It may be true, on the strict letter of the law, that Blagojevich is still entitled legally to appoint a Senator (since the Illinois Senate has refused to do its job).

Being a nation of laws, the strict letter of the law is what we are going by here, right?

First off, for what it's worth, I called most of the legal issues the other day in the open thread.  The ministerial vs. discretionary issue re the Illinois Secretary of State and signing, sealing and delivering (literally all three) the notification to the Senate of Burris' appointment.  The primacy of state law on those issues.  The impact of the 17th Amendment, and so on.

But set all that aside for a minute.  Ask yourself:

Why is Obama backing Reid and the 50 Democrats in the Senate who signed the letter indicating no way they'll seat Burris?

Why did Reid take that position in the first instance?

Logic tells us there is a reason, and a good one, for a president-elect to get involved in this - and common sense tells us it is not what the Joe and Jane Foreheads of the Talking Head Idiot Channels on cable would have us believe.  If you're believing them and their analysis, ask yourself:  After all the times those folks have shown themselves to be idiots, why am I believing them now?

Going back to my two questions further up the comment - about Obama and about Reid - the most logical reason they have for taking the positions they took is this:  They are forcing Blago and Burris to follow The Rule of Law.

We've grown so inured over the last 8 (and more) years to the creation, existence and ready resort to shortcuts around the Rule of Law, and around established procedure, that we have come to see them as not just grudgingly-accepted, not just as normal, but as even desirable.  Get it done, get it done quickly, and get it done in this news cycle.

It's that sort of short-cutting which facilitated, inter alia, John Yoo giving OLC opinions while playing squash.

It's that sort of short-cutting which made possible the whole existence of a torture regime, a regime of extrajudicial incarceration and, quite likely, a regime of extrajudicial killings run from and by the Oval Office.  Don't worry about the legalities.  Finesse them and, if they can't be finessed, ignore them.  Write a 80-something page (single-spaced) legal memo justifying torture while ignoring the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Conventions, the Torture Act, and Youngstown.  And get promoted for doing it. Set up a regime of warrantless wiretapping to avoid, in the words of Addington, "that dam*ed court".  And, as did Mr. Nacchio, go to prison for balking about it.

So, now we have to relearn the habits of actually obeying the law, demanding judicial resolution of issues which are unclear or "of first impression" (i.e., lawyer talk for "this is a totally new question").

And Reid - backstopped by Obama - is forcing this to happen.

Blago wants to fight, so he finds a patsy whose quixotic, oft-thwarted ambition to be a Senator overtakes whatever residue of good judgment is left in his head after years of believing his own press, trying and failing.  I digress a bit:  if a person with as much political and governmental experience as Burris has, keeps losing a race for Senator or other higher office, particularly in primaries, it seems to me a good sign that responsible people - whose support can make or break a candidacy for the higher office - have seen him in action enough to know he does not have the gravitas, judgment or ability for the office.  And, for this patsy, Blago's offer is like he just hit the Powerball on the ticket that fell out the window of a skyscraper and landed at his feet.

Blago chooses his patsy well - a black man with a history of pioneering.  It's calculated cunning (remember:  smarts and animal cunning, as we saw with Palin and her Troopergate, and Bush and just about everything, are not mutually inclusive) on Blago's part and it's done well.  It has threatened to fracture the Democrats along a bunch of lines:

white/black;
old civil rights warriors/new post-civil rights era post-racialists (for lack of a better name);
corrupt go-along-and-get-along/stand on principle;
Democratic wing of Democratic party/Corporat-o-crat wing;
You name it.

Of course, Blago's patsy probably knows that this seat is, as Blago supposedly said on tape, "Golden", something he's "not giving away", and "worth a lot".  Burris has to know that one day, and soon, the bill Blago will present will come due.

And everyone is running in circles trying to figure out what to think, say and do.

The answer is pretty simple:  Burris wants this seat?  Make him earn it.  In court.

The Illinois Secretary of State balks - great!  Let the Courts decide.  And let the appellate courts decide.  Until all the appeals are exhausted.

The Illinois legislature dithers, and they learn a lesson about Blago:  "You snooze, you lose".  Fine.  Make them make the system work.  Their interests are offended?  Make them stand up for themselves.

Both Blago and those who oppose him and his apparent corruption need to recognize that the system we have - The Rule of Law - only works when those who are involved in it, make it work.  While the lesson may be hard for Blago (especially if the allegations are true), it won't be easy to get rid of the lazy that has rotted the

It's inefficient (it's supposed to be that way - only dictatorships and similar tyrannies are efficient), but it makes sure that the rules are followed.

And why is Obama pushing (other than this is an Illinois issue and his old seat)?

Because he and Reid know the Republicans will be (and are) doing their level best to hobble, delay and destroy the Democratic agenda.  The only way to have a unified caucus and be able to break the inevitable filibuster, is to practice unity - and weld the caucus together - in this intra-party scrum.

