January 20, 2009

Democratic hubris

Here's one I wish I was wrong on. Burris is being seated in the Senate. I don't recall who I was Tweeting on Twitter but I said he'd be seated. In fact it might have been in a conversation off line. But the development, even though I'd predicted it, amazes me.

The Huffington Post has this entry on January 12th;

WASHINGTON — Eager to put the scandal-tainted standoff behind them, Senate Democrats accepted Roland Burris as President-elect Barack Obama's Senate successor on Monday and said they expect to swear in the new Illinois senator this week. "He is now the senator-designate from Illinois and, as such, will be accorded all the rights and privileges of a senator-elect," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said in a joint statement.

You think Blagojevich has hubris? It's nothing compared to the Senate Democrats. Decorum prevents me from using the adjectives to describe them that I'd really like to use. But they clearly feel they are above reproach. They clearly have put moral obligation, doing the right thing, and integrity on the back burner in favor of either expediency, party politics or the "let them eat cake" attitude towards Republicans and the electorate in general.

Listen up ladies and gentlemen of the Senate Democrats, as you sew, so shall you reap. It's time we start holding their feet to the fire and not letting up. Anyone involved in this travesty needs to be called on the carpet and absolutely grilled over it. How can the United States proclaim it is the protector of democracy and justice and allow an appointment to a seat that has been made by an impeachment-facing, scandal-ridden, felony-charge-facing soon-to-be-criminal? It can't.

Take pride in yourself as a nation that has traditionally always tried to do the right thing and do not let this stand. If Burris is to be seated, the American public must be reminded every day that his appointment is an affront to democracy. Let me be clear, I am not talking about the man - I know next to nothing about him. But I'd like it to stay that way, because what is flawed here is the process, and those who allowed this to happen. And that would include President Obama. As reported on CNN in December;

"Roland Burris is a good man and a fine public servant, but the Senate Democrats made it clear weeks ago that they cannot accept an appointment made by a governor who is accused of selling this very Senate seat," Obama said in a statement.

And then on January 7th, CNN;
"If he gets seated, then I'm going to work with Roland Burris, just like I worked with all the other senators, to make sure that the people of Illinois and the people of the country are served," Obama said.

Which is it? Jim Geraghty at National Review is right - every Obama promise comes with an expiration date. Just in this case it wasn't so much a promise as it was an opinion that expired.

If you think you have a country that honors truth and justice these people need to be held accountable for their contempt for the people of the United States. Next up - Franken gets seated while the legal issues are still unresolved.


  1. Actually, like Burris or not, he was appointed by a legally sitting governor of a state. The Senate does not have the right to tell a state they can or cannot seat a person. If you want to blame someone, blame the Illinois legislature for dragging their feet, as Burris was seated before the Blogo was impeached. And impeachment does not mean someone has been tried and convicted, no matter the apparent facts. The trial must take place - and then we'll see if the nut is impeached.

    I understand your anger, but I think in this case, your anger is ill-placed. There are so many things you can blame the Democrats in Congress for, they have sown a lot of bad seeds, but they don't have the power to disallow Burris from being seated.

  2. Thank you for the comment Beth.

    Blame the Illinois legislature? Fair enough, but then why did Reid go through the charade of saying they won't seat him? Why did President-elect (for a few more hours) Obama say that they could not accept his appointment? Why did Burris accept a tainted appointment?

    It's just corrupt Democratic business as usual, and not any sort of "change" that the public is being sold on. Despite the fact that there is no power to stop the Burris seating, there should be certain level of moral enforcement in the Democratic party that would shame Blagojevich out of making the appointment, or Burris out of accepting it. Clearly that does not exist.

    On the plus side, what the appointment has done, is point out the hypocrisy of the Democrats on the issue of corruption.

    To your last point, I agree, there are for many other things to be 'angry' about, although I am not angry, more annoyed. But the reason for shining a light on this is because corruption is not isolated to this instance in the Democratic party, and people need to know when and where it exists.

    The moral fabric of the party now governing America is questionable, or at least not beyond reproach. If decisions are being made that affect the country's future, some very big, expensive decisions, and if the underlying morality is flawed, the decisions are subject to flaw as well.


Disagreement is always welcome. Please remain civil. Vulgar or disrespectful comments towards anyone will be removed.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Share This