It's not making them look particularly intelligent or law-abiding either. It's been blindingly obvious for a couple of weeks that the Democrats have no legal basis to deny Burris a seat. Why they have decided to pick this divisive and unwinnable fight right now, at the exact moment when the Republican minority is poised to try every conceivable delaying tactic to prevent the elected Senator from Minnesota from taking his seat is beyond me

even if the story is wrong--now the news outlets are back and forth about it--it works to Burris' advantage. I'd say that Reid had better cave now, becuase it's inevitable he'll have to cave later. He's not exactly the LBJ of Majority Leaders, is he ...

I just don't understand.

If Blago had appointed his wife or his son to the seat then there would be ZERO chance of the Senate accepting the 'legal' appointment.

so now he nominated a black guy and all of a sudden the Senate is rolling over and giving in.

What is the difference between Burris and Blago's wife? How can anyone trust Blago's decision making?

Blago's decision making can be trusted as much as any other of the clowns. Remember..they are mostly from the same Illinois group.

Hopefully, the Senate Democrats will have finally learned to look before leaping.

The rules are the rules are the rules, and some of them had to know they were going to end up here at this point.

The Republicans have once again rolled them. The threat to filibuster Obama's recovery plan made them realize They Need Every Vote, which they knew last week when McConnell announced the filibuster plan, yet they continued to make themselves look stupid, and gave the Republicans all kinds of ammo to shamelessly point at the Democrats and call them hypocrites.

Boy, do I hate saying "I told you so" on this one, but I did, and anyone who knew anything about the way government works and politics are played knew it would happen. So, why is it the people who are paid to know this stuff were so damned stupid - again?

"Consider a congressman; then consider an idiot. Ah, but I repeat myself." - Mark Twain, 1876

none of these developments are making the Senate Democratic leadership look especially effective or in control.

Can't someone just backhand Reid? and Pelosi, too, while they're at it.

I'm sick of thier BS.

And tell Feinstein to STFU

John Cole had some rather trenchant commentary on the subject.

none of these developments are making the Senate Democratic leadership look especially effective or in control.

That's our Senate Democratic leadership, alright: not particularly effective or in control.

Can we please have a new (effective, in control) Senate Majority Leader?

none of these developments are making the Senate Democratic leadership look especially effective or in control.

The media will portray all news in the light least favorable to Dems, but I actually the Dems handled this well. If they had welcomed Burris from the beginning, the story would have been "He's tainted!" "Dems didn't mean it when they told Blago they wouldn't seat him." But if they actually vote to refuse him his seat, he goes to court and the Dems have to argue Art I Sec V (the right of the Senate to judge elections and returns), even though they don't have even an allegation against Burris himself.

But now, if Coleman delays the Minnesota results and Pawlenty appoints him to hold his old seat until his challenge is over, the Dems can vote to refuse him, still holding the same Art I Sec V rationale. The media, this time, will have a hard time arguing that it is merely partisan, since the Dems actually did try to block one of their own. So now the media and Reps will have to try to defend Coleman based on his own merit. And that won't be easy.

Just seat the guy already and let this mess pass. No one seriously believes he paid for the seat and it's turning into a stupid pissing contest. Legally he is the guy, it is about time they stop a fight based on a possible conviction that will not be resolved for years with appeals. The election idea seems logical, but damn, when in the hell would that take place, not before the economy blows-up even more. Time is of the essence and I wish Congress would start acting with urgency about real problems.

I would not be a bad idea to start drafting legislation to cover this mess, Minnesota's mess, New York's mess, and the mess that would have ensued had Stevens won. The states can only have so much hold over the a federal body, right now it seems to be too much.

Plus a vote is a vote is a vote, and we keep humiliating the guy he might decided some payback is in order.

We'll know more soon enough, but at this point, none of these developments are making the Senate Democratic leadership look especially effective or in control.

No, but they took the least bad option: pushing back against Blago before accepting Burris. It wasn't the wrong thing to do given that they would have looked helpless and unwilling to fight corruption in our own ranks had they not put up a fight. I really believe the average voter is less worried about them looking "in control" than he or she is about them appearing corrupt. It's not right, but that's exactly how it would have played had they accepted the appointment immediately.

Their mistake was in letting this go on much too long. Reid may congratulate himself on being an old trial lawyer, but Blagojevich would clean him out at the poker table.

"...none of these developments are making the Senate Democratic leadership look especially effective or in control."

And that would differ from the last several years how? From caving to every threatened Republican filibuster to carrying water for the President's 700-billion TARP program, the "leadership" of both the House and Senate look like they need someone to tell them what to do most of the time. It's sad and I wouldn't mind seeing either Reid or Pelosi go.

If they're all going to give a convicted felon a standing ovation on his way out, then there's certainly no reason not to let Burriss in.
Is he a shameless opportunist? Yes. But there is absolutely nothing illegal about his appointment and Burriss has done nothing illegal either.
I wish he hadn't accepted the appointment, but it's not worth the distraction to fight it.

