Roland Burris and Al Franken

Wasn’t that special? White Democrats barring entry to the only African-American in the U. S. Senate. Yesterday felt like 1965. And who are today’s equivalent of Bull Connor and George Wallace? Why, it's Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Dick Durbin of Illinois. Segregation was an abomination, but at least “states’ rights” was a doctrine worthy of debate. What high principle is at stake now? Oh yes: Democratic Party “leaders” want to hold the Illinois Senate seat in 2010. Proving once again how difficult it is to be principled and partisan at the same time.

If you spent the holidays dozing, this mess began when Gov. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois was caught on tape seemingly trying to peddle Barack Obama’s soon-to-be-vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder. Alarmed federal prosecutors arrested Blago, hoping to stop his wheeling and dealing. Illinois Republicans, sensing an opening, called for a special election to choose Obama’s successor. Democrats concentrated on trying to remove the guv so one of their own could fill the seat. Blagojevich, in no hurry to go off to prison, balked at this. Innocent until proven guilty and all that, he reminded his fellow Democrats. This didn’t cut much ice with Reid or Durbin, who responded by vowing not to allow any Blagojevich appointee to set foot in the Senate.

On what authority, you may ask, do they make such a threat? That’s what Blagojevich, for all his other problems, asked himself. His conclusion: None. So he appointed Roland Burris, an African American whose last statewide job in Illinois was Attorney General. This is the man barred from entry to the Capitol yesterday. Again, on what Constitutional authority was this decision made? Here is noted constitutional scholar Harry Reid to David Gregory on Meet the Press:

You can’t make this stuff up. By the way, for the views of an actual constitutional scholar, liberal college professor Erwin Chemerinsky, on why Reid is wrong, click here.

Moments ago, as I was writing this, Reid and Durbin emerged from a meeting with Roland Burris. Reid described Burris as “obviously very engaging” and “an extremely nice man” and someone who “presents himself very well.” Durbin told reporters he’d known Burris many years from their time in Illinois politics. Both took pains to point out that Burris was not making it a racial issue. Reid and Durbin’s latest position is that a heretofore unheard-of Senate rule in effect since 1884 requires an appointed senator to present a certificate signed by both the governor and the state’s secretary of state. Talk about a technicality. Reid and Durbin seemed to be begging the Illinois Supreme Court to rule on that question. As he turned his back to journalists and headed back to his office, Reid tossed over his shoulder a new stink bomb: Burris would have to be affirmed in a vote of the full Senate. Priceless! The Senate as reality television. You can vote other senators off the island! A truly dumb idea, not to mention utterly unconstitutional.

The other controversial Senate seat involves Al Franken, who seems to have won a Minnesota recount by the closest of margins. One commenter on this blog asked what I thought of him. Here’s my answer:

The first time I saw the former comedian speak in a political context is when Franken was the hired entertainer at the annual White House Correspondent’s Association dinner. I believe the year was 1994. Franken was thought to be a liberal Democrat, but he was funny and even-handed: President Clinton was on the receiving end of his barbs as well as Republicans—along with everyone’s favorite target, the media.

A couple of years later, Franken came back as the WHCA dinner entertainment, and something had changed. His humor was meaner, and more partisan. I remember him taking a shot at a member of Newt Gingrich’s family. It was clear that Franken had gone from being an entertainer to a political activist. He was doing things like writing books attacking Rush Limbaugh, and routinely referred to those he disagreed with as “liars.” The recently concluded Minnesota campaign wasn’t much more enlightening. Franken and his opponent, Republican Senator Norm Coleman, spent most of the campaign bashing each other and telling Minnesota voters the other guy wasn’t fit for office. The recount was contentious, too, as such things are, especially when the margin appears to be about 225 votes out of more than 3 million cast.

Coleman is reportedly preparing a legal challenge. But if the Minnesota seat ends up going to Franken, which appears likely, I’m rooting for the re-emergence of the Al Franken of 1994. He was actually more of a statesman before he became serious about politics. Perhaps that says something about the state of our civic affairs. But Franken is obviously bright, and I think he’s idealistic, and I wish him the best. As the Burris fiasco shows, we need all the leaders in Washington we can get.