Election 2010: The Bloodbath That Never Happened

In recent weeks, the media have described today's election as a certain bloodbath for the Democratic Party. The results, however, look much more measured. As of 12:48am on the East Coast, it appears that the GOP will regain control of the House, but Democrats will maintain control -- although to a lesser degree -- of the Senate.

Several recent elections have brought about similar shifts in congressional power. In 1994, both the Senate and the House went to the GOP, along with many state governorships. In 2006, both chambers shifted to the Democrats. So, 2010 is actually a little better for the Democrats than recent election results.

Furthermore, historical data indicate that the president's party has performed poorly in midterm elections during most of modern US history. Also, considering the wretched state of the economy, the Democrats could have easily suffered from a complete loss of power in Congress. This, outcome, however, did not occur.

Needless to say, Democrats lost some tough races. Senator Russ Feingold -- probably the last remaining progressive in the Senate -- lost in Wisconsin. In Pennsylvania, Joe Sestak lost to Pat Toomey by a very narrow margin. Also, in Florida, Charlie Crist lost the Senate race to Marco Rubio. Even though Crist led the three-candidate race immediately after he abandoned the Republican Party, Kendrick Meek (a Democrat) managed to pull enough liberal votes away from Crist, which threw the election to Rubio.

In Nevada, however, Harry Reid has defeated Sharron Angle. Angle, who is probably best known for her comical efforts to escape the media, ran as an anti-government, anti-social security, anti-Department of Education, Tea Party candidate. Surprisingly, despite her obviously limited intellect, she kept the race tight until the very end. Reid, however, is very unpopular among voters. Nevertheless, he has won close elections in the past, and he benefits from labor union support, which gives him a massive "get out the vote" machine. Apparently, the machine worked -- despite massive voter discontent.

The media will probably craft an electoral narrative designed to create drama and to draw traffic to their web pages. Ultimately, however, the election tallies (as exit polls indicate) likely result from one simple factor: voters' feelings of vulnerability about the economy. This same vulnerability caused them to abandon Republicans, elect President Obama and expand Democratic control of Congress in 2008.

In 2008, I warned exuberant Democrats that the election results did not mean that the American electorate had become wildly liberal. Similarly, the results of today's election do not indicate that the country is wildly conservative. Instead, partisans have voted for their parties' candidates, while moderates and independents voted against many Democrats because they are afraid of the economy. If the economy picks up by 2012, the election should provide for some very interesting and close races.

I will try to add more analysis later today -- time permitting.

OUCH II: Another Scathing Review of Sharron Angle by Las Vegas Journalist

John L. Smith, a writer for the Las Vegas Review-Journal, has written a scathing analysis of US Senate candidate Sharron Angle. Angle, a Tea Party-endorsed candidate, has imploded since she won the Republican primary.

Several polls now show the highly unpopular Sen. Harry Reid leading the race. Smith says that Angle can only blame herself -- although she often blames the "liberal media" and Reid's "lies." Here is a clip from the article:

God, the infallible campaign adviser, has a plan for Sharron Angle's U.S. Senate candidacy against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

I have learned this not from the ultimate source, mind you, but from a recent interview Angle gave to David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network.

"When God calls you he also equips you and he doesn't just say, 'Well, today you're going to run against Harry Reid,' " Angle said. "There is preparation. Everyone in the Bible, when you read the Bible, you can see that preparatory time. Moses had his preparatory time. Paul had his preparatory time. Even Jesus had his preparatory time. And so my preparation began on a (Nye County) school board."

Moses. Paul. Jesus. Sharron.

That's good company. For a hack politician to compare her journey in any way to the roads traveled by Moses, Paul or Jesus is simply audacious, but in a short few months Angle has gained national notoriety for uttering such jaw-dropping jibberish.

Jon Ralston -- a writer for the Las Vegas Sun -- also published a very critical assessment of Angle today. Even though it is too soon to predict the results of the midterm elections, the tide has certainly turned against Angle (and other Tea Party candidates).

OUCH: Las Vegas Journalist Declares "Sharron Angle Is Dead"

Las Vegas Sun writer Jon Ralston has made a very ominous declaration for Nevada Republicans: "Sharon Angle is dead. . . ." Ralston offers a pretty dreadful picture regarding the future of Angle's campaign to become a US Senator. Here is a clip from the article:

With Angle’s hot air balloon leaking helium about as rapidly as oil left that Gulf well — 45 days and counting and the GOP Senate nominee still has not plugged it — the question is whether she can survive the fall to earth.

