Mixed Signals On Burris

Just a few days ago, Obama stood with a united Senate caucus in opposition to seating Roland Burris:

"Roland Burris is a good man and a fine public servant, but the Senate Democrats made it clear weeks ago that they cannot accept an appointment made by a governor who is accused of selling this very Senate seat. I agree with their decision, and it is extremely disappointing that Governor Blagojevich has chosen to ignore it."

But then something odd happened this morning.

Obama softened his stance on seating Burris, just a few minutes after the AP reported (from blind quotes) that Burris will get seated:

"That is a Senate matter. But I know Roland Burris, obviously he's from my home state. I think he's a fine public servant. If he gets seated then I'm gonna 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."

Now it's just a "Senate matter?"

Reid, for his part, is denying the AP's story. And now Huffpo reports that it was actually Obama's people that decided to 180 on Burris. Did they not send Reid the memo?

We'll have to wait and see how this shakes out more. But my gut instinct says that this is the second time since Monday that Obama's people didn't communicate their decisions to Congressional allies quite as well as they could have.



Display:


What's happening (none / 0)

is that they are realizing that Burris has every legal right to the seat and there's nothing they can do to block it.  Blagojevich 1, Reid/Obama 0.


by JJE on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 01:03:40 PM EST

yep (none / 0)

I think Reid got the message from Obama that the nonsense needs to stop and that Burris needs to be seated.

Reid will try to save some face by getting the Sec. of State signature and an affidavit, but those are very miniscule hurdles at this point. The IL Sec. of State is probably wishing he hadn't got involved in the first place.

Hopefully Burris is sworn in by the end of the week or next Monday. From day one I thought Reid was allowing his anger at Blago to blind him to the law and reality. But luckily they are finally waking up.


by existenz on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 04:02:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mixed Signals On Burris (2.00 / 2)

They did what they were supposed to do...  Fight the appointment as much as they can... then lose...  Everyone saves face... except Blago... his little race war to somehow stave off impeachment... is over.


"This was never part of our arrangement, Specter" "I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!" "This deal keeps getting worse all the time!"
by LordMike on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 01:08:08 PM EST

What mixed Signals? (none / 0)

Taken in order the signals were:
A) Blago Arrested, investigation made public & Blago bailed out (released O.R.).

B) Obama says Blago shouldn't appoint successor (although he realizes that he has every right to).

C) Reid Announces successor won't be seated. (underlying message: call for Illinois legislature to proceed quickly, before Blago does anything).

D) Illinois legislature meets, does nothing.

E) Blago Appoints because legislature didn't act, SoS resists.

F) Burris makes circus trying to be seated with incomplete documents, (compare to Franken, who we all know is the winner).

G) Senate Delays seating, (until Illinois Supreme Court orders SoS to sign). This gives Illinois legislature second chance at doing the right thing (impeach), otherwise after some ceremonial magic Senate will have to seat Burris.

H) Obama backs off of hard line (message to Illinois legislature-act now or accept).

I) Reid backs off of hard line (message to Illinois legislature-act now or accept).

So, What mixed signals do you see here.


by NvDem on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 03:14:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

actually, one small point (none / 0)

I think Burris actually has a stronger case to be seated now than Franken does.

Burris was legally appointed, and the only thing holding him up is that the Sec. of State is breaking the law by refusing to sign the order.

Franken, while he has won the election, cannot be certified until legal challenges are finished under MN law. I think Franken should be temporarily seated until then, but his case isn't as open-and-shut as the one for Burris.


by existenz on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 04:05:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I Agree, (reluctantly). (none / 0)

But unless the MN Supreme Court wants to overturn itself, It's pretty much a slam dunk absolute victory for Franken.  

Like I said, it's only being delayed by technicalities.  This turd bomb is really in the Illinois Legislature's lap, If they don't do something now, it's probably a done deal & Burris gets seated.


by NvDem on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 08:24:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree with the above (but) (2.00 / 1)

I agree that it became clear that any further challenge severely impacts the rights of governors to appoint senate replacements. Don't ban Burris -- change the law!

I also agree that by holding out for as long as they can, they make Blago look like the bad guy. I think they timed this just right.

That said, I agree with the diary, in that any lack of communication between Obama and Congress needs to be resolved now, not that I feel our congressional leaders deserve anything, but to have the most efficient presidency.

So yeah, communicate better Obama team.


I attended PUMACon '08!!!
by iohs2008 on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 01:18:41 PM EST

It's not a power play, it's a last hurrah (none / 0)

Blagojevich lost this one even if Burris is seated.  The guy is toasted politically, and he knows it.  Burris was an extended middle finger to the people that caught him, a move that guaranteed him a footnote in the history books.

