Is Pat Quinn destined to become the “Jimmy Carter” of Illinois governors?

Admittedly, the hard-core conservative ideologues refuse to accept the premise that Jimmy Carter’s post-presidential public service was of great significance. Yet the bulk of us do see that, and the label of “best retired president” is often used to describe him.

QUINN: Post-gov success?

Why do I wonder if former Gov. Pat Quinn has the potential to achieve a similar status within the Illinois political world?

THE SPECULATION WAS provoked last week when Quinn made some public appearances, including one at the University of Illinois’ Urbana campus – where amongst other things he said he has no intention of running for office again.

But he does want to continue to work on “consumer issues.”

There are those who are convinced that of course Quinn will run again. Whether it be another attempt to become governor come the 2018 election cycle, or perhaps a bid for the U.S. Senate seat from Illinois – should Richard Durbin decide to step down (itself not likely).

I have to admit that anything is possible. The fact is that between serving a term as Illinois comptroller and becoming governor upon the impeachment of Rod Blagojevich, there was a 14-year period in which Quinn was a perennial candidate.

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR AND U.S. Senate, on several occasions. He never had money to run a serious campaign, and certainly never had the backing of the political party (which would have wished he would just wither away into insignificance).

But Quinn always felt his populist views gave him something to say to the public; even if they always pissed off the politicos to the point where I’m sure many older Democrats were pleased to see him lose his re-election bid last year as payback for all the times he trashed their viewpoints on various issues throughout the years.

RAUNER: Could Quinn top him, long-term?

So the fact that he’s now in his early 60s without a significant campaign fund to fall back on and many Democrats pleased that Quinn is now part of the past isn’t going be enough to discourage him if he does get the whim to run for office in the future.

Some are already joking about whether Quinn can fall farther down the political reputation path than has Roland Burris – who went from being a credible gubernatorial candidate in 1994 to being the guy whose interim appointment to the U.S. Senate became the butt of Saturday Night Live sketches.

BUT WHAT IF Quinn really follows the consumer advocate route? Literally going back to his roots. If he had never become governor (winning a term in his own right back in 2010), he still would be remembered within political circles as the guy who created the Citizens Utility Board.

Quinn reduced this legislative chamber by one-third some 33 years ago

And also the guy who led the effort that resulted in the early 1980s reduction of the General Assembly from 236 to 177 members – which may have eliminated the concept of Chicago Republicans and central Illinois Democrats from the Legislature, but also gave us far fewer blowhards holding elective office (always a plus).

Could it be that Quinn winds up creating a new consumer group that winds up taking the lead of provoking change within our political people? At the very least, it would mean many more Sundays of Quinn press conferences to garner attention on the weekend television newscasts (and those Monday morning newspapers).

Quinn reverting to that gadfly role, being the pest who constantly points out the flaws of our politicos. It could be that the best thing Quinn does for Illinois is revert back to his natural role.

BECAUSE WE’RE FAR from a perfect place in Illinois – although anybody who seriously thinks Indiana, Wisconsin or any surrounding state is significantly better than ours is nothing but delusional.

CARTER: A Quinn role-model?

I found it interesting that Quinn advocated the need for term limits – an issue that Gov. Bruce Rauner also is pushing. Although I get the sense that Rauner’s efforts are meant to build a Legislature of lackeys who would follow his every whim.

Could Quinn become the guy who provides a legitimate measure to reduce the likelihood of individuals gaining too much political influence solely to seniority?

Now I don’t see Quinn winning anything the equivalent of the Nobel Prize for peace that Carter’s post-presidential service garnered. Although it could be a key to people someday seeing what a mistake their 2014 gubernatorial vote (or lack thereof) truly was!

  -30-

Differing perspective on “white boys”

It never fails to amuse me the way some people have trouble comprehending the fact that black people in our society have a slightly differing perspective on things than others do.

RUSH: Too loose w/ the lip?

They’re usually the first to scream “reverse racism” (or some other term) when black people don’t quite see things the same.

WHICH IS WHY some people are trying to make an issue over the fact that Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., called out Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., when the latter came up with an unrealistic idea for dealing with the problem of street gangs.

The senator would like the federal government to do the equivalent of declaring war on the Gangster Disciples, even if it means using force to arrest them all.

Rush, who was once a member of the activist Black Panther group that the government tried to take such an approach with back in the early 1970s, went so far as to lambaste Kirk in the Chicago Sun-Times for offering an, “empty, simplistic, unworkable approach,” and called Kirk himself an “elitist white boy.”

The Chicago Tribune on Monday went so far as to call Rush’s comments “repugnant” and say that he ought to be working with Kirk – instead of criticizing him.

COMPARED TO OTHERS who have been bashing Rush, the Tribune is being rather polite, courteous and respectful.

Because it seems there are some people who want to believe that it would be appropriate to have our officials start violating rights of individuals who aren’t like themselves. As though they believe the Constitution is only for themselves.

I know one individual who usually shows large amounts of common sense. But a few weeks ago, he started talking about gang problems and suggested that all suspected gang members be put on board a boat that should then be sunk in the depths of Lake Michigan.

KIRK: A solution, or another problem?

It’s nonsense to take that notion seriously. But it’s just as ridiculous as the Kirk talk about unleashing the powers of the government against these particular individuals, since street gang affiliations are rarely so simply that we can readily identify who is what.

ALTHOUGH SOME PEOPLE now want to react as though Kirk has some sort of logic in his babbling, and that Rush is just looking to provoke trouble.

Ignoring the fact that Rush speaks from a perspective of people who have seen the power of the government turned against them, and realizes how harmful this could be.

