Playing Cards With Politics
January 5th, 2009 | by Omnipotent Poobah |
It’s no secret America has an old and troublesome history with its various forms of discrimination. With each slight, real or imagined, the nation sinks deeper into a relationship hell like a warring couple fighting a bloody battle on their inevitable way to divorce court. It seems with every national breath, we drink deeply from the well of intolerance and distrust until someone plays the (fill in the blank) card.
Virginia governor Tim Kaine is on tap to become the Democratic National Committee chair. A former missionary, he’s deeply interested in expanding faith-based initiatives like the ones Bush touted and then ignored. It’s only a matter of time until atheists (disclosure alert – I am one) and separation of church and state advocates (I’m one of these too) will leap to the barricades to quash any such nonsense.
Do they have a valid beef? Of course. Does that beef absolutely preclude all faith-based initiatives as unlawful meddling in governmental affairs or discrimination? Maybe, maybe not.
The religious look at atheists’ reaction as discrimination and petty complaining against their right to worship. Atheists would say any religious activity under governmental auspices deprives them of their right to practice no religion. In essence, each is charging the other with religious discrimination. However, there’s another view.
The country is strapped for cash and programs to help the needy are in short supply. If an organization were willing and able to provide services, even most atheists would agree it was a good thing. But when it’s a religious organization, things change. Atheists worry about the slippery slope that starts with an act of compassion and ends with prostylizing under Uncle Sam. For their part, the religious argue that isn’t their intention with no real way to prove one argument or the other.
Both sides can throw up numerous examples of people gaming the system in their self-interest. If nothing else, the last eight years has taught us that distrust like that is what bogs down some possible solutions to our myriad problems.
Or what about the strange case of Obama’s appointed Senate replacement, Roland Burris?
Embattled governor Rod Blagojevich tapped Burris after Harry Reid had warned Blagojevich that anyone he recommended for the job would be DOA. This isn’t exactly an outrageous position given Blagojevich’s tenuous legal situation.
But Burris and the Congressional Black Caucus have put not one, but two cards in play. The CBC charges that not seating Burris is racism because there are no black Senators – a position that overlooks a white governor appointing Burris. It also panders to the idea that Senators be seated purely on the basis of race – a sort of one-to-one method that smacks of Senators being interchangeable parts.
Blagojevich was forewarned about replacing anyone, regardless of race. Senate rules allow them to reject a candidate for membership for precisely the reasons this appointment is a problem – no matter how good a replacement might be, if they come from a diseased state administration they’ll be tarred with the broad brush of distrust and possible corruption – even if they are as reasonable and honest as Burris seems to be.
Now, Burris has taken up the fight himself, promising to show up for his seat with the rest of the incoming Senate rookies. While I can understand Burris’ perceiving these difficulties as personal affronts, it’s not helpful that he throws religious gasoline on the racism fire by describing the situation as something “the Lord has ordained…” Luckily, Burris seems to understand the rhetoric and says he’ll limit his rebelliousness. “I’m not going to make a scene. I don’t want to give you all a circus,” he told reporters.
The issue here isn’t race nor is it religion. Blagojevich cravenly appointed a person to a seat he may have also tried to sell to the highest bidder. Blagojevich is the issue here, not the Senate, which is following its own rules, not racism, not religious belief, and trying to make it a race issue hurts everyone.
All these charges – including racism, religious beliefs, and Senate reaction – do nothing more than reward Rotten Roddy for playing havoc with Illinoisans’ Senate seat. We’re letting him drive everyone farther into distrust and infighting.
Simply put, not every affront is racist or religious discrimination. We need more unity and less card playing. Without that, we’ll make little progress in grappling with these thorny issues. Perhaps fully vetting Burris and seating him after he passes muster is possible. Perhaps bypassing Burris and choosing another well-qualified African American can help redress the racial imbalance, but It behooves everyone to keep a cool head before jumping to charges and countercharges.
And if they can’t, it’s time to deal them out of the game.
Cross posted at The Omnipotent Poobah Speaks!
8 Responses to “Playing Cards With Politics”
By Craig R. Harmon on Jan 6, 2009 | Reply
I am firmly in the “Get out of the way and seat Burris” camp.
