The Blagojevich Chronicles – Part 2

Before I left for vacation (two weeks in Peru), I commented briefly on the Rod Blagojevich "situation" (see here). I noted how quickly the Democrats abandoned the idea of a special election to fill President-elect Obama’s Senate seat once they realized they might actually lose a special election ("lose", in this case, spelled "M-a-r-k K-i-r-k"). (The Democrats, who in Florida in 2000 were demanding that "every vote be counted", quickly decided that in Illinois they didn’t want anybody’s vote to count.)

While we were in the Lima airport on New Year’s Eve, we read about Governor Blagojevich’s appointment of Roland Burris to the vacant Senate seat in a pdf-copy of The New York Times that we bought for $10.50 (US). At the time it seemed to me like a master-stroke, and events since then have confirmed that opinion.

The Democrats, both in Illinois and the U.S. Senate, have taken almost every position possible – in rapid succession. They seem to be trying to dissociate themselves from Blagojevich, keep the seat Democratic, and look principled. The trouble is that they can’t do all three. They could have done the first and the last (i.e., dissociated themselves with Blagojevich and looked principled), but that would risked losing the seat. Since they decided that keeping the seat Democratic was more important than being (or even just looking) principled, they will wind up being unable to escape the taint of Blagojevich.

Of course, what they didn’t realize is that they were never going to be able to dissociate themselves from Blagojevich. There was plenty of information out there in 2006 to tell anybody who wanted to know what kind of a governor he was. (Just check the Chicago Tribune website.) But they supported him – because they wanted to keep the governor’s seat Democratic. Just like the Senate seat now.

Assuming they were never going to let the people vote, what the Democrats should have said, back on New Year’s Eve, was this: It’s not about who is doing the appointing; it’s about who is being appointed. Roland Burris is a good person. He is a solid Democrat and a decent choice. By agreeing to seat him, we are approving of him, not approving the person who appointed him.

Now all they can do is cut their losses – and say the same thing. Or at least that is what they should do. With any degree of luck (for the Republicans, that is), the Democrats will continue as they have been, making the issue better and better for November 2010.