I just want to see Senator Franken sworn in soon.

Trivia query - Didn't Harry Reid sit in on the Eagles' "Hell Freezes Over" album? Waffle base, perhaps.

I'm shocked! Who could have imagined the Democratic Senators would have appeared spineless, directionless, and uninformed!

but at this point, none of these developments are making the Senate Democratic leadership look especially effective or in control.

Name one development during Reid's tenure that has made him look effective or in control--that doesn't involve him doing the bidding of George Bush.
Doesn't any other Dem want to challenge him for the leadership? I don't even know who the rest of the Senate Dem "leadership" is, except maybe Schumer. Who's the whip?

"What is the difference between Burris and Blago's wife? How can anyone trust Blago's decision making?"
Posted by: neil wilson

None, and that is the point. If they don't like the rules, maybe the legislative branch should re-write them. After eight years of rule/law circumvention, I am sick of it, and even if Blago appointed himself, we can't just make up the rules as we go no matter how hard they are to swallow.

Who's the whip:

The Senate doesn't have Whips. Durbin is the No. 2. I think they call him Assistant Majority Leader, or something like that.

"...none of these developments are making the Senate Democratic leadership look especially effective or in control."

That's because they are *not* effective and in control. Nor has this batch of wusses ever been effective and in control. We need an LBJ in the Senate at this juncture in our history, but there's nobody approaching that level of legislative competence.

As much as I hate to admit it, I've reached my fill with Reid. It's not just his ineffectiveness as a Dem leader. Under his 'leadership' the Senate has surpassed the House for pure circus. Pie fights and mud wrestling may not have supplanted reasoned argument yet, but it's getting awfully close.

I have been thinking about this. How else could Senate Democrats have played it? They had to fight back against Blago. They know they don't have a legal leg to stand on so eventually Burris is going to be seated. They don't want to piss Burris off too much because they need him, and he seems like a reasonably honest guy by Senate standards anyway. My guess is fussing and fuming is about all the Senate could do--that and encourage Fitzgerald to indict Blago at the earliest opportunity.

Harry Reid has to be the most bungling majority leader in history. Why did he pick this fight if he wasn't going to try to win it?

Instead, he managed to convince the Illinois legislature not to take away the governor's appointment power and created a condition where every Illinois pol with an ounce of integrity would refuse Blago's appointment - leaving us with a self-absorbed nominee instead.

none of these developments are making the Senate Democratic leadership look especially effective or in control.

When it comes to leadership concerning Democratic and republican caucuses, you can best look at it as follows:

Leading Democrats is like trying to herd cats. Just ask Kevin Drum about his cats during one of his 'cat-blogging' days. :)

Leading Republicans is as easy as playing the flute and let the lemmings follow you off the cliff.

Leading Democrats is like trying to herd cats. Just ask Kevin Drum about his cats during one of his 'cat-blogging' days. :)

Herding Drum's cats is easy, as they are almost too fat to walk and haven't actually run for years.

unappointed?

Since Burris would be appointed, Could Quinn appoint someone else if Blago were removed from office? Just curious. Probably it would not make sense.

How else could Senate Democrats have played it?

Well here are a couple of possibilities:

1.) They could have lit a fire under the Illinois legislature to force a special election. Reid openly opposed that.

2.) They could have lit a fire under the Illinois Dems to impeach Blago as fast as possible.

3.) They could have simply voiced their disapproval of Blago having appointment power and crossed their fingers. Reid insisted that he'd refuse to seat anyone Blago sent up and actually blocked Burris from the floor.

Those moves, even if unsuccessful, would have demonstrated that Reid was serious about avoiding corruption and willing to do anything in his power to stop it. If he didn't have the power to block Burris, he shouldn't have pretended that he did.

In the end, he managed to make him self look like a fool, alienated a Democratic Senator who he'll likely seat anyway, and gave the Republicans a rationale to block seating Franken as long as possible.

A smart, capable leader doesn't put himself in a position like that.

To Jinchi

1) Harry was correct in opposing a push for a special election in Illinois. That is a talking point from the Republicans; easier said then done. Republicans always claim to be in favor of saving money and not wasting it. Spending $50+ million dollars on a special election is something they'd like because they saw a potential to pick up that seat. It had NOTHING to do with good governance. Not to mention that it goes along the lines that Republicans are AGAINST the Federal government meddling in State affairs. Except of course if it benefits Republicans.

2) That is true about the impeachment proceedings. However that as well seems easier said than done, given the existing laws that are currently on the books in Illinois. Have to follow the rules, and before interjection, better read up on those rules and regulations. ( The State AG tried and was rebuffed by the State Court, exactly because of the laws governing this )

3) You are correct in pointing out it was stupid on the Democrats part to make a big stand on refusing to seat Burris and all that talk about armed officers and preventing him from entering the floor. Just grandstanding that blew up in their face and shows, once again, how powerless they actually are. They rather make a point when it comes to fellow Democrats, but rubber stamp anything from the Republicans.