At least three polls I know of show Angle trailing Harry Reid, including Friday’s Mason-Dixon survey that has the Senate majority leader ahead, 44-37, outside the margin of error. Even if you don’t believe one of the polls, the trend is inescapable and the race’s dynamic is fundamentally altered.

Coming up on the 100-day mark until the election — and only three months until early voting starts — Reid remains manifestly unpopular, with more than half of those surveyed indicating they will not vote for him. But his strategy of driving people away from Angle and into either a “none of the above” posture or a oh-how-it-pains-me-to-vote-for-him stance has worked to perfection.

For more on the difficulty that Tea Party candidates face in general elections, see: Can Tea Party Candidates Win Elections In Less Conservative States?


UPDATE: Another Nevada journalist has ripped apart Angle's campaign. See: OUCH II: Another Scathing Review of Sharron Angle by Las Vegas Journalist.

Can Tea Party Candidates Win Elections In Less Conservative States?

In several Republican primaries, Tea Party-endorsed candidates enjoyed great success. Sharron Angle won the Nevada primary for US Senate by a landslide and started the general election campaign with a huge lead against incumbent Sen. Harry Reid.

In Florida's Senate contest, Tea Party favorite Marco Rubio forced Republican Gov. Charlie Crist to run as an independent. Polls showed that Crist would have lost the primary election to Rubio by a wide margin.

Finally, in Kentucky, Rand Paul defeated his Republican primary challenger by a comfortable margin. Paul emerged from the primary with a huge lead over his Jack Conway, his Democratic opponent.

These victories, combined with a simplistic media narrative that portrays the election results as a bad sign for incumbents, helped to fuel the belief that the Tea Party was a powerful new political force that would wield tremendous political power in November. Many commentators, however, are now rethinking that message.

Once conservative Tea Party candidates began running general election campaigns and receiving scrutiny from the national media, their leads, particularly in politically divided states, evaporated. Today, a Mason-Dixon poll shows that Harry Reid now leads Angle by 7 points. In Florida, most polls have shown Crist leading Rubio since he abandoned the Republican Party. In addition, the latest poll has Conway and Rand tied in Kentucky (which is more conservative than either Nevada or Florida).

It is too soon to call these elections. Nevertheless, the tightening of the races confirms earlier analysis which predicted that Tea Party candidates would encounter difficulty in politically divided states -- even if they trounced opponents in Republican primaries. While Tea Party candidates should have an easy time in reliably conservative states like Utah and South Carolina, how they will perform in other jurisdictions remains an open question.

Harry Reid Might Be The Luckiest Senate Candidate

It is too soon to predict what will happen in the Nevada race for U.S. Senate, but Harry Reid's challenger Sharron Angle seems determined to prove that she is not ready for primetime. Check out this video footage from 8Newsnow.com, a local Las Vegas television station.




Finally, according to many websites -- including TPM -- Angle tried "to gain support for a prison drug rehabilitation program that would involve prisoners quitting drugs cold turkey, with saunas and massages as part of treatment -- an idea promoted by the Church of Scientology." During the Republican primary, Sue Lowden, Angle's opponent, ran a humorous ad criticizing the plan. Lowden, of course, ran into trouble for her own bizarre positions. Lowden suggested, for example, that healthcare reform could be accomplished if the country returned to a barter system, in which patients brought "chickens" to their physicians in exchange for medical services. Oh, Nevada!

Here is the prison massage campaign ad:

Wife, Daughter of Harry Reid Seriously Injured in Automobile Accident

Senator Harry Reid's wife Landra Reid and daughter Lana Barringer were seriously injured in a suburban Virginia automobile accident Thursday night. Their car was rear-ended by a tractor trailer. According to the New York Times:

"Mrs. Reid has a broken nose, broken back and broken neck,'' Reid spokesman Jim Manley said in a statement. ''Lana has a neck injury and facial lacerations. Both Mrs. Reid and Lana are conscious, can feel their extremities, and according to doctors their injuries are non-life threatening."

Virginia State Police said Mrs. Reid and her daughter were traveling northbound on I-95 in stop-and-go traffic when their Honda Odyssey was rear-ended by a tractor-trailer loaded with rolls of plastic. The impact forced the Reid family's minivan to rear-end a Jeep Grand Cherokee, which in turn struck a Chevrolet Cobalt.

Tea Party Members Blow Gasket Over Scott Brown's Job Bill Vote

Massachusetts Republican Senator Scott Brown recently voted, along with 4 other GOP members, for cloture on President Obama's $15 billion jobs bill. The Tea Party goers are not amused, and they are blasting Brown's and his daughter's Facebook pages with angry commentary (Gawker and Wonkette have absolutely devilish takes on the subject). Apparently, the concept of a "New England Republican" escapes them.

