Uneasy Times for Black Politicos

The (dis) appointment of Roland Burris appears to spin out of unnecessary control at every speeding moment of the news cycle, even as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Illinois chum/senior Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) fail to see the full reality of it. Talking heads continue to spin numerous scenarios, each one as plausible and astonishing given the horrifically simple nature of the whole affair. Ultimately, somebody in Senate leadership will fall back into crusty disposition and conclude that they should have just let Burris in.

This is clearly an example of politicians slipping on the political cost-benefit analysis. Reid, privately accused by colleagues of chamber isolation, may have wrongly assumed that a Burris appointment by scandal-challenged Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (D) would damage Democratic prospects in the 111th Congress. Thus, he got skittish - and in that moment, he bucked up a bit too much for his own good. Beyond predictable grousing from shell-shocked Republicans and the typical gossip-page babble from the blogs, the drama over Burris would have evaporated into the dust of political past.

B&B, linked by geography and ambition, called the Majority Leader's bluff from the moment it was announced. Reid jumped, instigated by Durbin. At the moment, as Burris readies legal action on promises unfulfilled, President-elect Obama is carpe diem on the sideline. It's no mystery that Reid is a bit gruff on the brothers lately - from his recently disclosed resistance to high profile Black Senate appointments in Illinois to rather vocal indignation about not " ... work[ing] for Obama." The perception is that Reid didn't seem as aggressive when offered chances for pushback against the outgoing President. Suddenly, questions are mounting regarding the Majority Leader's ability to manage his majority. Ousting Reid is not such a bad thing for a President-elect getting roughed up by an eager gang of Democratic leaders suddenly pumped over control on both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Some, like Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) and a coterie of aging African American activists, point to race as a factor in Reid's game. Comparisons to Bull Connor and George Wallace are a bit overstated and, on the real, over-the-top. Burris being turned away from Senate doors might be embarrassing, but hardly disturbing or on the level of head-knocking segregationist police, fire-hosed protesters or German Shepards gnawing on human beings. Certainly, one could accuse Reid of being a recluse, of underestimating Burris and the impact that race could have on the affair. This is where it got ugly. Burris suing the Senate majority is not a great start to a festive inaugural week. In fact, it's downright distracting. Perhaps, Democrats, adjusting to new found super-majority status, are past the stage of euphoria. Or: there is some unseen, unspoken and unofficial period of collective national adjustment to the thought of a Black man running things. It's setting in.

Too many folks are quick to claim "post-racial" transition in the final analysis of this election. It might be a "post-racial" election, but far from a "post-racial" era. In fact, we are about to experience tension between various expectations and realities that could, potentially, aggravate the racial dynamic - particularly during an economic downturn. The extent of this we can't predict.

What is certain is that Blagojevich, as dense as he sounds on wiretaps, masterfully worked that tension to his own political advantage. In that sense, the Black political establishment, while in the bliss of ultimate political maturity, finds itself getting played. Before it could truly grasp the significance of reaching the next level, it's held back by the grip of a dusty paradigm. Perhaps, there is a price that comes with maturity: for the jubilation of one Black President, there is the pain of multiple scandals. Burris may not be scandalous, but it is unfortunate that, on the cusp of becoming the lone African American in the Senate, he will be tainted by scandal. And he's not alone. He may join colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, such as House Ways and Means Chair Charlie Rangel (D-NY) and Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA), who face fresh money investigations. They are not alone - House Judiciary Chair. John Conyers' (D-MI) wife, Detroit Councilwoman Monica Conyers, is under probe and newly minted California Rep. Laura Richardson (D) faces an ethics probe, as well. And, although gone from Congress, the smell of cash in former Rep. William Jefferson's (D-LA) fridge is still fresh.

