On Hardball, Buchanan said Reid doesn't want Burris seated "[b]ecause he's an African-American"
SUMMARY: On Hardball, Pat Buchanan said of Roland Burris' appointment to the Senate and the Senate leadership's refusal to seat him: "[W]hy does [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid not want this guy? Why can't he get elected? Because he's an African-American." However, neither Matthews nor Buchanan mentioned that Reid stated -- well before Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich appointed Burris -- that the Senate would consider rejecting anyone appointed by Blagojevich. Nor did they mention that Reid previously denied that his opposition to Burris was based on race.
On the January 6 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, political analyst Pat Buchanan said of Roland Burris' appointment to the Senate and the Senate leadership's refusal to seat him: "[W]hy does [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid not want this guy? Why can't he get elected? Because he's an African-American." Host Chris Matthews responded that Illinois has previously elected African-Americans to the Senate; however, neither Matthews nor Buchanan mentioned that Reid stated -- well before Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) appointed Burris -- that the Senate would consider rejecting any Blagojevich appointee because of accusations that Blagojevich attempted to trade the seat for personal or political favors. Further, Reid previously denied that his opposition to Burris was based on race, saying that "as long as Blagojevich has done the appointing, it's really a tainted appointment" -- a denial that neither Buchanan nor Matthews acknowledged.
On December 9, three weeks before Blagojevich appointed Burris, Reid issued a statement saying, "It is clear that anyone Governor Blagojevich appoints to the Senate will fairly or unfairly be tainted by questions of impropriety. A different process to select a new Senator must be put in place -- and that process should not involve Governor Blagojevich." Also, the Senate Democratic Caucus -- headed by Reid -- issued a letter to Blagojevich on December 10 that stated: "Please understand that should you decide to ignore the request of the Senate Democratic Caucus and make an appointment we would be forced to exercise our Constitutional authority under Article I, Section 5, to determine whether such a person should be seated." Further, on December 30, shortly after Blagojevich announced his intention to appoint Burris, Reid's office issued another statement on behalf of the caucus that said:
We say this without prejudice toward Roland Burris's ability, and we respect his years of public service. But this is not about Mr. Burris; it is about the integrity of a governor accused of attempting to sell this United States Senate seat. 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.
Moreover, during a January 4 appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, Reid expressly denied that Burris' race was a factor after host David Gregory asked him about a Politico article that said, "[T]op advisers to Burris are suggesting that Reid doesn't want an African-American to succeed [President-elect Barack] Obama." In response, Reid touted his work to get several African-Americans elected and said: "So anyone to suggest anything racial is part of the Blagojevich spin to take away from the corruption that's involved his office in Illinois." Earlier, Reid echoed his previous statements that Blagojevich's appointment would be tainted, saying: "There is a cloud over Blagojevich, and at this stage a cloud over the state of Illinois. They don't have a vote. And if -- as long as Blagojevich has done the appointing, it's really a tainted appointment."
From the January 6 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
SUSAN PAGE (USA Today Washington bureau chief): Hey, one interesting cross tab in this poll: no racial divide. Black opinion, white opinion -- virtually identically.
MATTHEWS: Despite [Rep.] Bobby Rush [D-IL] --
PAGE: Despite --
MATTHEWS: -- who I think we might have on tomorrow.
PAGE: Despite the racial angles of this appointment.
MATTHEWS: Bobby Rush, who's from the South Side, says that this is plantation politics, the denial of this seat. Do you agree with that assessment?
BUCHANAN: I disagree --
MATTHEWS: Not your language, I don't think.
BUCHANAN: I disagree with Rush's statement about lynching and all that stuff. But look, why do you say they -- why does Reid not want this guy? Why can't he get elected? Because he's an African-American.
You know it as well as I: If Miss [Lisa] Madigan [Illinois' attorney general] had been picked, do you think Reid and all these guys would say --
MATTHEWS: No, because Illinois has elected [former Sen.] Carol Moseley Braun [D-IL] and Barack Obama. It's one of the two states that has elected African-Americans.
BUCHANAN: Why do you say he can't get elected, then?
MATTHEWS: I'm not saying -- you said it.
BUCHANAN: Well, why would you hold -- why -- I mean --
MATTHEWS: I didn't say -- you just posited the fact that they don't want him because they don't think he can get elected, and I'm saying I don't think there's evidence to that.
BUCHANAN: I've talked to a number of Democrats that say, "We can't win with this guy." Why did --
MATTHEWS: Not because he's black or African-American, because they figure he's lost five straight primaries statewide, Pat. Would you laugh once in a while? That's why he's not electable, because he's lost five in a row, not because he's black.
Oh, that's rich. The gop has what - 0 black senators, a couple of black congressmen, and 0 black governors and they want to play the race card against democrats?