Query: The Republicans originally agreed to a much larger jobs bill -- $85 billion -- but Harry Reid slashed it to its current level. Why didn't the Tea Party folks flip out over the original Republican position, which was more expensive? Perhaps, they did not complain because the original bill was laden with business tax cuts (as is the final bill) or because Fox spun Reid's decision as an act of partisanship. If conservatives voiced complaints with the original bill please send me the links. Thanks.

Was Reid's "Public Option" Move Simply a "Show"?

Earlier this week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that proposed healthcare reform would include a "public option." Reid's announcement came while the Washington, DC rumor mill debated whether the White House truly supported a public plan. Shortly after Reid's announcement, Senator Joe Lieberman announced that he would not support a public plan. Lieberman, who has received over $1 million from the insurance industry during his career, claims that the public plan would harm the economy.

Without Lieberman's support, the public plan will lack the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. It seems impossible that Reid could have made the announcement without realizing Lieberman's position. Ross Baker, a professor of political science at Rutgers University, argues that Reid's dramatic announcement regarding the public plan probably represents his effort to appease liberal backers, including labor unions and leftists:

You put on a good show for certain elements of the electorate and say with all candor that you tried your hardest and you got it debated, but it’s very difficult to corral 60 senators. . . .That will satisfy most people.

This theory sounds immensely plausible.

Reid: Senate Will Pass a Public Plan

Yesterday, the Plum Line released Obama administration talking points which state that the public option is a "small" part of healthcare reform. Also, the Senate Finance Committee has rejected two different public plan proposals. But Senator Harry Reid says that the Senate will eventually pass a public plan option. According to Reid: "[T]he public option is so vitally important to create a level playing field and prevent the insurance companies from taking advantage of us. . . ."


The Finance Committee has accepted an amendment that would allocate funds to states for them to create public plans. Presumably the amendment would also establish guidelines for the use of this money. Otherwise, this alternative could prove even costlier than having a national public plan. This option would certainly get rid of any constitutional questions regarding mandated care. Congress could give states money for healthcare reform on the condition that they require coverage. This sounds like a permissible use of the Spending Power and a lawful use of the states' police power.

Talking Points on Souter Replacement?

Democrats in the Senate seem to have uniform beliefs about the person President Obama should nominate to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter. Senator Patrick Leahy believes that President Obama should pick someone "from outside the judicial monastery, somebody who has had some real-life experience, not just as a judge . . ."

Similarly, Senator Arlen Specter has announced that:

I would like to see somebody with broader experience . . . We have a very diverse country. We need more people to express a woman's point of view or a minority point of view, Hispanic or African American . . . somebody who's done something more than wear a black robe for most of their lives.

Senator Harry Reid "hopes that Obama goes outside the existing legal system and finds a former governor or senator, or someone who has 'real life experiences.'"

And Obama himself has said:

I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook . . . It's also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives -- whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation.

Senator Orrin Hatch, who like Specter and Leahy sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, says that Obama will probably make the selection very quickly -- perhaps even before the end of this week. If President Obama will soon make his announcement, it is very likely that all of the Senate chatter about "life experience" represents talking points designed to create a narrative about the nominee. Stay tuned.

Cynical Outtake
The comments from these guys, espousing the virtues of nontraditional candidates, are somewhat amusing. Leahy, for example, has spent nearly 1/2 of his life in the Senate, first winning election in 1974.

Specter was first elected to the Senate in 1980. He has served in the Senate longer than any other person in Pennsylvania history. He is also the fifth-oldest person in the Senate. Furthermore, he recently switched parties in order to maximize the possibility that he will keep his job.

Reid began his career in Nevada politics in 1967. He became of member of the House of Representatives in 1982, and he became a Senator in 1987, a position he continues to hold. If voters applied the standards that these Senators want Obama to use when selecting a replacement for Souter, it is unclear whether either them would remain Senators.

Obama v. Pelosi v. Reid: Top Democrats Challenge Obama on Assault Weapons Ban

The "Urban Policy" section of WhiteHouse.Gov contains a discussion of President Obama's positions on many issues including "Crime and Law Enforcement." With respect to criminal law policy, the website states that Obama and Biden "support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent." The language refers to the now expired Assault Weapons Ban Act of 1994; the original statute phased out after 10 years. During his presidential campaign, Obama promised to renew the ban, and yesterday, Eric Holder announced that the administration would indeed seek to reinstate the policy.