Elsewhere, as Obama reached heights once thought as unattainable, former Detroit "hip hop mayor" Kwame Kilpatrick (D) was jailed, his mother CBC Chair Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-MI) barely hanging on to her seat in the wake of the embattled son's scandal. North Carolina State House Rep. Thomas Wright (D) sits in a Craven, NC prison for an eight year sentence. In Maryland, Baltimore's first Black female Mayor Sheila Dixon (D) faces a 12-count indictment with Councilwoman Helen Holton separately charged in the same week. Nearby, in Prince George's County, Maryland, powerful State Senator Ulysses Currie (D) also worries over an ongoing FBI probe.

These are uneasy times for African Americans in politics.

Comments

[LewDan]

Burris abused his authority to try and execute an innocent man in order to get elected Governor.
The people of Illinois have rejected Burris for public office ever since, four times, for 14 years.

But to the media Burris was born yesterday. Everyone claims he's qualified. That there's no scandal attached to him. Everyone's outraged that Blagojevich tried to sell Obama's seat. But using your office to try and kill so you can win an election is fine and dandy.

Blatant racism's rewarded because its perpetrated by Black men. Can't confront them, they're Black.

Burris might go to the Court! (shudder) We're SO Afraid! And where in the Constitution is the Court given authority to decide Senate rules? Nowhere. Where in the Constitution is the Court given veto authority when the Senate makes a Judgement? Nowhere.

So once again America's shining triumph, our Democratic Republic, is on display:

Democracy -- Honor voter's 14 year rejection or impeached Governor's appointment: Appointment
Senate Ethics -- Blatant racism: OK (If you're Black)
Senate Morality -- Selling seat: Bad. Attempted murder: Good
Senate Rules -- Uphold rules or cravenly cave: (Come on -- its the SENATE, do I really need to say it?)
Rule of Law -- Judge fairness of appointment: (Whatever for? see: Democracy; also: Senate Morality)
Uphold Constitution -- Or honor Court interference: Submit to Court interference.

Aren't we proud!

[DFTWD]

The problem that I have with Reid's actions concerning Burris is that Harry Reid seems very principled on this one issue but in past few years, I do not remember him to be so vocal and mount an opposition this strong to many of Bush administration policies. I cannot believe that seating of Burris is such an important issue that Harry Reid has to fight it to this degree. Maybe Reid and Durbin know more than it appears to us.

[apoyo]

The dem's mistake was jumping on Blago after Fitz arrested him. We supposedly are guaranteed our day in court but they didn't give him that benefit. They immediately called on him to resign and basically forbade him to appoint anyone. That was like waving a red flag in front of a bull. And Blago waited. When he wasn't impeached or indicted he went ahead and did his duty as a sitting governor and appointed someone willing to accept the appt. Is there a precedent for Washington telling a sitting governor not to do something and expecting him/her to obey?

[Rashnak]

Well, sorta...

If Blago was not supposed to act on his duties then think back, can't the same argument have been used against Clinton during his impeachment?

Clinton went ahead and signed bills and made appointments regardless of his impeachment.

[samerbayer]

I would not go as far as clear Reid from racism and paying lip service to diversity. Consider the following
1- His lack of lobbying the governers to appoint Black senators for diversity.
2- His call to chicago governer trying to discourage him from appointing a black senator because he will not be electable.
3- His refusal to seat the only black senator who committed no crime while stating the convicted AK senator should serve no time.
Race is a factor when the senate is 100% white and we have 15% blacks who are not represented. There are minorities in the senate who has disproportionate no of seats to their proportion of the population. Because black tend to have less millionaires they deserve their fair share through appointment if we can't achieve that through election.

[Rashnak]

By your measure we have a POTUS who represents the 15% minority and no representation for white, asians, hispanics, etc.

Is it not possible to a politician to represent everyone regardless of race?

[LoRiseAntlers]

This all goes to show race is not a factor when applied to political greed,corruption and malfeasance.Of course,the wingnuts are going to,if they haven't already,going to try and piece together a set of talking points that tries to portray black politicians in general,and black Democrats in particular,as being especially susceptible to corruption.They'll trot out their boy(and yes,I mean it that way,because he's nothing if not the willing token black),Larry Elder,with his revisionist Civil Rights history rants and bizarre correlations to "prove"that the left corrupts blacks.

I'll bet anybody money on that.