

The Democratic strategy heading into campaign season cannot be said any better than it was last week by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who made clear during a Senate press conference that the war in Iraq is lost and cannot be won. This isn't the first time Senator Reid has said this, and I doubt it will be the last, but hopefully at some point it will gain some traction in the mainstream media and the Democratic Party's increasingly radical and inherently anti-American position will become exposed for what it is, a political calculation based on polls and votes. It is one thing to demonstrate an opposition to a policy, but it is another entirely to cast an era in American history to the dustbin and surrender. Before the elections the Democrats spoke more cautiously, and aside from the most liberal and extreme, most candidates spoke less sensationally about the war and the prospects for a favorable conclusion. But they have become drunk with power, and are falling asleep at the wheel before completing even the first lap.

What I find so appalling and indefensible about the Senator Reid's comments is not his opinion, which he is certainly entitled to, but rather his absolute lack of consideration for the fact that history books are not exclusive to Western civilization, and had he thought about his words before he ran his mouth in front of the cameras I would like to believe the Majority Leader would have chosen his them more carefully for fear of becoming the cover boy of all history books used in the Saudi madrases, not to mention the books the Iraqis will soon write about their lessons from this brief democratic experiment. Considering the repeated assertions that the al-Malaki government wishes for the US to remain in the country and continue carrying out its mission of training Iraqi forces and leading the current offensive against urban centers of violence, it is difficult to understand who is advising the Democrats that their defeatist strategy is going to accomplish anything tangible in the war against Islamic extremism; in fact all evidence indicates that NOBODY in or around Iraq is advising them that this is the wise course. That is of course if you don't count Nancy Pelosi's buddy Bashar Assad, who embraces the Majority's plan for withdrawal, along with his buddy Amadine-jihad. I guess we shouldn't forget about Chris Matthews and his mini-cabal of uber-liberal defeatists, as well as the whole lot of journalists and pundits who have jumped on the bandwagon and decided it sounds good to run around the world screaming to the cameras that we concede defeat, terrorists have broken our will.

Quite honestly, this makes me incensed, and if I were a member of Congress you would be able to watch the vain in my forehead pulse as I voiced my decent to the irresponsible opportunism displayed by Senator Reid. Such a comment is wrong on some many different levels that I am having a tough time remembering all of them to include in this post. I hope the Senator suffers in retirement when he realizes that the only thing the world will remember him for is his willingness to embrace defeat in a war against terrorists armed with suicide vests. Disgraceful is the only word that seems appropriate for describing what I think about the Majority Leader (a title he certainly doesn't deserve).

Another thing that sends me into an incensed outburst is the unabashed apologists and Democratic interpreters David Gregory and Tim Russert, who can have the audacity to take the story of Reid's comments and spin the whole thing upside down, trying to downplay what the Senator said, and claiming that "he wouldn't have said that if he had actually thought about it." EXACTLY, if he consciously self-censors his words rather than speak from his heart and expose his true feelings then of course he wouldn't have said what he did, but how is it that two men who claim to be principled journalists could possibly justify a politician not speak frankly about matters of war and peace? It is truly unprofessional and morally reprehensible. If you are going to spend your airtime running cover for Democratic politicians, while simultaneously debasing the president and his staff on everything you can grasp, then there should be a disclaimer emblazoned underneath their faces similar to the disclosures made by stock analysts on CNBC when they are discussing stocks that they are buying themselves.

Throw Nora O'Donnell in with the other shameless defeatists. I have never heard anyone so consumed by the idea of proving American failure. It is a sad day when any American sees it politically advantageous to systematically undermine the international prestige of the very country which they are vying for control over.

Tags: Senate, Senator Harry Reid, Iraq, Middle East, George W. Bush, Democrats, Lost War, Troop Moral, Defeatism, Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, President Ahmadinejad, US Congress, Nora O'Donnell

I'll trade you one Pryor, for a Hagel and a Smith...

In a flagrant and irresponsible move, the Senate voted on Tuesday along party lines (with two exceptions on the GOP side of the aisle and one on the left, which I alluded to in the title of this post and will expound upon below) to reject an amendment put forth by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to strike from the military appropriations bill language which calls for a time certain withdrawal of troops from Iraq, setting the target date for combat troop redeployment of March 2008, one year from this month and smack-dab in the middle of the presidential primaries all around the country. Essentially, the vote is a populist driven distortion of the Senate's true constitutional function, marking an overt attempt by the governing majority to impose a change in national foreign policy on the sitting president. Nearly 250 years of American involvement in global affairs, particularly matters of war, have been managed solely by the White House, with oversight and allocation of funding reserved as the main function of the Senate, but to attach an amendment that flies in the face of Executive authority, and if signed into law would radically alter and limit the president's ability to wage the battle in Baghdad, has me puzzled in almost every way.

