Something Worth Mentioning

Commentary: Thank you, Gov. Blagojevich
Story Highlights
Ruben Navarrette: Blagojevich asserting two principles in naming Burris

He says governor is supposed to fill the seat and innocent until proven guilty

Navarrette: The move forces Democrats to deal with racially charged issue

He says Senate doesn’t have power to exclude Burris from the seat

By Ruben Navarrette Jr.
Special to CNN

Editor’s Note: Ruben Navarrette is a member of the editorial board of the San Diego Union-Tribune and a nationally syndicated columnist. Read his column here

SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) — Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich is growing on me. You see, I like chutzpah and I don’t mind chaos.

Blagojevich has an abundance of the former, and a knack for producing more than his share of the latter.

It was with remarkable chutzpah that the man soon to be referred to as “the defendant in the above-named action” threw the world of politics into chaos this week by asserting a couple of principles that his critics find terribly inconvenient.

First, that under the 17th Amendment, governors alone have the power to appoint a replacement to complete the term of senators who are expelled, resign or die.

And second, that under our system, the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty — and that means being allowed to return to work and fulfill one’s responsibilities.

Pundits are painting Blagojevich as a rogue politician who — having already been accused of trying to sell the Senate seat vacated by President-elect Barack Obama — wreaked even more havoc this week by abruptly tapping former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris to fill the seat.

You have to admire someone so committed to his job that he won’t let a little thing like a federal prosecution interfere with doing it. Nor did Blagojevich seem concerned that Senate Democrats had threatened not to seat anyone he appointed because of the cloud overhead.

My associates in the chattering class are missing the big picture. Blagojevich has done us all a favor with his mischievously brilliant and cynical maneuver.

By choosing Burris — the first African-American to be elected statewide in Illinois — and forcing a confrontation with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin and the other white males in the Senate Democratic leadership, Blagojevich has set up another teachable moment in race relations and the often one-sided dynamic between African-Americans and the Democratic Party.

The first lesson came during the Democratic primaries when supporters of Hillary Clinton made a series of racially insensitive remarks. That was curious given that these are the sort of folks who like to think of themselves as “progressive” because, for instance, they would never send out, as a Christmas gift, a CD that included a parody called “Barack The Magic Negro,” as did one boneheaded Republican official.

But look at what liberals will do. Remember when Billy Shaheen, co-chairman of Hillary Clinton’s New Hampshire campaign, suggested that Obama would founder as the nominee because Republicans would claim that he sold drugs? Or when Bill Clinton condescendingly likened Obama to Jesse Jackson and then described the pushback as a “mugging?”

Or when former Democratic vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro insisted that if Obama were “a white man, he would not be in this position,” and then reacted to the fallout by saying that her critics were “attacking me because I’m white”?

The takeaway from all these comments was that, after nearly 50 years of dutifully supporting white Democrats, African-Americans are still relegated to the role of supporting actors. And when an African-American dares to vie for center-stage, white Democrats who don’t want to cede power will try to tackle him to the ground.

They failed. And now Barack Obama is president-elect and the new leader of the Democratic Party. It doesn’t get any more center-stage than that.

But Obama doesn’t rule the Senate. That fiefdom is under the control of Harry Reid and the rest of the Senate hierarchy, and they want nothing to do with Burris.

They think that he’d be tainted because he was appointed by Blagojevich and then easily defeated by a Republican when he has to face an election. Then they’d lose the seat. They even have the support of Obama, who is standing with Senate Democrats in opposing Burris.

Senate Democrats probably don’t have a leg to stand on. They don’t have the legal authority to bar Roland Burris. And as a bunch of white men presiding over a body that — as Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Illinois, bluntly pointed out this week in defense of Burris — doesn’t have a single African-American member, nor do they have the moral authority to do so.

The powers-that-be in the Democratic Party are trapped by their own hollow rhetoric about inclusion and opportunity. And it’s great fun to watch.

We’re going to learn a lot from all this — about power and loyalty and who needs whom and who owes what. And for that, we should thank Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Ruben Navarrette Jr.

All AboutRoland Burris • Harry Reid • Rod Blagojevich

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/01/navarrette.senate/index.html

I must say, I find myself agreeing with this article. As much as I was floored by Blago’s pick and question the selection–the author is right.

Though, I wouldn’t be completely honest if I didn’t admit there wouldn’t always be some degree of doubt over the motives and method of selection. The gov wouldn’t have been just arrested on nothing… would he??

Whatever happened to the feelgood warm-fuzzy holiday season feeling?  Seems that died.  Now you have people fighting over “deals” the day after thanksgiving.  People cutting off other people in gusto to get where they’re going. 

