Campaign Diaries

Few topics have created controversy on this blog since the general election - perhaps even since Hillary Clinton’s withdrawal - but Roland Burris’s appointment seems to be dividing my readership just as much as it is confusing Democratic politicians. But we might be heading for some resolution. Harry Reid has yet to announce that he will seat Roland Burris, but today’s events suggest it will not take that much longer for the Democratic leadership to blink.

Burris is now accumulating the support of prominent Democrats who are coming out in his favor, including former President Jimmy Carter, Rep. Jim Clyburn and Senator Diane Feinstein. Most importantly, Harry Reid and Dick Durbin had dramatically changed their tune by the end of a forty-five minute meetings with Rod Blagojevich’s pick.

No more warnings that Burris will never be part of the Democratic caucus; no more talk of a “tainted” appointment. Instead, Reid and Durbin outlined a procedure through which Burris could come to be seated. (He needs to get the Secretary of State to certify the appointment and testify in front of the state legislature that he engaged in no pay-to-play for his appointment to be transmitted to the Senate Rules Committee and then to the full Senate). This might still sound like a lengthy procedure, but it is much more of an opening than the Democratic leadership was willing to allow a few days ago.

(In a fascinating twist, The Star Tribune notes that Durbin’s comments on the importance of a certificate signed by both the Governor and the Secretary of State make it very difficult for the Democratic leadership to attempt to seat Al Franken, who does not have such a certificate yet.)

But the most reprehensibly nonsensical flip-flop is that of Illinois’s Secretary of State Jesse White. As soon as Blagojevich announced he would appoint Burris last week, White came out with an attention-grabbing statement that grabbed headline across the country. “Because of the current cloud of controversy surrounding the governor,” White wrote, “I cannot accept the document.”

Even when Burris’s defenders replied that White had no authority to deny the Governor’s decision, his office declared only reluctantly acknowledged that White was not sure he had the power to slow down Blagojevich’s appointment. Yet, in a disingenuous interview he gave this morning, White laughed off suggestions that his refusal to sign Blagojevich’s document has any significance. “They could have seated him without my signature,” he said, rejecting the idea that his role was anything but a “ceremonial” one. “Roland Burris is going to be seated,” White added.

The exact reasons for White’s turnaround are unclear to me (perhaps was it the pressure of his opposing an African-American once race was injected in the conversation?), but his attempts to downplay his initially confrontational stance are a great indicator of just how much the momentum has shifted in Burris’s favor.

—

With the increasing likelihood that Burris will be seated in the weeks ahead, Democrats have to start thinking about his re-election race. For one, we would know that there would be no special election in 2009 and that Burris would not face voters before 2010.

He could face a competitive Democratic primary, and challengers could use his ties to Rod Blagojevich to take him down on ethical grounds. He could be especially vulnerable if Blagojevich is still talked about in 2010, as he would most certainly be he is indicted and tried. That would be a long judicial process that would haunt Burris throughout the next two years. What could potentially save Burris is that it will be hard for an African-American to run against him given how racially charged the debate surrounding his appointment became.

If Burris survives the primary, Democrats undoubtedly could lose this Senate seat. Just how vulnerable Burris would be in the general election depends (just as in the primary) on how much Blagojevich is being talked about; but the circumstances of Burris’s appointment make him an obvious target for the GOP if they can field a credible candidate.

Illinois might have become a reliably Democratic state over the past two decades, but the state GOP is not in as much agony as in New England and New York. Blagojevich’s troubles give Illinois Republicans a chance to portray themselves as the clean, reformist party - much as Democrats hammered the state GOP on ethics at the start of this decade. For Burris to be the Democrats’ standard bearer on the November 2010 ballot would be quite a gift for the GOP’s effort to frame state politics.

The problem for GOP, of course, is that it has a thin bench; Republicans who are the most often mentioned are Reps. Roskam and Kirk, and both could mount a strong challenge to Burris. Yesterday, Kirk left the door open to a Senate run and only ruled out a gubernatorial candidacy.  Had there been a special election this spring, Kirk would have been highly likely to run since he would not have risked his congressional job.

Yet, both Roskam and Kirk would have to give up their House districts for a 2010 run. Unless the coming months suggest that Burris is likely to survive the Democratic primary or unless internal polls show that they have a great shot at the Senate seat, odds are against either of them jumping in the race.

(Just as with Peter King, this is a situation where the NRCC and NRSC could clash: The NRSC’s preferred candidate is undoubteldy Mark Kirk, but his departure from the House would create a huge headache for the NRCC in this blue-trending district.)