Update: And the Minnesota Senate race continues for another round! Norm Coleman held that press conference and announced that he would file an election contest challenging Al Franken’s 225 vote lead. “Until these issues are settled, any attempt to seat a Senator who is not properly certified violates Senate precedent, and usurps the will of the people of Minnesota,” he said. I already explained in detail the three issues (missing ballots, duplicate ballots, absentee ballots) about which Coleman is filing suits yesterday so refer to that post for an explanation of what to expect in the coming weeks and why Coleman now faces very low odds.
Original post: The political world is eagerly awaiting Norm Coleman’s afternoon press conference, scheduled at 4pm ET. Coleman is expected to announce whether he concedes the Senate race or whether he will file an election contest. (You can watch the conference live at The Uptake.)
Given the combative tone of other GOP Senators over the past few days, there is no doubt that the Republican establishment wants Coleman to fight on, but does he really have it in him to prolong an excruciating battle in which his odds are so low?
Until Coleman speaks, there is plenty of drama to follow in Washington. The new Congress is convening today, which means that 34 Senators who were just elected in November will be sworn in - and that includes Joe Biden, who will not resign from his Senate job until he is inaugurated as vice-president in two weeks.
No action is expected on the Minnesota seat. Democrats have not given up on the possibility of seating Al Franken before Republican lawsuits are resolved, but they are not expected to do so today. This means that Norm Coleman’s Senate seat will remain vacant for the time being and Minnesota will start the new legislature with only one Senator, freshman Amy Klobuchar.
But all eyes were turned on Raymond Burris this morning, as Rod Blagojevich’s appointee made his way to the Senate building and to the office of the Secretary of the Senate. Yet, Burris was informed by said Secretary that he did not have the credentials to be seated. As he had promised, Burris did not try to force a confrontation (some had speculated that he might try to force his way onto the Senate floor, forcing the building’s guards to physically evacuate him) and he retreated to speak to the press.
Interestingly, neither Burris nor his lawyer chose to explicitly threaten the Senate with a lawsuit. While the former state Attorney General would have a good chance of winning in court and while many observers argue that Blagojevich has law on his side, that procedure could take months - even years! Concurring Opinion argues that Burris’s term could have expired in the time it would take for courts to force the Senate to seat him!
Remember that the issue Burris’s opponents are raising is not whether Blagojevich is legally entitled to make an appointment (no one disputes that he remains the acting Governor and as such can exercise gubernatorial prerogatives). Rather, Burris’s opponents argue that the process by which Burris has been appointed is tainted and improper; in other words, that the Senate has the authority to not seat Burris just as it has the authority to review the conditions of an election.
The next step in the Burris controversy is for Senate Democrats to refer his appointment to the Rules Committee to determine whether Burris’s designation was tainted. This process is expected to take a long time - deliberately so, as Democrats want to go as slowly as possible to delay any resolution of Burris’s situation until the Illinois legislature impeaches Blagojevich and elevates Pat Quinn as the new Senator. This could lead to a chaotic situation in which Quinn appoints someone else as Senator, leaving that new appointee and Burris to fight it out in court.
Simultaneously, however, the racial rhetoric the Governor, his appointee and allies like Bobby Rush have injected in this conversation forces Democrats to be careful to avoid symbolically disastrous images. Democrats want to look courteous to Burris and emphasize that they are not questioning his qualifications but the propriety of Blagojevich’s appointment.
In other words, Democrats want to emphasize that their problem concerns Blagojevich rather than Burris, and this is perhaps why Illinois’s Senior Senator Dick Durbin invited Burris to watch the swearing-in ceremony from the Senate gallery this afternoon. On the other hand, I am tempted to say that Durbin’s gesture is as humiliating as it is courteous.
I am very sorry that Mr. Burris is being dragged into a symbolic fight over the ethics of Blagojevich. No doubt in my mind that Mr. Burris is a fine person. I think he’s handled the situation with as much grace as anyone who could have ACCEPTED this appointment from the Illinois governor. Burris is a victim, but not from the senate itself, but more from the cloud of uncertainty that surrounds Blago.
I fully support the Dem’s decision to block his swearing in to the Senate. I also know it’s a no-win situation for the Dems.
I also believe that the people of Illinois are victims of Blago. Because of his “issues”, the Illinois electorate will only have one senator representing them.
Innocent or guilty, Blago needs to resign ASAP. The people in Illinois should be outraged that he hasn’t resigned. If he was innocent (I don’t see how) of not breaking the law, he will never be able to govern effectively. By staying in office, he’s done a major disservice to the people of Illinois.
MSW - Burris is not a victim. He knew in accepting this appointment that there would be trouble. His ego made him take it. Someone else was offered the position but refused because of the taint of corruption. Burris has himself to blame and why would the Dems want a 71 year old - hardly a way to build seniority or a long career in the senate. It would leave them facing an open seat sooner rather than later.
I believe the Democratic Senate leadership is only hurting itself by refusing to seat Burris. No one considers him corrupt and they could use his vote. So he’s 71 years old and can’t be expected to win an election in 2010. Fine! If he chooses to run, he’ll be defeated in the primary by some viable Democrat and that person will have a reasonable chance of winning the general election in Obama’s home state if the latter retains his popularity. Democrats can go on shooting themselves in the foot if they choose, but I don’t know what good comes from it.