Spines.... they just don't have it... If we're lucky, Obama will help them grow some as they can use him as cover. Of course, then there is Feinstein and Rockefeller.

Who needs enemies when you have friends like those 2?

-- I like DNPs comment upstring. Maybe not so stupid after all...and we need Franken seated asap but will have to go through a drill for that too..

1) Harry was correct in opposing a push for a special election in Illinois. That is a talking point from the Republicans; easier said then done. Republicans always claim to be in favor of saving money and not wasting it. Spending $50+ million dollars on a special election is something they'd like because they saw a potential to pick up that seat. It had NOTHING to do with good governance. Not to mention that it goes along the lines that Republicans are AGAINST the Federal government meddling in State affairs. Except of course if it benefits Republicans.

AND the state constitution would have to be changed--itself an extremely lengthy and costly process--to allow a special election. I get a buck every time I have to point this out to someone who doesn't understand why Illinois didn't go this route. This week I may clear $350.

Yeah, Durbin is what they call Assistant Majority Leader. I can't think of much that he's done that qualifies as "leadership" either. These guys are pathetic.

Once again the Dems show themselves to be a bunch of cavemen and cavewomen, reserving their hints of spine for the worst possible purposes (opposition to Panetta).

Time to support some primary challengers to these worthless POS.

bruno and shortstop, I simply disagree with the complaint that having elections costs money. We pay for things that are important.

Illinois is already scheduled to have a special election in Rahm Emmanuel's district and every other House vacancy has the same requirement. Having a special election for Senators isn't any less onerous. The fact that Blagojevich is under threat of prosecution for attempting to sell the seat is reason enough for Illinois to have made the attempt. The fact that the last several governors have fallen under a cloud of scandal is another good one.

Also, in 2004 Democratic legislators in Massachusetts acted quickly to strip Mitt Romney of his appointment power when John Kerry was running for president. This was completely self serving, but so was Reid's opposition to having a special election in this case (and the Republicans support for one).

This whole controversy stems from the fact that giving a single politician sole appointment power is, in itself, a corrupting and undemocratic method for electing leaders. Ending it anywhere is progress.

Jinchi, again: Having a special election requires changing the Illinois constitution. I'm getting the impression that you don't understand what that entails. I'm not arguing against the merit of the idea, just wanting you to be aware of logistics.

FREE ONLINE TV, MOVIES, MUSIC, VIRTUAL WORLDS, GOOD GAMES, AND FREE COLLEGE EDUCATIONS @ INTERNETSURFSHACK.COM

Having a special election requires changing the Illinois constitution.

So change it.

I think you're missing my point. This issue isn't about Blagojevich, it's about a system that allows corrupt officials to name U.S. Senators. Blago isn't the first or last governor who will abuse this authority and all the states should move to abolish it. The Illinois legislature may not have been able to stop Blago's appointment, but they should have been acting with all due haste to try. That would have demonstrated that the Democrats were shutting down corruption as quickly as they found it and bolstered the party's reputation instead of tarnishing it.

Had they been doing so, Reid's case against Burris would also have had more legal weight.

So change it.

Absolutely. Here's all we have to do:

The Illinois Constitution can be amended either by Constitutional Convention (if 3/5 of the members in each House of the General Assembly agree to it, which voters can approve or disapprove) or by the General Assembly (if 3/5 of each house of the General Assembly approve the amendment, which is then submitted to the voters at the next general election).

The next general election is when, Jinchi? By the way, did you know that a ConCon was on the ballot two months ago and was defeated? No, I didn't think you did.

I think you're missing my point. This issue isn't about Blagojevich, it's about a system that allows corrupt officials to name U.S. Senators.

I think you're changing your point. You started out listing things you think the Illinois General Assembly could have done in the space of a couple of weeks, and when corrected on your imperfect grasp of the facts of the situation, you shifted gears. No one--at least no one I've seen post here--disagrees with you that placing this kind of appointment power in the hands of a single individual invites abuse. We're only explaining to you why your quick fixes in the current case were imaginary and, incidentally, far too trusting of Republican talking points.

Illinois is already scheduled to have a special election in Rahm Emmanuel's district [...] -- Jinchi, @13:01

Even without the little problem of the Illinois constitution having to be changed for the purpose (as shortstop pointed out)... There's a *huge* difference between running a *single district* election and a state-wide one.

shortstop, I think your real problem is that your reading of the Illinois Constitution isn't the same as mine, or the Illinois legislature's, or the Lt Governor's, or Senator Durbin's, or Barack Obama's; all of whom have at some point discussed passing legislation to create a special election.

Maybe the Illinois Supreme Court made some decision I'm not aware of.