It took them several weeks, but Senate Democrats have finally decided to do the legal thing: they have decided to seat Roland Burris.
Burris was appointed to succeed now President-Elect Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate. Democrats, however, were unwilling to seat him because he was appointed by a highly corrupt Democratic governor who currently faces impeachment over an attempt to sell Obama’s Senate seat to the highest bidder.
Seating Burris was nonetheless the right thing to do for Democrats: they did not have any particular reason to oppose him. He has all the experience a member of the Senate needs, and there is little to no reason to believe that he was involved in any pay-to-play schemes.
Instead of accepting the inevitable, however, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his fellow Democrats decided to play hardball. They refused to seat Burris, who then showed his willingness to do whatever it took to take his rightful place in the Senate. When he persisted, the Democratic leadership could do little to stop him and they would only draw out the controversy which would hurt them and their party.
Being a good politician and leader consists for 50% out of picking fights you can win. Reid clearly picked a fight he should have known he could not win in this case, thereby proving himself once again to be a weak leader at best.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
