Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Home Front: Politix

Feinstein Breaks With Democrats to Back Burris Appointment

2009-01-07

A key Democrat broke with her Senate colleagues Tuesday to support Roland Burris in his controversial bid to assume Barack Obama's U.S. Senate seat. California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Rules Committee that soon could take up Burris' case, said Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich has the right to appoint a senator despite the allegations of corruption against him.

"Does the governor have the power, under law, to make the appointment? And the answer is yes," Feinstein said, urging the Senate to settle the matter. "If you don't seat Mr. Burris, it has ramifications for gubernatorial appointments all over America. ... Mr. Burris is a senior, experienced politician."

And a crook. And a grub. And a leech. And a blow-hard. And a fool. And an egotist.

The comments flew in the face of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's assertion that Burris should not be seated in part because the move would be tainted by the Blagojevich scandal. Feinstein's stance is the latest sign of intra-party tensions over the matter.

Democratic leaders, set to meet with Burris on Wednesday, are searching for a way to defuse the dispute before it further overshadows the 111th Congress. Knowledgeable Senate officials of both parties widely predicted that the saga would end with Burris being seated.

Posted by:Steve White

#15 Her check cleared. Harry's still waiting.

Posted by: DoDo 2009-01-07 18:59

#14 IIRC someplace along the Ohio River in either Indiana or Illinois in a House race during the '80s, a Republican won on a recount in a tight election, but the Donks who controlled the House refused to seat him and gave the seat to his opponent in face of all the legality of the election process. So, why should the Senate really care when there is no election, if they refuse to seat someone? It's about power.

Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-01-07 16:54

#13 Dinty Harry has testicles? who knew?

Posted by: Glusoting the Galactic Hero9467 2009-01-07 16:16

#12 She seems to have larger testicles then Harry.
Not that that's saying much...

Posted by: tu3031 2009-01-07 15:25

#11 Feinstein's smacked Reid on this and the Panetta snafu. If I was cynical, I'd think she was angling for Senate Majority Leader.

Posted by: Pappy 2009-01-07 15:13

#10 Dick and Harry just got pimp slapped.

Blago, Feinstein: 1
Dick, Harry, Obama:0

Posted by: Poison Reverse 2009-01-07 13:57

#9 Looks like he might be seated after all.

Posted by: Deacon Blues 2009-01-07 12:38

#8 I notice that Sen. Feinstein refers to Mr. Burris as "a senior, experienced politician."

She has not called him a senior, experienced statesman, administrator, or leader.

As others have noted here, the Democrats are disinclined to follow the Constitution when the Constitution doesn't suit their convenience. Legally, Mr. Burris is eligible, whether he merits consideration or not; and the Democrats may wind up tying themselves in some embarrasing legal knots trying to keep him out.

See Ann Althouse's column from yesterday, and her link to Walter Dellinger's op-ed piece on Burris in yesterday's NYT.

althouse.blogspot.com

Posted by: mom 2009-01-07 11:38

#7 And a crook. And a grub. And a leech. And a blow-hard. And a fool. And an egotist.

In other words, Steve, your standard Democrat politician. Why shouldn't he be seated?

Posted by: Glenmore 2009-01-07 09:39

#6 IMHO they should allow Burris to be seated and make him a lightening rod for everything that is wrong with the left.

Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2009-01-07 08:48

#5 At least some good may come out of this: Dingy Harry taking one on the chin.

Posted by: Spot 2009-01-07 08:39

#4 That'll teach The One not to run DCI appointments by her.

Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2009-01-07 07:45

#3 There is something tortured about the reasoning that would allow Rangle to be seated in the house but Burris to be rejected in the Senate. How can the malfeasance of the appointer be more pertinent that the personal scandel of the office-holder himself. I expect that ability to block a duly appointed senator will be used against Republicans down the road. All it will take is a frivilous lawsuit against a governor like Sarahcuda, for instance, to become a pretext for blocking anyone she tries to seat.

Posted by: Super Hose 2009-01-07 07:38

#2 I consider myself fortunate that the one and only time I watched Geraldo's daytime show was the day he caught a flying chair with his nose.

Posted by: Classical_Liberal 2009-01-07 03:03

#1 "The comments flew in the face of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's assertion"

Forget the flying comments. I want to see chairs, water pitchers, and perhaps the occasional page.

Posted by: Milton Fandango 2009-01-07 01:18

00:00