Skip to main content

Taint and the Man

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday that Burris would not be permitted to take his seat because Burris "has not been certified by the state of Illinois," a reference to incomplete paperwork that only touches on the dispute. Senate Democrats maintain that Burris' appointment is tainted because of the charges against Blagojevich.

"As I read the U.S. Constitution," he said on CBS's "The Early Show," it says the "governor shall fill a vacancy, and as a former attorney general of my state, I have no knowledge of where a secretary of state has veto power over a governor carrying out his constitutional duties." – NPR

Americans, as a rule, are pretty fair minded, which is to say they are adept at assigning responsibilities. As a general rule, one is responsible for what one says or does. In the case of delegated responsibilities, one is responsible for what one has said or done as an intermediary.

It has been said, falsely and scurrilously, that Roland Burris, chosen by Governor Rod Blagojevich of Illinois to replace Barrack Obama in the US Senate has been tainted because, to put the matter briefly, Blagojevich is a disreputable politician under indictment for attempting to “sell” Obama’s seat for preferments.

Harry Reid, who believes Balgojevich’s choice has been tainted, has said he will refuse to seat Burris.

The question arises: Is Burris “tainted” because he was selected to fill the seat by the disreputable Blagojevich?

Any fair-minded moralist would answer “No.” Reid has not been called upon to seat a choice, but rather a man who, many will agree, is not tainted because Blagojevich had been practicing Tammany Hall politics as governor of Illinois. Bad men can make good appointments. When other good men confirm those appointments, they are nor affirming the bad behavior of those who have made the appointment. The senate, under the direction of Reid, has been called upon to seat a man who has been constitutionally appointed to a position that he either merits or does not merit.

That is what they should do – no more, no less.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Blumenthal Burisma Connection

Steve Hilton , a Fox News commentator who over the weekend had connected some Burisma corruption dots, had this to say about Connecticut U.S. Senator Dick Blumenthal’s association with the tangled knot of corruption in Ukraine: “We cross-referenced the Senate co-sponsors of Ed Markey's Ukraine gas bill with the list of Democrats whom Burisma lobbyist, David Leiter, routinely gave money to and found another one -- one of the most sanctimonious of them all, actually -- Sen. Richard Blumenthal."

Powell, the JI, And Economic literacy

Powell, Pesci Substack The Journal Inquirer (JI), one of the last independent newspapers in Connecticut, is now a part of the Hearst Media chain. Hearst has been growing by leaps and bounds in the state during the last decade. At the same time, many newspapers in Connecticut have shrunk in size, the result, some people seem to think, of ad revenue smaller newspapers have lost to internet sites and a declining newspaper reading public. Surviving papers are now seeking to recover the lost revenue by erecting “pay walls.” Like most besieged businesses, newspapers also are attempting to recoup lost revenue through staff reductions, reductions in the size of the product – both candy bars and newspapers are much smaller than they had been in the past – and sell-offs to larger chains that operate according to the social Darwinian principles of monopolistic “red in tooth and claw” giant corporations. The first principle of the successful mega-firm is: Buy out your predator before he swallows

Down The Rabbit Hole, A Book Review

Down the Rabbit Hole How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime by Brent McCall & Michael Liebowitz Available at Amazon Price: $12.95/softcover, 337 pages   “ Down the Rabbit Hole: How the Culture of Corrections Encourages Crime ,” a penological eye-opener, is written by two Connecticut prisoners, Brent McCall and Michael Liebowitz. Their book is an analytical work, not merely a page-turner prison drama, and it provides serious answers to the question: Why is reoffending a more likely outcome than rehabilitation in the wake of a prison sentence? The multiple answers to this central question are not at all obvious. Before picking up the book, the reader would be well advised to shed his preconceptions and also slough off the highly misleading claims of prison officials concerning the efficacy of programs developed by dusty old experts who have never had an honest discussion with a real convict. Some of the experts are more convincing cons than the cons, p