No, the democrats are playing the race card against democrats. Reid is a democrat isn't he? Why else is he NOT letting Burris be appointed? There are no charges against blogovich, no indictment, and the investigation has been extended another 3 months. Blogovich is the legal governor and his choice is what is to be followed. If the government had such a strong case against the guy to go public (a month ago) why aren't they able to bring something to the table NOW?
Again, why else is Reid preventing the appointement of Burris?
He said they wouldn't seat Blago's appointment. That's a principaled position. It might not be a legel one - IMO and by rule of law, he should be seated unless there is somehow a taint on him due to HIS OWN actions - but it's nonsense for ANYONE to cry "racism" over this. And it's truly absurb for Bat Puchanan to accuse anyone of racism, or feign concern for his imagined victims of it. If this were a 'Pub, he'd be making a more principaled defense. But a 'Dem? All he can be bothered to come up with is this absurdity.
WHY is the question. There is no indictment against blogovich, no charges...nothing except insinuation and theory. There is NO reason anyone can stop this appointment from a legal sitting governor. WHY is Reid doing it?
WHY is the question. There is no indictment against blogovich, no charges...nothing except insinuation and theory
It's NOT insinuation and theory. it's called a "criminal complaint". When there is evidence of wrong doing including conspiracy the legal authorities issue an arrest and criminal complaint as a way of preventing furhter criminal activities. The indictment will come as soon, don't worry.
There is NO reason anyone can stop this appointment from a legal sitting governor
Only a judge with jurisdiction over the question can make that call.
There is NO reason anyone can stop this appointment from a legal sitting governor
No, I think Philib has a point here. Ried IS acting against the rule of law. By all accounts Burris SHOULD be seated. But to suggest that RACISM is the answer to WHY [he's not] is absurd. They don't want a tainted senator. I can't blame them. But they are requried by law to seat him. NOt sure how Reid thinks he's going to stio this. He has no precident to work with, and he's going against the exsiting law. But racism? Need a bit more evidence that an accusation fro Bat Puchanan.
Oh gosh philib. Like you wouldn't be all over the Senators for pay-to-play if they embraced the guy. Reid is doing the only politically viable thing, because the Republicans would roast him if they acted like there was nothing unsavory about a Blago appointee.
But good job embracing the racial strawman.
Pat was wrong to attribute the rejection to race, and I got the impression that he backed down in his traditional laughing-it-all-off way. He often just spouts things off and then throws them out when they get a bad rejection.
But he was right about what the Senate should do, which is to let Burris serve. Why the Dems want to expend so much capital and energy on this is wierd, unless they want to hand-pick the successor themselves, which would be inappropriate. I supect they will back down soon-- it's a losing battle for them.
A member of YOUR party, one of the people who is running to be the next leader of YOUR party (RNC Chair) releases a CD with a song entitled "Barack the magic negro" and you want to play the race card?
Rachel Maddow said it best: Stay classy GOP! :)
Accusations of racism coming from open racist Buchanan? How droll.
Well, add Bobby Rush to people that think like Buchanan.
I think Reid et. Al are being completely ridiculous for not allowing Burris his seat. Here we are fortunate enough to have a wonderfully qualified man that just so happens to be black! I have to admit that it would be nice to replace Obama with another African American. What is the PROBLEM?
The problem is that he's being pushed into the seat by a man who's given up his right to authorize things because of corruption.
And don't try pushing that BS that this is because Burris is black. If that's what you want to do, you can... well, I guess you can get a regular spot on MSNBC.
The real problem here is Blago wants to take down the Dems for turning on him. He is going to laugh his way to the big house. Unfortunately, the Dems can't do anything about this. Since the IL Dems did not approve a law stripping Blago of his authority it is going to end up being legal. Of course now that this is going to drag there is little chance of Burris keeping the seat in 2 years. The only real chance the dems will have will be another Dem beating Burris in the primaries. Reid needs to shut up and put his power behind another candidate in the primaries. Burris losing to anyone with a pulse is pretty much assured. He is 0 for his last 5.
The real problem here is Blago wants to take down the Dems for turning on him.
Nonsense. The dems are making a FUBAR spectacle of this themselves-- as they always do. Just seat the guy!
How is this nonsense? Blago has consistently gone against the IL state legislature. A lot of it has been a family feud between him and his father in law. For about a week the legislature had been considering writing a law that would preclude him from nominating someone. In fact he openly said that if they passed it he would not veto it. Then when they didn't pass it he made the appointment. I'm not saying the Dems are messing this up. But Blago has made this personal. He is trying his best to salt the fields. That's why he nominated the washed up Burris. Hey Burris was fine back in his day. But his time is over. I voted for Blago twice. But over the last year or so he's been like a shut in. He only comes out to say something strange before going back in to his lair.
