Saturday, January 03, 2009

It turns out Harry Reid just wants the right Democrat - not a Black one

What was that principle again? Anyone appointed by Blagojevich would be too "tainted" to serve in the Senate. Unless, of course, they're the right Democrats,and they don't happen to be African Americans.

Days before Gov. Blagojevich was charged with trying to sell President-elect Barack Obama's U.S. Senate seat to the highest bidder, top Senate Democrat Harry Reid made it clear who he didn’t want in the post: Jesse Jackson, Jr., Danny Davis or Emil Jones.

Rather, Reid called Blagojevich to argue he appoint either state Veterans Affairs chief Tammy Duckworth or Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, sources told the Chicago Sun-Times.

Sources say Senate majority leader Harry Reid pushed against Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. , and suggested Gov. Rod Blagojevich appoint state Veterans Affairs chief Tammy Duckworth to President-elect Obama's vacant Senate seat.

Sources say the Senate majority leader pushed against Jackson and Davis — both democratic congressmen from Illinois — and against Jones — the Illinois Senate president who is the political godfather of President-elect Barack Obama — because he did not believe the three men were electable. He feared losing the seat to a Republican in a future election.

Blagojevich spokesman Lucio Guerrero confirmed that Reid (D-Nev.) and U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) — the new chief of the Senate Democratic political operation — each called Blagojevich’s campaign office separately Dec. 3. Sources believe that at least portions of the phone conversations are on tape.

Jesse Jackson jr., Danny Davis, Emil Jones, and now Roland Harris, are all African Americans. What does Reid have against appointing an African American as a fellow Senator?

Meanwhile, Burris is not going to quietly let the Democrats bar the door to the Senate chamber:

In a letter to Harry Reid, Dick Durbin and Dianne Feinstein, a lawyer for Roland Burris forwards his formal appointment documents.

"I write to ensure his smooth transition," writes Timothy Wright III, the lawyer, citing Marbury v. Madison as precedent, a case in President Thomas Jefferson tried to stop appointments made by his predecessor, John Adams.

"Since the U.S. Supreme Court decided Marbury v. Madison over 200 years ago, the law of the land has been that an appointment is complete and irrevocable once the last act required by the person vested with the appointment power is performed," Wright argues.

I previously asked the question somewhat facetiously, but now... just what are the Democrats going to do when Burris shows up on Tuesday?