Not so fast -- say Pelosi and Reid. According to The Hill, the two top Democrats in Congress do not want to bring back the ban. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, known favorably and pejoratively as a "San Francisco Liberal," said that instead of reviving the law, the government should "enforce the laws we have right now." And an aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that "Reid would oppose an effort [to] reinstate the ban. . . ." Neither Obama nor Holder have commented on this matter to the media.

You Won't Believe Your Eyes: Despite Anti-Earmark Fervor and Economic Crisis, Proposed Budget Would Fund Thousands of Pork Projects

Last Year: Earmarks = The Bubonic Plague
Last year, the major presidential candidates each made very moralistic arguments condemning "earmarks." Earmarks are provisions in federal budget legislation which direct agencies to spend allocated money on specific projects.

Obama made opposition to earmarks a centerpiece of his campaign. He even pledged not to request any earmarks for fiscal year 2009. And during his speech to Congress on Tuesday, Obama proudly announced that the stimulus was "free of earmarks." Furthermore, Obama, Clinton, and McCain all co-sponsored an unsuccessful legislative provision that would have imposed a one-year moratorium on earmarks. Boy have things changed!

This Year: Earmarks = "What We Do"
Although Obama fought off efforts by lawmakers who wanted to insert earmarks into the stimulus package, it seems that he might have capitulated this time around. According to an article on Bloomberg.Com, the House will soon approve a budget that contains $7.7 billion in funding for 8,570 special projects (roughly 2% of the budget).

Legislation which passed during the Fall of 2008 contains an additional $6.6 billion in earmarks. Despite all of the anti-earmark rhetoric during the presidential campaign, the nonpartisan watchdog Taxpayers for Common Sense estimates that the total amount of earmarks for 2009 (if the earmarks are not slashed from the final bill) is only $500 million less than last year's total.
The top Senators from both parties have responded to the earmark issue. Senator Harry Reid defends earmarks as allowing Congress to exercise its constitutional authority over spending. Directing spending is "what we do," Reid says. His argument is not without merit. In the absence of a specific allocation, the executive agencies have wide latitude over the use of budgetary authority. But this certainly contradicts the message that the candidates advanced during the presidential campaign. Reid has a response for this too: Congress is "a separate branch of government."

Republican Senator Mitch McConnell, who once bragged about his ability to bring bacon to his home state of Kentucky, says that he worries less about the "content" of the budget than its overall size. In other words, the inclusion of earmarks in the budget does not bother McConnell. Because both parties have padded the bill with earmarks, the position by Reid and McConnell should not surprise readers.

Examining the Pork
The Bloomberg article provides details of some of the pork in the proposed budget. Also, the Taxpayers for Common Sense website has a very extensive description of earmarks in the proposed budget, which the organization continues to update (here is the link).

Below, I have summarized some of the proposed earmarks. Do you consider these expenditures "reasonable," given the current economic crisis?

* 400,000, to combat bullying in Montana (huh?)

* 1.8 million, "swine odor and manure management in Iowa" (I suspect this might be a fairly important environmental issue in an agricultural state like Iowa)

* 900,000, Chicago's Adler Planetarium (requested by Rahm Emanuel before he left the House)

* 190,000, Chicago's Children's Memorial Research Center (Emanuel)

* 238,000, Academy for Urban School Leadership (Emanuel)

* 190,000, Advocate Health Care (Emanuel)

* 95,000, Kohl Children Museum of Greater Chicago (Emanuel)

* 95,000, Peoria Riverfront Museum (requested by Ray LaHood before he became Transportation Secretary)

* 381,000, University of Illinois College of Medicine (LaHood)

* 951,500, Sustainable Las Vegas (Shelley Berkeley and Harry Reid)

* 143,000, Las Vegas Natural History Museum (Reid)

* 190,000, Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody Wyoming (Barbara Cubin)

* 381,000 for Jazz at Lincoln Center, New York City (Jerrold Nadler)

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

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

As I expected, the Democrats are backing down from their unnecessarily rigid position with respect to Roland Burris. The political trouble surrounding Bill Richardson served as a wake-up call to Democrats, who seemed to forget that taking a zero-tolerance attitude toward unproven allegations of ethical or legal violations does not promote the party's interests -- even if it helped Obama and Reid prevent Blagojevich from appointing someone other than their preferred candidate to the Senate. [Editor's Note: The widespread opposition among constitutional law scholars to their plan to reject any candidate Blagojevich appointed probably factored into the decision as well. Or perhaps that is just wishful thinking on my part.]

So, on the same day that Richardson dropped out of the Cabinet process, Reid began to soften his rhetoric on Burris. And yesterday, the signs became even warmer after Senator Diane Feinstein publicly blasted Democrats for failing to sit Burris. Feinstein, who is an outgoing member of the credentials committee, has a powerful voice on the subject of receiving members to the Senate. At that point, the writing was on the wall.