I’m not convinced that Burris would lose a Democratic Primary in 2010 if he insists on running. That he refuses to limit himself to a 2-year caretaker term is probably one of the sticking points. If he won the primary, the general election would not be pleasant.
Accepting an appointment by Pay-Rod is foolish and desperate. It doesn’t reflect well on his judgment.
With regards to Al Franken, I think he is likely to win at this point — but he will also become a punching bag for the GOP. Given his background and past controversies, it probably would have happened even if he had won easily. But given these circumstances, the Republican attacks on Sen. Franken will be even more intense.
At some point Norm Coleman will have to assess if this fight, and a prolonged chalenge, is in his best interest if he ever want to have any viability or future in MN politics. There is always the governorship, since the current governor is term limited. But if he drags this issue forever to am ultimate defeat, he is in real danger of becoming an unwelcome distraction in the state, and a caricature. He should copy a page from Al Gore and move on. Al Gore went on to the Nobel prize, I am sure that Norm is at least good for a Darwin Award!
I hope Burriss is man enough to become GOP. After the racists DemocRATs drug him through the mud. The country should have a new revolution after the bullcrap Gay Franken is pulling off.
When even Al Sharpton denounces Blagojevich and his pick, I find it hard to believe that any accusations of racism will stick.
After all, the new Gallup poll shows that the majority of voters agrees with Reid that Burris should not be seated.
it’s crazy what Blagojevich has gotten away with already… he’s an international embarrassment
Ogre - it would be rich for the GOP to attack Franken for winning in a protracted struggle. Remind me how Bush “won” in 2000!
No party wants to lose a Senate seat, but there are silver linings here for the GOP. The campaign revealed some questionable activities between the Colemans and his contributors which are being investigated and could become a much bigger issue if he were to retain his seat in the Dem dominated chamber. I’m not saying he’s Ted Stevens, but the Republicans can’t tolerate corruption if they are going to successfully revive their brand. That and considering Taniel’s analysis of Coleman’s chances, it would be better in the long run for Norm to call it day and go into the private sector. The other upside to his loss would be exactly Orge’s point. Franken would be a favorite and effective target for Republican talking points and with only 42% of the vote and over 50% disapproval, he would automatically be vulnerable for re-election, especially against Governor Pawlenty (who is not term limited).
Burris is definitely a victim. He would have been foolish not to accept Blago’s appointment if he had any desire to ever become US Senator. The man is 71, and the chances of a man his age to become a senator at that advanced age is slim to none.
MSW - what makes you think Burris could be a senator elected in own his own ability. He was last elected a decade ago and was unlikely to win statewide office again. His time is/was over - he should accept it.
Mike, one of my points is that as a man that is 71 years old, his ability to win an election is low, if anything else. Probably the only way he could ever become senator is if he was appointed to the position. I don’t know if he could prove, in 2 years, to the people of Illinois that he deserved to be elected on his own right.
There’s several issues that have to be determined on his electability IF he was appointed (if his appointment falls thru, the chances of him ever being elected is probably gone). First, can he serve as an untainted US Senator once he’s been appointed by an ethically-challenged governor? That answer is totally up in the air. I don’t know that answer.
Second: if he was able to serve without retribution by fellow senate collegues, could he be an effective senator? Again, I don’t know the answer, but he does have a solid resume in government for Illinois.
Third: could he prove to the people of Illinois that he deserves to be elected to a full term? His chances of being elected in 2012 improves if he has the ability to prove himself in the two years as US Senator.
As far as his time is/was over, you may be right. Looking back the last 10 years I always think of Mondale, who lost in 2002 to Coleman (thrown into the race on the 11th hour). I also think of Frank Lautenberg, who was also thrown in on the 11th hour to replace Torticelli. Lautenberg won, although he was deep in the tooth.
I have to ask the same question that I did about the NY Senate seat — is the strongest candidate possible being appointed? I fail to see the case for Burris. He does have considerable experience in state government and has won a statewide race for Attorney General, which is a plus. And I admit I’d like to see an African-American appointed to this seat, just as I’d like to see a woman succeed Clinton in NY.
But since his heyday in the 80s and early 90s, Burris has lost 3 races for governor and a race for mayor. That speaks poorly of his current electability. At age 71, Burris won’t be able to accumulate the necessary seniority to be a force in the senate. He let himself be appointed by Pay-Rod, which is the equivalent of placing a political kick-me sign on his behind that the Republicans are sure to exploit in 2010. How will he be able fundraise for himself, given the taint surrounding the appointment?
I bet Senate Democrats would like to kill Pay-Rod about now.
Regarding electability, I would say that if all things are even, then no, Burris is not the most electable Democrat for this office. He would be a second tier candidate at best.
Regarding ability and resume, he has a lot to offer as a US Senator. Is he qualified to be “appointed” US Senator? I think the answer is yes. At the same time, I think the argument for Caroline Kennedy is the opposite…she doesn’t have the political resume (aka should she be appointed), but she has the name that will assist her electability. At this juncture I’m more interested in having the most qualified person being appointed than the most electable. The race will is 2 years away, which in politics can be an eternity. Our country is in major trouble, and a little gray hair will help.
My main 2 concerns with Burris (or an other person appointed by Blago) is can he be an effective Senator with this cloud of uncertainty? It doesn’t look good for him, but it may not be an impossible situation. My second concern is whether the Illinois electorate will accept Burris as senator for the next 2 years.
I still believe that Burris is being used by Blago as a political decoy, only to anger the Democratic establishment.