Obama said in the first place that he supported the Senate with their rights that they have, which is essentially what he had to say if he ever wants to get anything done in government.  If they don't have the right to do it, then Obama shouldn't suffer for it.

As usual, we're expecting a bit too much from a government-in-waiting.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 01:29:59 PM EST

Re: Mixed Signals On Burris (2.00 / 1)

I don't think Obama was ever driving the bus on this issue.  I think the Senate took the lead and he was simply doing his best to help present a unified front.

The Senate has too great a sense of its self-importance, and too much concern for its own prerogatives, to ever call up the President and say "hey, we have this controversial Senate appointment here, what would you like us to do about it?"


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 01:35:14 PM EST

There isn't mix signals at all (2.00 / 2)

Obama is making it clear that it's okay to seat Burris.

It really isn't that big of a deal.

Again it is REALLY a Senate matter.  

Now is the time for Obama to totally stay out of it.  

We have too many problems facing our country than to worry about the Burris seat.


by puma on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 01:47:34 PM EST

Re: There isn't mix signals at all (none / 0)

he made a quick statement that he was against it. He's not now saying he's for it. So, what is he saying? Someone else make the decision and I'll live with it?  I guess that's not too mixed.  


just say it: Medicare for All
by anna shane on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 02:51:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There isn't mix signals at all (none / 0)

I interpret it differently.  First, Obama says he is against the appointment and against Burris getting seated.  Now, when it looks like the Senate can't stop Burris from getting seated, Obama adds that if Burris gets seated, Obama will work with him.  Where's the contradiction?  When did Obama say he would refuse to work with Burris if Burris got seated?


by dan s on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 06:02:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If true, this: (2.00 / 1)

"But my gut instinct says that this is the second time since Monday that Obama's people didn't communicate their decisions to Congressional allies quite as well as they could have."

would be awesome.  

Our Democratic congress, although not entirely their fault, has been incredibly inept over the last two years.  Hopefully they're getting the message loud and clear: We've got 59 votes, shape up and get shit done.


by RussTC3 on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 01:55:41 PM EST

WHY did they pick this battle ? (2.00 / 2)

As I listened to Reid argue on weekend chat that Blago must resign, and his appointment ignored, because a prosecutor arrested him (BEFORE obtaining an indictment or filing an information) (and you all understand that Blago has not yet been charged with any crime, but was arrested to stop him from committing a crime), I thought:  Is this the precedent you want to set?  That ANY elected D must resign upon arrest, innocence / guilt / pending charges / due process be damned?  Dumb, dumb, dumb move!  It's too early  to set standards to be applied universally the next time a D is arrested.


I'm still a sceptic!
by kosnomore on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 02:04:23 PM EST

Re: WHY did they pick this battle ? (2.00 / 1)

Remember what Fitzgerald's announcement regarding the Indictment of Scooter Libby? (Oct. 05)

To Paraphrase:  If we had made this indictment last October, when we had most of the information except the two reporters I had to toss in jail for a few months.  Then Bush may not have won a second term.

I just think that Fitzgerald was not taking any more chances of screwing up the country more by making the charges public, albeit prematurely.


by NvDem on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 03:23:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mixed Signals On Burris (2.00 / 1)

The senators need to get over themselves. They seem to be more concerned about their own feelings than something important.


by Pravin on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 02:21:27 PM EST

Re: Mixed Signals On Burris (none / 0)

Barack had poor initial advice. There is an argument to be made for denying him the seat and forcing the supremes to make the call, but there is a bigger case to be made for seating him.  It's legal, and this guy did not purchase the seat, and he's a smart and deserving guy. Blago made a smart move, he's a player for sure, be won't go passively, he may not go at all.  He hasn't been indicted, and as far as I can see he's no worse than many, he's just either cruder, or he's one of the few with a tapped telephone and many more would turn out to be crude if we could all listen in.  


just say it: Medicare for All
by anna shane on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 02:29:42 PM EST

Judging by the brilliance of this appointment - - (2.00 / 1)

as theatre, as politics, on the merits, and for masterfully changing the subject - - I wouldn't be surprised if Blago serves out his term and the criminal case evaporates!


I'm still a sceptic!
by kosnomore on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 02:42:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, no, he's gone (none / 0)

Kangaroo court in session, Blago's side denied meaningful access the tapes that will be the main evidence against him. Who knows what can be 'proved' with those tapes fully in context.