The democrats are clearly governing based on the polls they have been reading in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, while still riding high after their resounding victory in the midterm elections, and sense that by forcing the president's hand early in the game they will be able to shape the debate in the lead-up to next years presidential election. Clearly the kool-aid being spewed by the Bush-bashing correspondents on MSNBC and CNN, not to mention the doubly potent elixir pompous finger-pointing pundits at the New York Times (yes Mr. Friedmann, I mean you) have been regurgitating since they decided to turn their backs on a situation in the Middle East that they are largely intellectually responsible for, has been happily lapped up by ignorant Democratic freshman and otherwise more reasoned Senate veterans alike.

Anyone who listens to the speeches given by Democratic Senators both on the floor of the Senate chamber and on the campaign trail, and actually possessed half a brain cell that they devoted to reasoned analysis, would probably find such a bold move away from fighting the "insurgents" in favor of retreating to safer ground to be confusing at best, dishonorable for sure. But more on this in a subsequent post...

Democratic Profile in Courage: Senator Pryor Casts Lone Ray of Optimism Amid Partisan Pandering

One profile in courage that I cannot go without noting (but likely to be overlooked by the folks at the Kennedy Presidential Library when they decide whom to award this designation to at their annual gala in honor of the former-president's graduate thesis at Harvard on similarly bold and courageous lawmakers unafraid of standing up to their political superiors in the name of pride and moral duty) was that of Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR). In defiance of his caucus and without much being made of it amongst the talking heads, Pryor voted for the second time in as many weeks to reject a democratic led constitutional coup, and voted his conscience. The MSNBC producers were so confused by his vote that they improperly branded the charismatic and clearheaded Democrat a Republican during much of their coverage on Tuesday when they showed his photo during discussion of the impending vote! I found this particularly surprising considering they never failed to highlight his party allegiance when he was leading the charge against the attorney general for the previous two weeks, but that story has been moved from the headlines to Page 2 (maybe 3 or 4) for the time being; though I am confident it will be back, along with the capital D after Pryor's name in no time.

Bravo Senator Pryor; I commend your principled approach to your duties as a public servant, and I guess I can give you a pass for leading the unjustified and slanderous witch hunt against Alberto Gonzales (as long as you don't buckle under pressure when the time comes to vote on this measure again once Dubya has exercised his veto power when this bill reaches his desk later in the week).

Two Republicans Succumb to Opportunistic Impulse and Disgracefully Cast Deciding Votes with Democrats

Unfortunately, Senator Pryor's courage will never emerge from beneath the national political radar because of the reckless and opportunistic decisions of Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR) and Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE; left) to undermine their party's otherwise unified attempt to salvage the Senate's collective dignity and avoid delaying the much needed funding allocated in the DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL. Voting along with his less than dignified colleagues on the left side of the aisle, Hagel is likely betting his chances on ever seeing the Oval Office from any other perspective than that of a humble guest on his clearly politically calculated vote yesterday, though I doubt Senator Reid is eager to share any of the dubious credit the media is eagerly looking to shower on the emboldened Senate radicals. On his Congressional website Smith gives his brief policy position on Defense and Foreign Policy, which reads as follows:

The American military and our foreign policy have a long history of benefitting not only our citizens, but also countless millions of people throughout the world. Our policies deter nuclear proliferation, fight terrorism, battle disease, and opens new markets by spreading free market and democratic values abroad.

The United States is the greatest humanitarian nation in the world, contributing assistance to some 150 countries worldwide. As you know, through the U.S. Agency for International Development, we have given millions of dollars to non-governmental organizations all over the world through a multitude of programs, fostering positive change and touching the lives of countless individuals.

Maintaining our global leadership in these areas also brings us great rewards – democratic allies and a safer world in which the U.S. and other nations can prosper.

Needless to say, the Senator's vote hardly reflects the principles he chooses to espouse rhetorically for casual observers, any of whom would have been unlikely to guess accurately how Smith would have voted on Tuesday after reading this brief statement, which gives an ambiguous and idealistic view of the role that America should play in global affairs. Shame on you Senator Smith, and you as well Senator Hagel; may you both lose your re-elections in the most embarrassing and humiliating fashions possible. If only we (Republicans) could trade your lame-asses for the brass balls and conviction of Senator Pryor; for I am confident in asserting that the country, our troops and the ideals of American leadership which you both dishonorably pay false homage to would be better off if that swap were made.

I will curtail my ranting before I scare away anymore readers, but I could go on forever. Several questions that I have been muttering to myself for the past few hours (to the chagrin of my girlfriend who is working diligently on her law school paper a few feet away from me) will likely produce a series of outbursts as the day wears on. Among the more perplexing are: Who is advising the democrats on which issues are worth the risk of alienating their moderate base? Where the hell was Senator Enzi? How can Bush effectively turn the tables on the Democrats when he presents his case for vetoing this measure (answer likely to follow shortly)? What is going to be the national/international reaction to this largely symbolic, though historic bill? When is the country going to start cutting through the crap? Like I said, I could rant for hours and thousands upon thousands of more words. For now, I will reflect...

Tags: 2008 Election, Senate, Democrats, Republican Party, American Politics, Fools, Washington DC, Constitutional Issues, Iraq, MSNBC, Politics, Primary Season, Road to the White House, US Foreign Policy, The Presidency, Troop Withdrawal, Bush, Chuck Hagel, Gordon Smith, Mark Pryor, Harry Reid