As I'm sure you've heard by now, Roland Burris was sworn in Thursday by Vice President Motherfucker as senator of the state of Illinois.
I have nothing against Roland Burris, a man who is qualified to be senator, at least in terms of what the establishment defines as "qualified." This definition, as far as I understand it, means he has gotten far enough in politics to owe people.
Ostensibly, although he is in some sense a product of it, he is relatively untarnished by the governor's corruption, and has served in Illinois government long enough to have learned his craft. In other words, he has the resume to be a senator. It isn't too big of stretch to assume he will be an extremely reliable vote for Obama's agenda for the remainder of the term. I would feel easier about him though if the problems we face today could be solved within two years.
The obvious strategy for Republicans between now and the midterm elections will be to obstruct as much legislation as they possibly can. This is not an ideological thing, this is political strategy.* The reality is that Republicans will win when Democrats fail to do. And it is painfully obvious to me that Congressional Democrats, particularly in the Senate, will fail to perform at a level requisite to the crisis. Regardless of Obama's success in getting his policies enacted into legislation (and I think he will do quite well considering what he has to work with in the Capitol), the national mood towards Congress will as sour as it is at present. This puts all Democrats up for re-election in 2010 at a genuine disadvantage. I think Burris will have a tougher slog than most.
For those of you unfamiliar with the Illinois political landscape, on a level playing field, a serious Republican challenger can defeat a sitting Democratic senator in Illinois. Approximately 8 million people live in the Chicago area, and another 8 million live downstate. Illinois without Chicago is Indiana, and more closely resembles Kentucky the farther south you drive on I-55. It votes almost exclusively Republican outside of the Loop. In other words, a Republican other than Alan Keyes or a man who forces his incredibly hot wife to perform public sex acts in European swingers clubs can overwhelmingly win most of downstate Illinois and suburban Chicago (and I am almost sure that if there had been a videotape, Ryan possibly could have survived the scandal). If Democratic voters' confidence and enthusiasm wanes by 2010, which I think is a certainty, the reduced effectiveness of the Chicago machine could make this a very tight race, and this is without taking into consideration Burris' character.
Which brings me to his unique vulnerabilities. The small amount I currently know about him, I do not like. I think he is in many ways a charming person--he has a certain underdog sense about him, but his personality strikes me as more of a vain and crafty old codger than a serious statesman. This is solely my first impression of him, and if I am in any way representative of downstate Illinois voters, this means even if he were given the benefit of the doubt in regard to gaining the appointment, he is already in a hole. Nobody on either side seriously considers that Burris did anything improper to be appointed. It is clear why he was offered the seat, and why he took it, and that why will be open game. While Republicans might have better trump cards to play, his ego will certainly be an issue in the campaign.
If I could advise Senator Burris, I would tell him that he will have to define himself, and soon, as an elder statesman, and not an egotistic microphone seeker (which, admittedly, is a fine distinction for a senator). He will have to show not only a real grasp of the complexity of the issues we face, but also an approach to handling these issues in a way in which the voters of Illinois can identify. Right now, all I know about him is that he was appointed to his seat by a crook, and has a tacky monument to his political career already erected at his grave site, with enough room left to catalog this latest position. And nothing he has said since his appointment has led me to believe he accepted it except to further his own ambitions.
If he is unable to redefine himself, he will be extremely vulnerable to the inevitable character assassination and guilt by association techniques the Republican candidate will no doubt employ against him.
I am not sure that a man who appears to feel entitled to his seat by virtue of his awesomeness, in a time where we could be experiencing a very tough economy, hamstrung by high gas prices, the unfolding of any of numerous negative scenarios being played out in the Middle East in the wake of the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq and an escalation of the conflict in Afghanistan, record deficit spending, and a general disdain for Congress by the public, can hold onto a seat the people of Illinois have never elected him to serve in. If there are any skeletons in his closet, if there is any evidence of corruption or impropriety, he will most certainly lose it.
* It is a cynical strategy, but this does not make it less effective. The willingness of the Republican party to fuck the country over for their own gain, combined with its uncanny ability to get away with it, has been proven by preponderance of fact.
Now, look. The man is in a difficult spot. He can't defend himself at the impeachment because he's in the middle of a criminal case. So going to the proceedings would be pointless. But you don't have to go on national television, piss off your lawyer and have him resign, compare yourself to Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and I forget the third guy, Jesus Christ, probably. You don't do that. You say you have evidence that proves your innocence? Show it at the trial, and shut the fuck up until then.
