Burris Plays Musical Chairs With Senate, Gets Seat

Roland Burris is in the Senate. Democrats have accepted his "new" credentials -- which look remarkably like his "old" credentials -- and now welcome him to the Senate. After days of flouting the constitution and making the politically dangerous claim that unproven allegations of misconduct "taint" and invalidate decisions of the accused, Reid and Obama have caved in and will allow Burris to take his seat in the Senate.

Perhaps the only political casualty in this situation is Bill Richardson. Although I have not seen many commentators link Richardson and Burris, the Democrats' hard line against "taint" made it impossible for them to defend Bill Richardson, who faces a grand jury investigation surrounding a possible "pay to play" political deal -- just like Blagojevich. The same day that Richardson announced his withdrawal from consideration for Secretary of Commerce, Reid and Obama dramatically changed course on Burris.

Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

What a Difference a Day Makes: Obama and Reid On Board With Burris Appointment

Feinstein Smacks Down Reid and Fellow Democrats Regarding Burris

Joe Lieberman and Rick Warren In, Roland Burris Out: No "Place at the Table" for Senior, Loyal Democrat

On Day That Bill Richardson Announces Withdrawal Harry Reid Softens Rhetoric on Burris

Will Bill Richardson's Case Lead to a Softening of the Rhetoric of "Taint"?

Patrick Buchanan Shows Greater Commitment to Liberal Values Than Senate Democrats, Defends Roland Burris

So When Exactly Does "Change" Arrive? Senate Battle Over Burris and Blagojevich Offers "More of the Same"!

Do Nepotism, Wealth and Dynastic Power "Taint" Kennedy's Likely Senate Appointment? Taking Reid's Arguments Where He Wouldn't Want Them to Go

Some Media Outlets Begin "Palinizing" Roland Burris

On Day That Bill Richardson Announces Withdrawal Harry Reid Softens Rhetoric on Burris

Defiant Blagojevich Names Obama's Successor: Decision Raises Political and Constitutional Questions

On Day That Bill Richardson Announces Withdrawal Harry Reid Softens Rhetoric on Burris

When Bill Richardson announced that he was withdrawing from consideration for a position as Secretary of Commerce, I predicted that this could actually help Blagojevich and Burris. Richardson was forced out because Obama would have had a difficult time defending him in confirmation hearings while a grand jury investigates whether he was involved in a "pay to play" scheme with a large donor. Democrats, including Obama, have taken a hard-line approach with Blagojevich, who also faces pay to play accusations, demanding that he resign and refusing to seat Burris, whom Blagojevich selected to fill a vacant Senate seat.

Now that Democrats see (or remember) the implications of rushing to condemn individuals before facts, they will probably retreat from such a strong line on these matters. Indeed, Reid had already softened his public stance on Burris during an interview on Meet the Press, and he now suggests that Burris might have a seat at the Senate table:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid opened the possibility Sunday that former Illinois Atty. Gen. Roland Burris might serve in the Senate despite the aggressive opposition of Democratic leaders to his appointment by a scandal-tarnished governor.

"I'm an old trial lawyer. There's always room to negotiate," said Reid, a Nevada Democrat, on NBC's "Meet the Press."

When pressed by host David Gregory on whether there was a possibility Burris might ultimately be seated, Reid responded, "That's right."

The fact that Reid's employed more flexible rhetoric on the same day that Richardson formally announced his withdrawal is probably not coincidental. Nonetheless, a Senate aide says that Reid's comments "were not meant as an overture but merely an attempt to leave open the possibility of a negotiated settlement, and said that leaders remained determined not to seat Burris."

Furthermore, Reid continues to claim the authority to exclude a lawfully appointed Senator:

Under the Constitution, Reid said, "we determine who sits in the Senate. And the House determines who sits in the House. "So there's clearly legal authority for us to do whatever we want to do. This goes back for generations."

Most constitutional law scholars who have addressed this issue, however, seem to disagree with Reid's approach. Despite his rhetoric to the contrary, the objections of constitutional law scholars possibly informs Reid's moderation as well.

Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

Will Bill Richardson's Case Lead to a Softening of the Rhetoric of "Taint"?

Patrick Buchanan Shows Greater Commitment to Liberal Values Than Senate Democrats, Defends Roland Burris

So When Exactly Does "Change" Arrive? Senate Battle Over Burris and Blagojevich Offers "More of the Same"!

Do Nepotism, Wealth and Dynastic Power "Taint" Kennedy's Likely Senate Appointment? Taking Reid's Arguments Where He Wouldn't Want Them to Go

Some Media Outlets Begin "Palinizing" Roland Burris

On Day That Bill Richardson Announces Withdrawal Harry Reid Softens Rhetoric on Burris

Defiant Blagojevich Names Obama's Successor: Decision Raises Political and Constitutional Questions

Like It or Not, Democracy Prevails: Illinois Supreme Court Refuses to Declare Blagojevich Unfit to Serve

Blago Impeachment: What Would Lincoln Do?

Playing or Paying Politics: Blagojevich, Political DealMaking, and the Difficulty of Drawing Lines

Pick Me! Caroline Kennedy Officially on the Job Market

Will Bill Richardson's Case Lead to a Softening of the Rhetoric of "Taint"?

Governor Bill Richardson has possibly given Rod Blagojevich and Roland Burris a minor boost, after he withdrew from consideration for Secretary of Commerce due to an investigation into a possible "pay to play" scheme involving a campaign donor. Senate Democrats have demanded that Blagojevich resign office because he has been arrested for allegedly attempting to profit from his authority to fill the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama. When he refused to resign, Democrats demanded that he decline from filling the Senate post. But Blagojevich surprised commentators and recently picked Burris, a veteran Democrat, to occupy the seat. This sent Democrats into a rage.

In response to the appointment, Harry Reid said that he would block Burris from sitting in the Senate -- even if he had to call upon armed officers to do so. Obama also released a statement condemning Blagojevich for picking the candidate. Democrats insist that Blagojevich's alleged behavior is so despicable that whether or not he committed a crime, he should lose his job. They also want to exclude Burris on the grounds that he is caught up in the "taint" of Blagojevich's scandal.

Apparently, Democrats failed to conduct a thorough "conflicts check" to determine whether their hard line against Blagojevich could ultimately backfire and harm other Democrats. Richardson has become the first casualty of their gross error in judgment.

Media accounts of Richardson's withdrawal from the Cabinet-selection process indicate that Obama has known about the investigation of a possible "pay for play" scheme, but elected to nominate Richardson for the Commerce slot. But when the situation with Blagojevich became heated, Obama's aides pressed for Richardson's withdrawal.

Obama continued to praise Richardson even as he announced his withdrawal. Although Richardson has dropped out of the upcoming confirmations process, he has not resigned from governor despite the investigation. The case against Blagojevich, however, has not even progressed to the grand jury stage. Certainly, this fact will not go unnoticed by Blagojevich, Burris and people who are either sympathetic to the governor or who feel uncomfortable rushing to judgment in the absence of any factual information. If Richardson can remain governor and receive praise and respect, Blagojevich might argue that he should as well.

Source: CNN.Com

Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

Patrick Buchanan Shows Greater Commitment to Liberal Values Than Senate Democrats, Defends Roland Burris

So When Exactly Does "Change" Arrive? Senate Battle Over Burris and Blagojevich Offers "More of the Same"!

Some Media Outlets Begin "Palinizing" Roland Burris

Defiant Blagojevich Names Obama's Successor: Decision Raises Political and Constitutional Questions

Like It or Not, Democracy Prevails: Illinois Supreme Court Refuses to Declare Blagojevich Unfit to Serve

Blago Impeachment: What Would Lincoln Do?

Playing or Paying Politics: Blagojevich, Political DealMaking, and the Difficulty of Drawing Lines

Pick Me! Caroline Kennedy Officially on the Job Market

Do Nepotism, Wealth and Dynastic Power "Taint" Kennedy's Likely Senate Appointment? Taking Reid's Arguments Where He Wouldn't Want Them to Go

Bill "Blago" Richardson

The universe refuses to let us just live. Now Bill Richardson has withdrawn from the position as Secretary of Commerce due to an investigation of an alleged pay to play scheme involving a campaign donor who later received a state contract. Is Richardson despicable and all of the other adjectives we have heard recently? I doubt it. I assume he is innocent until I hear something else. Democrats could learn from this.

