It’s not so surprising to me that this might have happened. I suppose the real question is what would have happened had Burris been appointed by Pat Quinn and then all this came out? It seems to me that the Democrats were ready to accept Burris with open arms…had he been appointed by someone else.
This is why I thought the Senate initially should just given him his seat and left it at that. It was obviously they didn’t have the authority to bar him. Dragging it out was a bit ridiculous (though now perhaps a warning sign).
But, then was then, and now is now. In the last few days, he’s come up with three explanations for his activities, the latest being, “okay, I did fundraise after all.” As Ed Morrissey says, it may not be illegal, but it’s certainly unethical.
Nobody can trust what Burris says now. In my opinion, nobody is going to want to work with him, especially Democrats facing election in 2010, lest they have an attack ad linking them with Burris thrown their way. I doubt any legislation he introduces will get floor time. If any of the above happens, he’ll be able to vote, but that’s about it. Illinois will essentially have one and a half Senators rather than two.
Burris should do the right thing and resign and the Democrats should demand it. Besides being the right thing morally, it’ll be the right thing politically. Burris is fast becoming baggage.
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.
Senator Burris is, alas, an ambitious man, just like the unlamented former Governor of Illinois. It is unlikely that Senator Burris will do the decent thing and resign. While a little polite hypocracy is helpful for politics, the polite fiction that Burris is a ‘good man and a fine public servant’ (quote from President Elect Obama on December 30, 2008) is really debatable. The ‘good man’ engaged in efforts to railroad a man to the electric chair to help in his unsuccessful run for the Governor’s mansion. The ‘fine public servant’ was apparently busy lining up a pay to play scenario to make himself U.S. Senator with the impeached and removed ex governor of his state. Somehow, ‘good man’ and ‘fine public servant’ are terms I am unlikely to apply to Rolland Burris any time in the future. A more correct term for Mr. Burris is ‘morally under-developed.’