This looks like a pretty serious backtrack for Handsome Harry:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Sunday maintained that the appointment of Illinois Democrat Roland Burris to the Senate seat left vacant by the election of President-elect Barack Obama is under a cloud of suspicion, but the Nevada Democrat hinted the door may be open for discussion.
“I’m a trial lawyer. There’s always room to negotiate,” Reid said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
“I’m a trial lawyer” – oy vey. Anyway… this is quite an about-face from last Tuesday, when Senate Dems said no way, no how to Roland Burris:
Under these circumstances, anyone appointed by Gov. Blagojevich cannot be an effective representative of the people of Illinois and, as we have said, will not be seated by the Democratic Caucus.
I think this whole episode is going to wind up being pretty embarrassing for Harry Reid, and a lot of the wounds are gonna be self-inflicted.
Do Reid & Pelosi want a 1994 redux? This may be the first step in that direction. Is Reid that afraid of Blago? How lame.
Or does Reid want to hand this Senate seat to the GOP on a silver platter?
Get rid of this loser ASAP and move someone like Schumer up to knock some heads together. Any takers for Burris and Coleman to both be seated? Weak.
For Harry Reid to develop a spine. Can we please have another Majority Leader? You know, someone with some balls preferably?
They had better not seat Burris. Let him go to court.
if Burris is seated. If he doesnt fold, I am going to give him a few more chances. If Obama’s stimulus package dies, that will be the last straw and Reid will have to get the boot.
According to CHicago radio reports, there is a deal to let Burris take the seat temporarily while Blagoyevich is governor.
Then, when Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn becomes governor, he will make his appointment. Quinn’s appointment according to the report? — Roland Burris.
This doesn’t really sound legal to me, but that’s what the yakkers are saying. The Sun-Times’ Lynn Sweet is supposed to come out with a more detailed article on Monday.
Shalom,
ZWrite
Really, Harry? I’m a trial lawyer?
Because it’s in the middle of a corruption scandal, and there’s no occupation the American people trust more than trial lawyers…
If he runs in 2010, he’ll be primaried, and if he has only one opponent, or perhaps two, he’ll lose.
Whether we like it or not, Burris will likely be seated. As Nate Silver has been noting on his site, there is little to no legal precedent to prevent Burris from being seated. The best thing they could do is seat him and then expel him. The Powell decision limits the grounds on which Congress can exclude members from being seated.
I agree, though, that Reid needs to go. For a while now, I’ve thought Schumer would make a great majority leader. He has the requisite toughness and knows how to get things done. Plus, he’s from a safely blue state.
I guess even from here it’s inevitable.
SSP has “Reid Softens Stance on Burris”, while Electoral-Vote.com has “Democrats Not Budging on Refusal to Seat Burris”. http://www.electoral-vote.com/…
And they seem to be using the same piece of information.
And sheesh, just like JTM said, is it that big of a deal anyway? Even if Burris DOES get seated (which he might anyway by order of the Supreme Court even if Senate Democrats block him), it’s gonna be something that blows over relatively quickly. In any case, the Senate can choose to investigate him as well, and I’m sure Patrick Fitzgerald is already thumbing through his files.
Any opinion polls, nationally or Illinois, about whether Burris should be seated?
I personally do not care much one way or another if Burris or some other Democrat becomes the next IL senator. But, I do not want to see the party hurt or distracted by the whole affair. I’m in favor of whatever gets things resolved the quickest and cleanest. So, if that means Reid needs to backtrack some and negotiate a resolution that everyone can live with, good for Reid.