" A lot of it has been a family feud between him and his father in law."
Now, THAT is funny. I remember another governor whose proclaimed 'family involvement' in state affairs disqualified her as capable to be VP. Now, we hear that a democrat governor has been doing the same thing, for however long, but no one ever heard about it. Certainly the media has ignored it. Probably because the media loves the democrats and not so much the republicans.
I remember another governor whose proclaimed 'family involvement' in state affairs disqualified her as capable to be VP. - philibee
Sarah? She was disqualified? Coulda sworn I saw on stage at gramps concession speech when she and him LOST.
As for the father-in-law thing, the governor of Il seems to be under quite a microscope so I'm not sure what you are trying to compare here. I mean, the public was informed about SP's ethics problems when she became the nominee, prior to that I'd never heard of her or the investigation.
This is totally different from Pailin's feud. In her case she was using her authority to get her ex-brother inlaw to be removed. Blago's father in law is the head of the state senate. So they are having a political feud. Altough they are both Dems they are fighting it out politically. So this is more of a local IL issue (which has been covered here) than a national one.
You don't read many Illinois newspapers do you? Since Blago's father-in-law is ALSO a POLITICIAN, as opposed to say, a state employee, there HAS been plenty of coverage on in-fighting between them.
Also, when a Democratic governor is being vetted for the Vice-Presidency, then we can compare and your point might possibly have validity.
The problem is that he's being pushed into the seat by a man who's given up his right to authorize things because of corruption.
How so? He has not given up his right at all.
As Digby aptly put it awhile ago, the only thing the dem Congress seems to get worked up about is Blogo successfully dissing them!
I really don't care if someone black replaces Obama. I just want the most electable person to fill the position. While Burris is qualified he will not win the next election. In my opinion he is hurting the party because he feels as though he is owed something. Being a senator is not a life time achievment award. I just wish the IL state government had passed a law forbidding Blago to appoint Burris. But once again they were slow and now Blago is going to have the last laugh.
Problem is, mainly, that the Sec of State of Illinois has not certified Burris (as required by IL law) to be seated as a US Senator. That could be just one hold up. Or that he was nominated by a potentially very corrupt Governor (I still think if the Sec of State of IL signs his form, they should seat him).
Burris seems like a good man, and a worthy public servant.
I don't think he could win re-election though. But that doesn't matter currently.
Was that the Convention Pat B. opened by throwing out the first illegal immigrant?
'Plantation politics'... whatever THAT means, Matthews...
Memo to Pat B: The Illinois Secretary of State has yet to sign the election certificate required to seat the Junior Senator from Illinois. Is that because Mr. Burris is African-American?
As for your contention that Illinois won't elect an African-American as Senator, didn't Sen. Obama prove that wrong?
What not admit that Gov. Blagojevich's ploy was remarkably cynical - and point out the obvious fact that Mr. Burris was selected in the first place precisely because he is an experienced African-American public servant with a long taint-free history. Do you honestly believe that if Gov. B. had a clear choice he would still have picked Mr. Burris?
I think that's the main sticking point. In order for Burris to be seated, the Sec of State of Illinois has to sign his permission slip (more or less). The Sec of State hasn't done that. Burris can't be legally seated, until this piece of paper is signed off on by the Sec of State, who ALSO happens to be black by the way.
The Sec of State does not have to sign his permission. This was debunked on Olbermann last night. Also the Sec of State is legally required to sign. He has no choice in the matter. All of this points to Burris being seated.
Pat Buchanan is rendering Colbert irrelevant. The segment "Colbert and Colmes" had him making the very same point about Democratic racism -- as a parody of Republican "conservative" blather. And along comes Buchanan . . .
If the Republicans continue to parody themselves, it's going to put Stephen Colbert out of business.
you know what? eventhough Reid had previously said that he wouldn't accept anyone Blago appoints we can't rule out race as an issue here. Let's remember tha Harry Reid is a Mormon, and that up until the late 70's (Reid was already a grown man) the Mormon church taught that Blacks were inferior and that their skin was dark because they were cursed by God. So you're gonna tell me that a guy who had racists beliefs until he was problably in his forties is all of the sudden "cured" from racism?
That doesn't necessarily follow. While the church itself has always been a little flaky (at best), some members are more progressive than others. My parents were both Mormon, and I saw no signs that they ever held beliefs like that. They were tolerant of homosexuality, something that the LDS church obviously still has a major problem with.
I'm from Nevada and Harry Reid is our senior senator. I cannot tolerate Harry and his state policies but in this case I have to agree with brab( I'm not feelin well ). While Harry has some wild ideas and has demonstrated some unusual propensities, I've never seen any racist behaviour to date. I believe his hedging on the Burris appointment is to try to protect the integrity of the process but recently he has shown signs of relenting.