Today, Reid sounds like the careful and flexible seeker of "equal justice" that he was during the Clinton impeachment. After meeting with Burris this morning, Reid made the following statement:

Roland Burris, to me, appears to be candid and forthright. Without any hesitation, he prepared an affidavit that the impeachment committee for the Illinois state assembly already has, and he's going to go answer any other questions they might have.

"He's not trying to avoid any responsibility and trying to hide anything . . . .

Reid also suggested that the issue of seating Burris depends only upon the signing of his commission by the rebellious Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White, who has claimed discretion to veto Governor Blagojevich by refusing to perform a ministerial act required by law. And while many sources believed that the Senate would try to drag out this matter until Blagojevich was removed from office (or convicted), Reid has indicated that he wants a quick resolution of the issue:

There's going to come a time when the entire Senate is going to have to act on this . . . .And that day, I hope, would come sooner rather than later.

Obama Tones Down His Rhetoric as Well
Senator Obama has also moderated his stance on Burris. Obama, who had previously called for Blagojevich to resign and who disagreed with the seating of any appointment he made, has struck a conciliatory tone:

[I] know Roland Burris. Obviously, I've -- he's from my home state. I think he's a fine public servant. If he gets seated, then I'm going to work with Roland Burris, just like I work with all the other senators, to make sure that the people of Illinois and the people of the country are served.

My take: Once the Democrats realized that their hard line against Blagojevich and their broad and amorphous taint argument could imperil other Democrats (like Richardson), they had to retreat. But they could not retreat by softening their opposition to Blagojevich; otherwise, he would look victorious.

Their only way out of this mess was through Burris. If they could legitimize his appointment -- rather than portraying it as tainted -- then they could come away looking as if they made a righteous decision. This is precisely why Obama, Reid, and other Democrats now glowingly describe Burris as ethical and honest. They are trying to distinguish him from Blagojevich and create a narrative which portrays their dramatic retreat (or loss) on the issue as the acceptance of a fine candidate after an investigation of his background and his appointment, rather than capitulation to a corrupt and unpopular governor.

The only question that remains: Will a top Democrat now call Jesse White and tell him to end his silly protest or will Democrats force the Illinois Supreme Court to decide this bothersome matter?

Update: Huffington Post reports that Obama gave the marching orders to seat Burris. This confirms my initial belief that he also gave the initial order NOT to seat Burris. Obama offered statements condemning Blagojevich after the arrest and insisting that he should step down and refrain from filling the Senate seat. He also condemned the appointment of Burris. Today, he offered praise for Burris. This conduct is odd for someone who has no stake in the outcome. Also, recall Obama's role in getting the Democrats to reconcile with Lieberman, although many of them wanted to oust him from seniority on certain committees. The Senate-Obama honeymoon remains in full effect. But one has to wonder whether any damage was done, especially with Reid, who comes out of this situation looking pretty weak.

Update Number 2: In my original post, I speculated that the Senate would attempt to clean up this mess by explaining their objection to Burris as a desire to "investigate" his background and appointment and avoid looking as if they loss to Blagojevich. Well, it did not take too long to confirm this, via statements from Senators Durbin and Reid:

[Durbin:]I think it was important that the United States Senate say — and we did, as a Democratic caucus unanimously — that we were going to carefully scrutinize and review the process by which this Senate seat would be filled if Governor Blagojevich was involved, and that's what happened.

[Reid:]People ask a lot of times why we have to do various things procedurally here in the Senate. It's because we're the Senate; that's how we operate.

Ok. So your objection to "anyone" that Blagojevich appointed was merely a procedural concern that you could wrap up in less than one week? Why didn't you say that in the first place?

Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

A Harry Reid Flip-Flop? Comparing His Views on Bill Clinton and Rod Blagojevich

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

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

A Harry Reid Flip-Flop? Comparing His Views on Bill Clinton and Rod Blagojevich

With all of the discourse about "taint" and governance flying around, I decided to take a trip down memory lane and examine the political drama during the failed Republican effort to remove Bill Clinton from office.

Democrats Are to Blagojevich as Republicans Were to Bill Clinton
Ironically, many Democrats are making arguments today with respect to Blagojevich that they rejected during the Clinton impeachment proceedings. Republicans demanded that Clinton resign, and Special Prosecutor Ken Starr leaked information to the media in an effort to shame him out of office.

While Republicans claimed that the controversy surrounding Clinton made it impossible for him to govern effectively, Democrats argued that the partisan impeachment disrupted the country instead and that Clinton should remain in office. Today, however, many Democrats -- particularly Senate Democrats who oppose the seating of Roland Burris -- believe Blagojevich should resign; their arguments mirror the assertions of Republicans who pressured Clinton to leave office.

