The Burris challenge
WASHINGTON When he was elected president, Barack Obama inherited Harry Reid as the Senate majority leader; the choice was not in his hands.
When the Illinois Democrat was elevated to the White House, Reid inherited Roland Burris as the Senate successor to Obama. Reid almost certainly would have preferred someone else.
But now all three—Obama, Reid and Burris—are linked in a way that poses a challenge for the Democrats in the run-up to the 2010 midterm election.
The dilemma came into focus last Tuesday night when Obama was speaking at a $2 million Las Vegas fundraiser, designed to fatten Reid’s campaign treasury for next year.
Obama, in his remarks at the Caesars Palace event, celebrated Reid’s humble origins in Searchlight, Nev., and compared his success to that of Sonia Sotomayor, the former Bronx public housing resident Obama had nominated earlier that day to be the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court.
Obama said all their stories show that in America those who are “not born into advantage—can make of our lives what we will.” But sometimes, especially in the hard world of politics, the path to success is not quite so straightforward. Sometimes, those standing athwart that path demand a payoff.
That is what confronted Burris, another up-from-the-bottom politician, last November when he set his eyes on the Senate seat Obama was vacating.
Illinois’ embattled governor, Rod Blagojevich, was furiously raising money for a third-term bid in 2010, racing to beat an end-of-year deadline after which new fundraising restrictions would go into effect.
In a tape released Tuesday by a federal judge, just as Obama was flying west to join Reid, you hear the governor’s brother, Robert, putting the arm on Burris to raise more money.
Before he promises anything, Burris says, “I’m very much interested in trying to replace Obama, OK.”
“You and 1 million other people,” Robert replies, suggesting how expensive this competition may be.
Burris explains his dilemma: “If I put on a fundraiser now—it has so many negative connotations, (including) that Burris is trying to buy an appointment.”
Almost any way he tries to help out the governor, Burris adds, “Rod and I both gonna catch hell.” He runs through the possibilities: “I could give him a check,” or have his partner arrange a fundraiser at Burris’ law firm, using a third person’s name, or become a sponsor of someone else’s event.
Brother Bob says, “I understand your concerns, Roland”—but he just wants to get the money. “I mean if you wanna write a check—or have someone else write checks, that’d be great.”
Nothing is resolved in this conversation. Within weeks, the governor is charged by the U.S. attorney and the FBI, who have been tapping his phone, with flagrantly auctioning off the Senate seat. But before the Legislature can impeach and remove him, he names Burris to the vacancy.
Harry Reid initially bars the door, saying he wants no one from Rod Blagojevich’s tainted hands. But as political pressures mount from other African-Americans, Reid caves—and Obama washes his hands of the whole affair. Burris agrees to testify to the legislative committee weighing impeachment but somehow fails to recall any of his conversations with brother Bob and denies he offered money to the governor. Only after he has been sworn into the Senate does his memory improve to the point that he recalls being asked to contribute.
But last week, with the tape playing on broadcast networks and all over the Internet, Burris insists that since he never wrote the requested check, he’s done nothing wrong. No foul, no penalty, he says.
The Burris case is now before the Senate ethics committee, which has set no deadline for action. The question is what Reid and Obama will say and do about Burris’ intention to brush all this off and act as if he were entitled to retain his Senate seat.
Republicans—and everybody else—will be watching.
David Broder is a columnist for The Washington Post. Readers may write to him via e-mail at davidbroder@washpost.com.

Jun 1, 2009 at 8:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
futurerichguy, if you want to ask me a question of my post go ahead. But try to in context of what I stated. The number of senators and justices have nothing to do with the presidents quote. By your lax definition getting a tax return would be on the government dole also.
Jun 1, 2009 at 1:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
I'm not sure why Reid is under some sort of moral obligation here. It seems the error was committed by the state and people of Illinois (in electing, and not impeaching, Blagojevich). Reid had no legal means by which to exclude a duly appointed Senator, even if he knew it was a tainted appointment. And linking Obama to something he demonstrably had no hand in is just dirty pool on Broder's part.
.
It's embarrassing, but it's not a tragedy, and making an effort to unseat a Senator whose term will only last another 19 months is probably a waste of time.
Jun 1, 2009 at 12:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Until our educators stop with the nonsensical curriculum and teach basic civic and political science courses so that our future generations understand and care what is going on, absolutley nothing is going to change in the way our "leaders?" act. It is somewhat, although very slightly, encouraging that some of us in the minority actually care what is happening and are paying attention. If you want the few to make the rules for the many it's simple, DO NOTHING!
Jun 1, 2009 at 12:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
"You know Obama is up in this to his neck! He has been linked to so many criminals. . ."- whoanelliehttp
How short memories can be! Here's just a BREIF and limited-time refresher about scandal:
http:www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/01/18/scandal/print.html
Jun 1, 2009 at 10:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
RAT, there are 100 senators and 9 supreme court justices. Given there are over 300 million people in our country, the odds of a person attaining one of these posts barely beats the odds of winning the lottery. The social programs help people like you who are too stuborn to admit they need help. Besides, weren't you on the government dole when working for the Air Force?
Jun 1, 2009 at 10:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Burris has the Senate seat. He will keep it, simply because he it would be politically difficult to try and remove a sitting black Senator. The fact that he gave money to Blagojevich, is (to quote Algore), just "an inconvenient truth".
Jun 1, 2009 at 10:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
You know Obama is up in this to his neck! He has been linked to so many criminals such as that wacko professor he denied even knowing at one time! I just wish the Liberals would wise up and see what they put into the office. He is stealing our freedoms and everything else, such as our tax dollars into the 4th generations! Yet people will stand behind him and bow down and call him the savior!! sheesh!
May 31, 2009 at 7:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
"Obama said all their stories [Reid and Sotomayor] show that in America those who are “not born into advantage—can make of our lives what we will.” "
-
Interesting. If he truly believed people "not born into advantage can make of "their" lives what "they" will, why all the social programs? If it really comes down to people having a large portion of the burden in making their life what they want...why have all the other speeches stating how we must help those who can't help themselves. Oh, never mind, it was just another political speech by a politician...don't try to believe all the words.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.