Source: Washington Post

Ruben Navarrette's Flip-Flop: Wrong to Criticize Obama on Warren, Fine to Criticize Obama on Clinton

I became familiar with Ruben Navarrette during the Democratic primaries. He was one of the few Latinos (among the few Latinos who are leading journalists at major papers) who clearly did not like Hillary Clinton.

Navarrette wrote several articles praising Obama and criticizing Clinton. During the general election coverage, however, he wrote about McCain with a somewhat sympathetic eye, even encouraging Latinos to consider voting for him in one article.

After the election ended and Obama began selecting members of his Cabinet, Navarrette wrote a scathing critique of Obama's decision to choose Clinton as Secretary of State. Navarrette believed that Bill Richardson should have received the position instead.

Navarrette challenged Obama's decision to appoint Clinton, arguing that she "doesn't have anywhere near Richardson's level of experience in foreign affairs . . . [and] she treated Obama reprehensibly during the primary. . . ." Navarrette also asserts that because Latino support for Obama was critical for his victory, "they deserve better" than the "parting gift" of Secretary of Commerce -- the position Richardson has accepted.

Although Navarrette passionately criticized Obama's decision to pick Clinton as Secretary of State, he has taken a noticeably different approach towards GLBT and pro-choice advocates who criticize the inclusion of Rick Warren in Obama's inauguration ceremony. Navarrette argues on CNN.Com that these groups should step back and accept Obama's wishes:

This is about a president-elect, who just came off a bruising 21-month campaign, exercising his prerogative to choose whoever he wants to deliver the blessing at his inauguration. It's about -- as President-elect Obama noted this week -- Americans learning to agree to disagree without becoming disagreeable.

It's about those on the left knowing how to win and how to savor victory without giving into the impulse to attack each other. And, finally, it's about recognizing that -- for those who feel like protesting Warren's appearance -- there is an ocean's worth of bigger fish to fry.

It's interesting. Many of those raising a fuss are talking about respect, demanding respect, insisting they're not given respect, etc. Well, that works both ways. If they want respect, they have to give it. They can start by respecting the wishes of the president-elect to plan his inauguration as he sees fit.

Interesting. Navarrette's assertion that Warren's protestors should respect Obama's wishes could have even more force regarding whom he selects for his Cabinet. Because presidents works very closely with Cabinet members, they should have a high degree of discretion to choose candidates they prefer. Also, had Latinos protested Obama's "snub" of Bill Richardson as Navarrette argues they could have legitimately done, this would have constituted the very in-fighting among the Left that Navarrette now condemns. I do not see these situations as materially distinct. Am I missing something?

Wicked Irony Alert: Did Obama Snub Richardson to Pick Clinton as Secretary of State?

When Bill Richardson snubbed Hillary Clinton and endorsed Barack Obama, some Clinton supporters said he betrayed her. James Carville, in his classic Cajun style, called Richardson a "Judas."

Now, Ruben Navarrette, a columnist for the San Diego Union-Tribune, complains that Obama has betrayed Richardson by picking Clinton to serve as Secretary of State. For those of you who do not follow Navarrette's writings, he passionately opposed Clinton during the primaries. Afterwards, however, he seemed to develop a softness for McCain. I am not sure what to make of this, but Navarrette's recent anger towards Obama and his disappointment that Clinton will probably head the Department of State do not surprise me.

With respect to Clinton's likely nomination, Navarette argues that:

Now I wonder what message it sends that President-elect Obama has apparently
passed over Richardson and seems ready to offer the post at state to their
former rival, Hillary Clinton. While known the world over from her days as first
lady, Clinton doesn't have anywhere near Richardson's level of experience in
foreign affairs. Besides, she treated Obama reprehensibly during the primary.
Does anyone really think that if Hillary had been elected president that she
would be vetting Barack Obama for secretary of state?