Harry Reid: Flip-Flopper?
Because Harry Reid is a central voice in the present controversy, I focus on his comments alone. Reid voted against removing Clinton from office. Contrary to his rigid (at least until recently) position on Burris and Blagojevich, Reid urges flexibility and compassion for Clinton because everyone is flawed:

Great dreams are dreamed by people with human flaws. Great policies and actions are sometimes set in motion by those with broken souls. Great deeds are not always done by good men. Recent history gives us many examples. . . . Each of us, each one of us in this Chamber, every human being, is flawed. Each of us needs all the forgiveness and forbearing we can be granted by the charity of others.

Reid did not believe that the allegations against Clinton, even if true, warranted removal from office, even though he said that Clinton violated the "public trust."

Reid also criticized Starr for trying to force Clinton out of office. After comparing Starr with McCarthy, Reid reflected on his own career as a trial lawyer as a way of advocating the need for fairness:

I tried criminal cases, lots of them . . . .I know something about the impact that a criminal charge has on any man or woman, about how they agonize over telling their children, how they struggle to face the community.

Every American is entitled to equal justice, no matter their rank in society; equal justice but not equally unfair justice. . . .

A fairminded prosecutor would not have leaked salacious details to the press in an effort to force the target to resign from office.

Skip forward to the present, and Reid takes a very different tone. He does not point out the inherent flaws of humanity. He also does not urge flexibility. Instead, he argues inflexibly that no one appointed by Blagojevich can escape "taint," and he uses the controversy surrounding the governor to pressure him out of office. Reid's response to the appointment of Burris illustrates the contrast between his differing approaches:

[Rejecting Blagojevich's appointments] is not about Mr. Burris; it is about the integrity of a governor accused of attempting to sell this United States Senate seat. Under these circumstances, anyone appointed by Gov. Blagojevich cannot be an effective representative of the people of Illinois and, as we have said, will not be seated by the Democratic Caucus. . . .

We again urge Gov. Blagojevich to not make this appointment. It is unfair to Mr. Burris, it is unfair to the people of Illinois and it will ultimately not stand. The governor must put the interests of the people of Illinois and all Americans first by stepping aside now and letting his successor appoint someone who we will seat.

But Reid began demanding that Blagojevich resign immediately after he was arrested. The entire Democratic Senate Caucus signed Reid's letter to Blagojevich, which states that:

The arrest of and complaint against Gov. Blagojevich raises serious concerns about his ability to effectively represent the people of Illinois. The conduct alleged represents a disgraceful abuse of the public trust. In the interest of the people of Illinois and all Americans, he should resign immediately. If he does not, I hope the Illinois legislature will take action.

By contrast, during the Clinton impeachment effort, Reid urged flexibility, forgiveness and equal justice. Reid, however, has basically found Blagojevich guilty in advance of any factfinding. During an interview on Meet the Press, for example, Reid said that "Blagojevich obviously is a corrupt individual. I think that's pretty clear."

This does not sound like "equal justice." Instead, it sounds like "Kangaroo Justice." Do Democrats remember that Clinton continued to serve, spend governmental money, order military strikes, sign legislation and perform his presidential duties after he was charged by the House impeachment committee and even during his trial in the Senate? Here's a better question: Do Democrats realize that their positions have shifted dramatically?


Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

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

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

Feinstein Smacks Down Reid and Fellow Democrats Regarding Burris

It's great to hear someone with power unequivocally criticize fellow Democrats on their idiotic position regarding Roland Burris. Diane Feinstein, a senior Senator from California, went against her party and its reliance upon the flimsiest reasons for not welcoming Burris into the Senate -- that Jesse White, the Illinois Secretary of State unlawfully refuses to sign the commission.

Please visit Politico.Com for the full story. Here's a snippet:

I can’t imagine the secretary of state countermanding a gubernatorial
appointment . . . .The question, really, is one in my view of law. And that is,
does the governor have the power to make the appointment? And the answer is yes.
Is the governor discredited? And the answer is yes.

Does that affect his appointment power? And the answer is no until certain
things happen . . . .[Excluding Burris] affects gubernatorial appointments all
over the country.

Feinstein also complimented Burris and criticized the Democrats for failing to resolve the conflict sooner: “[H]e’s not some kid who has no background. I would be hopeful that this thing is going to be settled.”


Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

A Harry Reid Flip-Flop? Comparing His Views on Bill Clinton and Rod Blagojevich

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

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

Linda Tripp, Kato Kaelin, and Jesse White: Illinois Secretary of State Should Savor Next Four Minutes

The year has only begun, but Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White will undoubtedly reach the finals in year-end reviews that rank the most desperate fame seekers of 2009. White has refused to "certify" Rod Blagojevich's appointment of Roland Burris to fill a Senate vacancy, citing the controversy surrounding the governor.

There is a major wrinkle in White's decision, however: The Constitution and Illinois law give the governor exclusive authority to fill the vacancy. In fact, state law mandates that the governor make the appointment: "When a vacancy shall occur in the office of United States Senator from this state, the Governor shall make temporary appointment to fill such vacancy . . . ."

Illinois law does not give White any independent authority to deny the appointment. White's own "spokesperson," David Druker, conceded that White's refusal would not affect the governor's ability to make the appointment and present it to the Senate.

Not only does Illinois law exclusively authorize the governor to fill Senate seats, it also mandates that the Secretary of State certify all commissions that state law compels the governor to issue. Because state law requires the governor to fill the Senate vacancy, which he has done, White must certify the appointment of Burris. Shamelessly, Harry Reid has used White's illegal refusal to certify the appointment (which some commentators doubt is even necessary) as a basis for excluding Burris from the Senate.

Despite the clarity of state and constitutional law on this matter, White has nevertheless staked out a microscopic place in history. Although White will not become as vaulted or infamous as Florida's Katherine Harris -- who probably ranks among the most known state elections officials in U.S. history, White has made somewhat of a name for himself recently, judging by the number of web pages on which his name has suddenly appeared.

But White will soon fade away like Linda Tripp (double-crossing friend of Monica Lewinsky), Kato Kaelin (houseguest to O.J Simpson) and all of the other movie extras who have made fleeting appearances in U.S. political thrillers. But White's run will not last as long as Tripp's or Kaelin's. By my count, he has about four minutes left. I hope he savors the moment.

[Editor's Note: Burris has sued seeking a writ of mandamus compelling White to, well, obey the law. You can read his motion here.]

Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

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

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

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

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

The Senate Democrats' position on Roland Burris is so anti-liberal, that it falls to the right Patrick Buchanan's perspective on the subject. Buchanan, a popular conservative commentator, recently entered the fray surrounding Governor Rod Blagojevich's selection of Burris to fill President-elect Obama's vacant Senate seat.

Although Illinois law authorizes the governor alone to fill Senate vacancies, Democrats vow to block (using armed force, if necessary) Burris or any other candidate that Blagojevich chooses because a federal prosecutor alleges that he unlawfully tried to sell the seat.

In a series of posts (see links following this essay), I have criticized the Democrats' position for lacking a sufficient constitutional basis, abandoning liberal concepts, and wasting political and intellectual resources needed to address more pressing concerns. But in order to advance their goal of disempowering Blagojevich, Democrats have discarded important liberal values to such a large extent that Buchanan has become a greater champion for fairness than top leaders within the party of "change."

Taint versus Presumption of Innocence
The willingness of Democrats to find Blagjevich and Burris "guilty" (or "tainted") has been one of the disturbing aspects of this controversy. The prosecutor's "complaint" is merely a collection of allegations, not facts, and the released recordings, though salacious, are selectively extracted from the larger set of materials and taken out of their orignal context. Moreover, these items do not present any defense or conflicting evidence from Blagojevich.

Consequently, the Democrats cannot know, based on the proceedings thus far, whether Blagojevich has committed a crime or even engaged in misconduct. And even if Blagojevich were in fact culpable or tainted, no rational basis exists for imputing guilt to Burris and excluding him from office.

Although Democrats fail to admit that their position prematurely treats Blagojevich and, more importantly, Burris as criminals, Buchanan's sharp analysis gets to the heart of the matter:

There is not the slightest hint Burris did anything unethical or illegal to win this appointment. Nor is there any doubt as to Gov. Blagojevich's right to make the appointment. He is still governor of Illinois. He has not been convicted of anything. And he not only has the right but an obligation to carry out his duties, one of which is to appoint candidates to fill empty seats in the U.S. Senate. . . .

[H]ere in America, even a governor is innocent until proven guilty. And what exactly do those tapes [offered as evidence of a conspiracy] show, other than that Blago and his chief of staff engaged in crude and corrupt talk about getting rewarded with campaign contributions or high office for Blago in return for giving someone the Senate appointment?

Using vile language and ruminating on selling a Senate seat may be sins, but they are not necessarily crimes.

Two Seats for Sale? Kennedy versus Burris
Currently, an increasing number of sources report that New York Governor David Paterson will choose Caroline Kennedy to take over Hillary Clinton's vacated seat. Unlike Blagojevich, Paterson will benefit greatly if he appoints Kennedy.