There is no evidence that Burris payed to play in the US Senate or did anything wrong to get his appointment. None that I’m aware of anyway. Whatever legal cloud Blago may be under, at the moment, he is the Governor of Illinois. As the Governor of Illinois, it is his job to appoint Obama’s replacement. He’s done so.
So far, regarding Blago, all we have are allegations. Blago hasn’t been indicted and hasn’t been impeached and therefore is still governor with all the powers and obligations of that office. I seriously have not seen a convincing argument that, absent evidence of wrongdoing on Burris’s part, anyone has the legal authority to block this appointment.
I really cannot see what the Democrats think they have to gain by blocking Burris’s appointment.
By Lisa on Jan 6, 2009 | Reply
I find it ironic that this applies:
“the last eight years has taught us that distrust like that is what bogs down some possible solutions to our myriad problems.”
After reading this:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30143
By steve on Jan 6, 2009 | Reply
Craig:
No offense but the Secretary of State of Illinois has to sign off on it. Not the Supreme Court nor Congress can do push it through. It is the people of Illinois, first represented Constitutionally by the Governor and the Secretary of State is the “check and balance”.
Say Blagovich was just plainly goofy and nominated some Joe Schmoo with no experience or desire for the job, the Secretary of State is there to ensure the people that the right person has been appointed to the job and therefore can deny it.
Clearly in this situation, Blagovich has suspicion of wrong doing which taints his ability to make the right decision despite how capable or honest Burris is and despite Blagovich being innocent of wrong doing until proven guilty. It is a reasonable denial by the Sec. of State.
Now… say one finds the Sec of State belongs to the KKK or something… well… then there is a problem and the courts would probably have to find a remedy for it or there is remedy in the Illinois State Constitution. At that point, it probably would go to the people in a special election.
By Craig R. Harmon on Jan 7, 2009 | Reply
Steve,
I haven’t read anything like a reasonable argument for the Illinois Secretary of State’s refusal to sign off on the appointment. My same arguments apply. As against your hypothetical, Burris has both the experience and the desire for the job. He’s a credible pick. Politically, he’s not my cup of tea but nobody a Democratic Governor is going to pick for Senator from Illinois is going to be my political cup of tea so that doesn’t enter into this.
I don’t doubt that the ISoS can refuse to sign off on the appointment for some pretty damn good reason. I just see no good reason in this case for all the reasons I listed above.
I say Burris should go to court and fight this if need be and the court, if there is any justice left in Illinois, and there may not be, should order the Secretary of State of Illinois to either produce evidence that Burris is unqualified for the job, obtained his appointment through some illegality, or damn well sign off on the appointment post-haste. To my mind, there’s already a problem for which the courts should find a remedy.
By manapp99 on Jan 7, 2009 | Reply
It was just reported that the SOS said that his signature was not needed and was just a formality. He is saying that they are just trying to blame him. If this is so, why not just sign the paper and take yourself out of the loop?
What a circus this has been but it looks like Burris is going to be seated after all. Harry Reid’s bluff has been called and he will have to fold or go all in. Looks like a fold coming. I suspect the meeting being held today with the senate leadership is just looking for a way to allow Burris to serve while still finding a way for Reid to save face.
By steve on Jan 7, 2009 | Reply
The reality manapp… Should Burris even be seated at all? I mean think about it, do we really know this guy and want him making laws for this country? What are we doing? If you think about his age and do the actuary tables, there is a 1 and 4 chance that this guy could die before the end of the term. Then we are stuck with an unknown replacement… I just can’t think we would let this happen.
</matt damon
By Craig R. Harmon on Jan 8, 2009 | Reply
Funny…Reid seems to have changed horses mid-ride and decided that his former refusal to seat Burris was all just a silly mistake that we’d all do well to forget he ever did. Sort of the equivalent of Rosanne Rosannadanna (of the original cast of SNL) saying “Oh! That’s quite different! Never mind!”
The man’s truly a joke of the first order. Remember when I commented that I didn’t know what the Democrats thought they were accomplishing by opposing Burris’s appointment? Seems we have an answer: they were making themselves a laughing stock…not for the first or, I am sure, the last time.
As political theater goes, this has been great fun to watch. It should have had a category in tonight’s People’s Choice Awards. Definitely would have gotten my vote for Best Political Comedy.
By Lisa on Jan 8, 2009 | Reply
Speaking of Politcal Comedy:
http://judicial-inc.biz/89al_f4.jpg