It's no different than what has been preached at Kos and re the 50-state strategy, and what we saw with the extended Democratic primary battle - it makes for better candidates/officeholders, a stronger party and, as we saw in the election, a very unified party.

So, throw Blago as kiss for giving the party an opportunity to unify even more and maybe, just maybe, get something real done.

Reid is not going to allow himself to be compared to Orval Faubus and schoolhouse doors, and he is going to get an earful from Pelosi which is passing along from the Congressional Black Caucus (Burris would be the Senate Black Caucus).  

I am sure that BTD's predictions here are correct: that the Senate democrats could tie him up in court for the next two years and seat a rival (though I am not clear on how that person will be legally appointed if Blagojevich doesn't resign).  But I don't believe that they will do that.

That's a lot different than a tape where there's an actual transaction where there is a buyer and a seller.  What Blago was "caught" doing is not a crime.  

Moreover, it's exactly what any other governor would do - he has something of value to give, and in return he'll want something politically value in return.  If you think governors are just going to give away Senate seats, without thought of what they can get in return, politically, you are incredibly naive (and don't belong in politics).

It's unclear whether Blago ever would have committed a crime with respect to the Senate seat.  Political favors in return for a Senate seat are okay, cash is not.

How will it look if the Sergent-at-arms bars Burris, but did nothing to Harriet Miers and Karl Rove?

How will it look if they refuse to accept Burris in the Democratic Caucus, after they accepted Lieberman?

How does it look to be screaming about Burris's "taint" when they did nothing for decades about Ted Stevens, and gave him a standing ovation even after he'd been convicted?

How does it look now that Reid is manipulating Senate procedure to exlude Burris, but rolled over on Alito, FISA, and the Military Commissions Act?

I think the potential political damage is way more severe than Harriet Miers and FISA.  More people know who Blago is than Miers.  More people know more about Blago than FISA.  And it's not like Blago is going away from our TVs anytime soon.  Why attach yourself to a sinking ship?

Also does Burris REALLY think that walking to the Senate, with BLAGO BY HIS SIDE (as some reports suggest might happen) is going to play well?  I would think Dems (some at least) would be p*ssed about that for a long, long time.

Finally... I still don't understand this notion that Dems somewhere are talking about not accepting Burris, if seated, into their caucus.  Does anyone know about this?  Is this a misunderstanding of Reid's language in his recent letter?  Or are there other citations?  Digby in her post quotes Durbin from Dec 31st:

Dick Durbin: (video) ...What we saw today was an act of political defiance despite the fact that the Democratic caucus has stated clearly that they will not seat his choice for that position.

He is referring to the letter Reid sent on the 10th of December, signed by everyone in the Caucus.  He is referring to Burris being seated in the Senate at all, not being accepted into the Caucus once seated.  The Democratic Caucus has the numbers to ensure Burris is not seated in the Senate.  I would think that if a court compelled them to accept Burris they would do so.  If Burris gets seated, he joins the caucus.  But the Democratic Caucus will not seat him unless they are compelled to do so by another court of law.

In that twisted sense, Blago is more honest than someone like (Up)Chuck Schumer.

The Senate Democrats -- almost all of whom along with their Republican colleagues have done many times over what Blago was taped doing -- are clutching their pearls and rending their garments over precisely what?  Certainly it isn't their sense of moral outrage.  More likely it is their fear of flapping TV gasbag tongues.

So I don't see why we should come up with the legal equivalent of Ptolemaic astronomy just to keep Burris out of the Senate.  There's certainly no moral imperative.  Not as long as I have to drive past a clear cut, formerly known as a forest, that was brought to us by a timber harvest plan approved in the face of all science because the company owner had dinner with the Governor and then made $50,000 in contributions to Gray Davis's favored legislative candidates.  Or as long as we have to read about lack of regulation of the financial services industry brought to us by $100 million in campaign contributions to most of Burris's putative colleagues in Congress.

Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell and their entire ship of fools are almost all Blago's moral equivalents.

A: They are doing what Blago was doing with a bit more finesse.

I'm surprised anyone's offended at Blago when when half of the Dems voted for Iraq, and pine for a specially intimate relationship with Israel...

if he had, it would already have been all over the airwaves, papers and cyber space. it isn't, he doesn't.

being a sleazy politician (pardon my redundancy) and a corrupt one aren't mutually inclusive. add to that blago's just outright stupidity, and he's taken the art of corruption to a new low. he can't even do that right!

Who will make him leave in two weeks?

were he a person capable of shame, they could pressure him (like the republicans did nixon) to resign. he'll have to be impeached instead.

but, impeached he will be, bet on it. ok, it might take a wee bit longer than two weeks, perhaps three. if they were really, really good, they could just isolate him in his office, ignoring his very existence.