Before Blagojevich faced criminal charges, news articles reported that Obama called Paterson in order to support the appointment of Kennedy. I suspect that Obama did more than simply encourage the governor to take a look at Kennedy's resume and cover letter. Instead, it is highly likely that Obama, Kennedy and many of her supporters promised to help raise money for and campaign on behalf of Paterson, who faces an election battle of his own in two years.

Whether or not Kennedy and Obama made such overtures, Paterson undoubtedly considered how their massive financial and political networks could facilitate his own career aspirations. The famed Kennedy family's endorsement of Obama did more for his campaign than any other. Together, the famed Kennedy and Obama families' endorsement of Paterson and their fundraising strengths will prove highly "profitable" for him.

Although politicians routinely consider how they will gain (or lose) from their decisions -- including appointing individuals to office -- most people do not view this type of bargaining as criminal. But if the Kennedy appointment comes to fruition, choosing her and fulfilling the wishes of Obama will bring tremendous personal gain to Paterson, perhaps even more than a political appointment or money (for a campaign or otherwise) would have given Blagojevich.

After the scandal first began, a few media outlets and bloggers explored the fine line between illegal and legal political bargaining. But soon, commentators and politicians alike settled on a competely rigid and unnuanced position regarding Blagojevich. Once all of the evidence emerges, however, Blagojevich may be guilty of telephonic bravado, rather than a criminal conspiracy.

The fact that all of the individuals with whom Blagojevich allegedly wanted to bargain deny wrongdoing -- and remain untainted -- bodes well for his defense. If Blagojevich illegally attempted to sell the seat, the prosecutor should identify the buyer. If no buyer exists, then Blagojevich will have an easier time defending the case, assuming he is eventually indicted.

Even though the situation seems to warrant a nuanced approach, Democrats have taken a hard line against Blagojevich and anyone affiliated with him. But flexibility and patience for facts are central to a liberal system of justice. Unlike the Democrats, rightwinger Buchanan gets it:

Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. says he talked to the governor for 90 minutes about the Senate seat but was never solicited. Nor did he offer anything. Obama aides Rahm Emanuel and Valerie Jarrett both talked to Blagojevich about the seat, and Rahm talked to his chief of staff.

Neither claims to have been solicited for any kind of bribe.

Yet, if Blago were going to sell the seat, the obvious party to sell it to is the man with the power to appoint ambassadors and Cabinet officers, or to convince thers to hire Blago: President-elect Obama.

Yet, from all we know, nether Barack nor anyone on his staff ever offered anything illicit to the governor, nor were they asked for anything. Where is the body of the crime?

Race Politics
Although I believe that Democrats would have rejected any appointment that Blagojevich made, some progressives have discussed the unseemly image of Reid calling upon armed officers to exclude the only prospective black Senator. Democrats disclaim any type of racial prejudice in their position and even say that their objection does not even relate to Burris. But the impact of their actions implicate race and warrant greater scrutiny.

Liberals, over the vehement objection of conservatives, embrace civil rights doctrines that examine the effect of policies on groups and not simply the intent or bias of the decision maker. Under liberal standards, Reid's motivation and the validation of his decision by America's most popular and powerful black person is irrelevant. Nevertheless, liberals have strongly rejected any discuss the racial implications of Reid's decision, even though they eagerly invoke racial narratives (e.g., "diversity" or "historic election") when it suits them. Even on the subject of race, Buchanan's arguments tops Democrats in their adherence to liberal ideology:

Here we have an African-American elder statesman of the Democratic Party, an honorable and distinguished man, appointed by the governor according to law and the Constitution, to fill a Senate seat. There has been no hint of illegal consideration asked or given by either the governor or Burris.

Yet Harry Reid, who presides over a Democratic caucus of some 60 senators, with not a single black member, is going to refuse this black man a seat to which the law entitles him? [Editor's Note: There are no black Republicans in the Senate either.]

One hopes Burris will stay firm and march up to that Senate, and, if nothing else, expose the hypocrisy. [Editor's Note: I disagree with Buchanan's irrelevant anti-affirmative action rant the follows this quoted text.]

Parting Words
After the events of last year, especially Obama's decision to pick Clinton as Secretary of State, very little can surprise me in politics. But that does not mean that political positions cannot disturb or upset me, which the Democrats' stance towards Blagojevich and Burris has in fact done. Perhaps Democrats will soon embrace liberal values once again and soften their inflexible stance towards Burris.

Note: Other conservatives have recently defended Burris as well (see here and here).

Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

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