As for the criminal case, that's very small potatoes relatively.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 02:56:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Reid hung out to dry is a good sign (none / 0)

Hopefully a sign the Obama team wants a competent, smart, tough leader at the top of the Senate.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 02:53:12 PM EST

This is not a Obama problem! It is a Harry Reid (2.00 / 1)

created problem. He should face the music.


by Joshuagen on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 03:00:59 PM EST

Re: Mixed Signals On Burris (none / 0)

When there was all the controversy over the appointment prior to Blago's arrest, I went through a list of elder statesmen (Adlai III, Alan Dixon, etc.) who might have been good place-holders.
Burris fits that bill, but I didn't think of him(unfortunately, Gov. Alphabet Soup did).
He hasn't resigned, the Legislature hasn't impeached and the special election was overrated (chnging the rules in the middle of the game), so he should go ahead and be seated.
by spirowasright on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 03:41:24 PM EST

Re: Mixed Signals On Burris (none / 0)

Burris should e seated, I mean.


by spirowasright on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 03:42:00 PM EST

Re: Mixed Signals On Burris (none / 0)

Sigh.  Well, I guess its ok for us in Illinois to only have one real, effective Senator for the next two years.  

I can't wait for Obama to be inaugurated just so that the federal layer of government here in Chicago has at least the possibility of competence.  Right now, the many layers of Daley's new machine/Cook County Board/Illinois state govt/Bush led federal govt are all failing miserably at just about everything.  It's embarrassing.


by tommyslax on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 03:53:55 PM EST

Re: Mixed Signals On Burris (none / 0)

Oh, please.
No reason not seat Burris. Obama obviously realized this.
Burris'll do fine. Probably benefit from low expectations. God bless him and his beautiful monument.
by Peregrine on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 05:13:35 PM EST

Re: Mixed Signals On Burris (none / 0)

No LEGAL reason not to seat Burris. There's a big moral reason, but, we're not the party of values (joke).

I don't think Burris will do just fine in the Senate. He doesn't seem to care a fig for the people of Illinois. He'll just be another drama queen in our catty IL dem party. And I don't think he'll go out of his way at all to do a damn thing for IL, or the country. I imagine he'll just to sit there and smile and think about how lovely "Senator" is going to look on that beautiful monument.

I know he's better than a Repub, but I worry about what else he's willing to do for personal ambition. I wonder if he'll try to throw some good dems under the bus during his two years (he won't get reelected- not that he cares really). I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Burris caused some more trouble... I hope to be proven wrong.

At least we have Durbin representing us. And I think he's the bees' knees.


by cecilybecily on Thu Jan 08, 2009 at 10:23:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mixed Signals On Burris (2.00 / 1)

Reid needs to shut his mouths before making threats he cannot enforce. He made himself look like a wimp with Lieberman where he wagged his finger and said that "lieberman said some very bad things and there is no one ..NO ONE I TELL YOU.. who is madder than I am" and what does Reid do after sending word through his surrogates that Lieberman's chairmanship is in jeopardy? He gives a speech in FAVOR of Lieberman in closed quarters. Do you think Lieberman really got a scare from him? Lieberman probably can't wait to test this wimp again in the future.

Now Reid looks like a major dumbass again with the Burris case. He should have done his homework, and if he wasn't confident that he could prevent Burris from sitting, he should have done a behind the scenes PR strategy session with other Democratic leaders and made statements distancing themselves from Blago using the pick, but not making idiotic threats of not seating whoever was picked.

PLEASE DO NOT DONATE A SINGLE DOLLAR TO REID'S CAMPAIGN. Save it for a Democrat who is up and coming and needs it. If Reid is in that much trouble, his senate buddies will come through for him. No need to waste your hard earned money.


by Pravin on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 05:16:54 PM EST

Re: Mixed Signals On Burris (none / 0)

The law is the law.

Someone finally realized it and decided to stop the bleeding and follow the law after 8 long years.


by rikyrah on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 06:18:40 PM EST

Re: Mixed Signals On Burris (none / 0)

"The law is the law."

That doesn't mean anything, and isn't quite correct. The Senate trying to exercise this specific power actually raises a question of law that has yet to be adjudicated. Powell was somewhat related, but not entirely.


by Josh Orton on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 06:53:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Agree the communication is bad (none / 0)

Hoping it's just a sign of the transition still being under way; HQ moving from Chicago to DC; etc.

Who is their congressional liaison anyway?


by Bush Bites on Wed Jan 07, 2009 at 06:35:46 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.