After the snub, Richardson turned the other cheek and got slapped again. He is reportedly about to be offered, as a parting gift, a job — secretary of commerce — that someone else turned down. That someone else was Penny Pritzker, the president-elect's chief fundraiser who reportedly was Obama's choice for the post. A billionaire heir to the Hyatt hotel fortune, Pritzker withdrew her name from
consideration.

Navarrette concludes his essay with some harsh words for Obama:

This isn't about Richardson, who might be very happy heading for ribbon cuttings
in Toledo while Clinton heads for blue-ribbon summits in Tel Aviv. . . .

America's largest minority took a chance on Obama despite the fact that
the president-elect had no track record in reaching out to them and didn't break
a sweat trying to win their votes. They deserve better.

I am not sure whether Obama ever considered Richardson for the position of Secretary of State. If Richardson ever had a serious chance at receiving the post, then Secretary of Commerce would certainly represent a sharp tumble in terms of prestige.

But Richardson must certainly understand that nothing is certain in politics. Clinton, for example, believed Richardson would endorse her over Obama because he worked in her husband's administration and gained national prominence as a result. But that experience did not secure Richardson's support for Clinton. Instead, Richardson made a decision that seemed most politically favorable to him. All politicians do this. By the time Richardson endorsed Obama it appeared that he had an insurmountable lead in pledged delegates. By supporting Obama's candidacy, Richardson bet on Obama eventually winning the Democratic nomination and possibly the general election. By siding with the likely nominee, Richardson sought to maximize his own opportunities for political prominence and access to the White House. These types of calculations animate all political endorsements, although the carefully tailored statements that accompany most endorsements deceptively imply altruistic motives.

Now, Obama has made a similarly self-interested political decision. Ironically, Richardson loses, while Clinton gains. Because of the strong level of support for Clinton among Democrats and the divisiveness of the primaries, Obama probably cut a deal that reserved a high-level appointment for Clinton in his administration. Because Daschle, whose ideas on healthcare are more in line with Obama than Clinton, won the spot to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, the only remaining natural fit for Clinton was Secretary of State. Apparently, her campaigning for Obama paid off with this very important cabinet position.

Because politicians, including Richardson himself, constantly make decisions that advance their own political opportunities, Navarrette's anger is misplaced. The very same type of self-interested political calculation that led Richardson to endorse Obama instead of Clinton, has now caused Obama to prefer Clinton over Richardson. Politics is not for the faint of heart.

Best Headline Ever: "Obama Team Mulls Role for Miss Lewinsky in New Administration"

Although Arianna Huffington's enormous blog is often "hit or miss," sometimes it manages to strike big with a contributor. A recent entry by Billy Kimball knocks it out of the ball park. Kimball lampoons Obama's "Clinton Cabinet" with his very provocative essay, "Obama Team Mulls Role for Miss Lewinsky in New Administration."

Here's a snippet:

Former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle, who is expected to be nominated as
Secretary of Health and Human Services, responded to a reporter who asked about
the Lewinsky rumors by pretending to receive a cell phone call. When the
reporter took the phone from him and closed it while making a "we both know what
you're doing" facial expression, Daschle said that appointing Lewinsky would be
"like rubbing salt in the wounds of Senator Clinton at a time when we're
supposed to be in a healing process." He added that Miss Lewinsky's presence in
the White House would be "a huge distraction."

But New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, who broke with the Clintons
over his endorsement of Mr. Obama, said that Lewinsky was "a fresh face" with "a
lot to offer." Richardson lost the post of Secretary of State to Senator Clinton
and is now Mr. Obama's choice for the far less prestigious job of Secretary of
Commerce. "The Obama administration should be focused on recruiting the best
people to help us address the challenges of the future and not get bogged down
in past history," he said. . . .

Monica Lewinsky was not available for comment. Through her attorney,
William Ginsburg, she released a statement, which read, in part, "I am honored
and humbled by the opportunity to serve my country again at this crucial
juncture in our history."

Wicked!