Last night, we were treating our boys A and M to a trip through the Way of Lights at the local Catholic shrine–the largest outdoor shrine.  (oooh.)  Of course it’s a huge local attraction and that means traffic.  The local small highway to it is congested.  My hubby and my route takes us to the highway and our onramp takes us close-to, but not at, the shrine’s entrance–and our lane is the one that turns into the turn lane into the shrine.

A lot of set up just to say the highway traffic is backed up and pre-merging into our lane over the double white line (aka before traffic rules say they’re allowed to).  Now, those of us on the on ramp are quite nicely allowing for the “zipper effect” to those on the highway into our lane–one highway car illegally merging then us, then them, etc.

Well, enter ass.  We can tell right away this dude is going to “need” to be there one car length ahead of where he would be.  How?  He gets right on the bumper of the car in front of him.

My husband decides that no, just because there is silent testasterone in that car he’s not just going to edge in against what everyone else is doing–after all, its not us merging into “his” lane.

So we pull forward as the car ahead of the ass merges and the ass motors forward pretending not to notice us.  We were a few inches from an accident–all because this guy *needed* to be one car length ahead of us in a Christian site celebrating the holidays.

I very much wanted to exit my vehicle walk up to his vehicle, knock on the glass and say “Seriously?!  You’re willing to get into a wreck for one car length–possibily injuring your family and mine… for ONE car length?!” 

Ironically, once in the shrine, it went to two lanes.  We went around them into the second lane because seeing the back of their vehicle just enraged me–that they were willing to cause an accident to “save time” (all of like 8 seconds).

What’s wrong with people?  The zipper effect was working smoothly.  Efficiently.  This seems to me exactly the sort of mindset that killed a Wal-Mart on Black Friday–Me and Mine are More Important Than You and Yours.

So screw off driver of MO plates 659 ZJP on a silver Nisson Maxima.  Learn to be loving and inclusive of those around you as much as you are to your own and this world will be a better place.  I’m more than sure the car behind us was willing to let you in, as there was more than enough room.  Everyone else was playing nice, we didn’t need a bully on the playground to contradict a fun time.

If I’d had have had my camera with, I’d post your photo on the wall of holiday shame.  Now I know to always keep a camera in the car just for jerks like you.

“At this season of the Winter Solstice may reason prevail.

There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell.

There is only our natural world.

Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts
and enslaves minds.”

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/12/05/atheists.christmas/index.html

I’m amazed that someone had the courage to post such a sign–and I agree with it completely.  Especially the bit that says “Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”  Think about it–how many people hate another group of people simply because their religion tells they they do.  One might argue that its simply a few “bad apples” in the group giving the rest a bad name, but I just don’t buy it.  As a former Christian, I was taught a conflicting message:  “love everyone” but don’t.  Judge not, but judge.
Currently in the United States, there is a call for banning “gay marriage.”  Why?  Because it’s “redefining the traditional definition of marriage” …according to current Christians.  Funny, but the word marriage has already been redefined.  After all, my husband and myself wouldn’t be “married” but in a “civil union” otherwise–we weren’t married in a church nor in a religious ceremony.  We were married by the legal system.  Yet we are able to enjoy, without question, all the benefits of those married in the “traditional” way.  Amazingly, this is not the case for gay couples despite what the decenters are trying to say.  A “civil union” by their definition is *not* the same thing.  They do *not* have the same rights as straight couples.  It’s condescending and hypocritical of them to try to reduce a “privilege” of a group simply because their religion doesn’t agree with it.

Its time to keep our religion out of our politics.  Our politics affect EVERYONE, making everyone applicable to the beliefs of others, whether they have the same beliefs or not is abserd.    Wanting to prompt your religion is noble, but self-serving and short-sighted.  Elected officials are elected to serve the entire community, not just those that pay the most or have the same religious view point.  We need to stop kicking the minority groups through telling them they cannot be equal in the eyes of the law.  If voting is a “right” then marriage is a “right.”  If inter-marriage marriages (also opposed by the Bible and the Christians at the time, by the by) can occure and be recognized, then homosexual marriages can happen.

If idiots can marry and divorce an amazing amount of times and not be stopped, then a loving homosexual couple should be allowed to.  Heck, an idiot homosexual couple should be given the same chance to marry and divorce the same amazing amount of times.

Just think of all the extra revenue gay marriage could create.  I’m sure homosexuals would already be allowed to marry if atheists ran the government.

Let me throw my hat into the ring with others and their random private public thoughts.  I don’t expect anyone to read this… it just feels nice to have a private public place to blather.