What is the Problem?

Senators Durbin and Reid just concluded a press conference during which they explained to their satisfaction that Senator Burris is not going to be seated because they say so. If they change their minds, Burris may be allowed to accept the appointment, depending on his willingness to accept some terms and conditions imposed upon his acceptance by ... someone in the Senate. Or his appointment may be subjected to a vote of the full Senate for some obscure reason. As far as I can recall, there are three qualifications to be a Senator: the person must be 35 years of age, a legal resident of the United States, and live in the state that (s)he represents. Burris meets all those qualifications, was appointed by the sitting Governor of the State that he'll represent, so seat him and let's move on.

Okay, the Governor of Illinois has been accused of some fairly common political practices in that state, the most egregious of which seems to be influence peddling, which lawyers call quid pro quo and we common people translate to "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours." Meanwhile, this governor, who has not been tried nor found guilty in a court of law, in the course of performing his gubernatorial duties, appointed Burris to fill the junior senator position and represent the state of Illinois in the Senate. President Clinton was tried, convicted, and impeached -- and continued his presidency with all the rights and responsibilities thereof until the end of his second term, including making political appointments to fill vacancies.

What is the difference? Blog may be guilty in the court of public opinion and/or in the minds of Senators Durbin and Reid, but legally -- he's the Governor of the State of Illinois, with all the rights and responsibilities thereof, including appointing a replacement to fill a political vacancy.

I was amazed to hear a political pundit ask the question, what if the current governor is impeached and the lieutenant governor steps into the job and wants a different senator to serve out the term? Well, isn't that too bad? What if Obama doesn't like Bush's appointments to the Supreme Court? He waits until a new vacancy occurs and makes his own recommendation. That is what we simple folk call life: you don't always get what you want, but you still have to deal with it!

What if Gov Blog is NOT guilty of the allegations and Burris is denied his place in the Senate? Isn't that a bigger issue than allowing a well-qualified, well-respected politician to be seated and represent his state in the Senate? If there truly is no problem with Burris, why is he being held accountable for the uncertain future of the current governor? Because Blog IS the govenor of the state and the appointee for the senatorial seat is qualified by law to hold the position, it should be a done deal, no matter what anyone thinks about the person who legally made the appointment.