No one should think this commentary is a defense of a street gang’s activity. It isn’t. Then again, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, in fact, our whole form of government, is meant to protect everybody.

It is not supposed to be selective. If it were, we’d be just as bad as the nations of the world our society so often likes to criticize!

BUT THERE WILL be those who won’t want to hear that. They’re going to latch onto that “white boy” phrase and try to claim that it is Rush who started the dispute.

It’s way too similar to the Democratic primary for governor back in 1998, where former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris (whose record on paper was more substantial than anyone else he ran against) dismissed his challengers as “unqualified white boys.”

He was offended that so many people were willing and eager to put those challengers on an equal plane as himself. The offense experienced by potential voters to Burris’ nerve was a factor in his eventual loss to now-former Rep. Glenn Poshard (whose inexperience in dealing with anything urban caused his eventual loss in the general election that year to George Ryan).

Now, we’re living through something similar with Rush – although I doubt the backlash will hurt the long-time Congressman who remains popular with his South Side voter base.

IF ANYTHING HURTS Rush, it’s going to be his increasing age.

Although I suspect his willingness to express that “black” viewpoint on this issue (although I’m sure there also are black people who disagree) will ensure that those voters will be willing to keep Rush in Congress until he decides to step down on his own.

  -30-

Do we benefit from senatorial rehash?

BLAGOJEVICH: Still on the stand!

The beginning, and the end, of “Roland Burris, U.S. Senator!” was on display Monday in a pair of courtrooms.

The whole chain of events that led to the one-time state comptroller and attorney general becoming a senator was rehashed while prosecutors put former Gov. Rod Blagojevich through cross-examination.

THOSE PROSECUTORS WERE determined to make it look like Blagojevich was cracking a deal for himself and his political aspirations, rather than trying to find someone qualified to serve the last couple of years of the Senate term to which Barack Obama was elected in 2004.

That was the beginning. The end also came up in Washington, as the Supreme Court of the United States let it be known they were not going to hear an appeal on the lawsuit filed by Burris – the one that claims he was deprived of the last six weeks of his time in office.

Now I have written before that I think Burris has a legitimate beef. He should have had a chance to finish out the term to which Blagojevich appointed him. Although I was glad the Supreme Court didn’t seriously entertain this issue.

For what can be done now? This was an issue that had to be dealt with when it was happening. Any legal ruling now in Burris’ favor would be pointless.

IN SHORT, A particularly absurd era in our state’s political history is being rehashed. Yet I wonder what will seriously be accomplished, other than creating some personal humiliation for a few individuals.

BURRIS: Still livid, after all these years



Better off that we all try to move forward. And while I realize that we have to fully comprehend the past before we can move forward, I’m not sure there’s much more to rehash. The time for Blagojevich embarrassment is past.

Besides, personally I think Blagojevich has no shame. There’s nothing anyone can do to ever truly break his viewpoint that he’s being victimized by the federal government (the same one he was once delusional enough to think he could head).

Prosecutors tried to get Blagojevich to say he was willing to give Valerie Jarrett the U.S. Senate seat, provided that the then-President-elect Obama would grant him some form of cabinet appointment.

NOT THAT ANY such appointment was likely. The last thing Blagojevich ever would have wanted was a Senate seat from Illinois going to such a blatant Obama ally.

It is why I thought back then he likely would have given the post to former state Senate President Emil Jones, to try to create at least one person loyal to himself. It is what he ultimately did when he decided to give the Senate seat to Burris – who had been out of electoral office for 14 years back in the autumn-becoming-winter of ’08.

Besides, the outrage Blagojevich created at the thought of “Senator Burris” was his ultimate drop-dead moment to the Illinois political establishment. I’m sure he’s trying to create a similar moment during his time on the witness stand during his trial.

Not that prosecutors aren’t going out of their way to make Blagojevich look ridiculous. Such as their efforts to get him to claim he was trying to influence the congressional special election that ultimately saw Mike Quigley get the seat formerly held by Rahm Emanuel when he took that chief-of-staff post that led up to his successful mayoral campaign.

BECAUSE THAT IS not a statewide post, the governor had no authority to appoint anyone. Yet Blagojevich appears to have had his attorneys look into the matter to see if any action on the governor’s part was possible.

Prosecutors tried to make it seem that Blagojevich was ordering people to behave in “unconstitutional” ways, which is an overstretch on their part.

The Washington court activity wasn’t as dramatic.

The high court officially did nothing more than say it would not hear Burris’ case – which ought to bring the matter to an end.

BURRIS IS STILL miffed that when it was decided so late in the process that there would have to be some sort of special election in Illinois related to the U.S. Senate seat, the party political hacks picked the nominees.

And da Dems didn’t pick him!

So Burris was not the senator from Illinois for the last six weeks of the term. Instead, we got Mark Kirk, who gained a seniority advantage over the other newcomers from last year’s election cycle by getting to add the “Sen.” And “R-Ill.” to his name a few weeks early.

It was stupid to have to endure all of that. Burris should have been able to finish up the term.

EMANUEL: Rahm's ancient history



BUT WHAT COULD really have been done now. Do we suddenly remove Kirk from the U.S. Senate for six weeks, and let Roland, Roland, Roland fill in for him.

Do we have the federal government pay damages to Burris to make up for his lost time in office, which at his age really was a final hurrah in Illinois politics?

There’s nothing we can do, except listen to Roland complain about how he got dumped on – while we nod our heads condescendingly the way we often do at older individuals who tell stories from the past.

It was good to see the Supreme Court use a practical approach to addressing Burris’ gripes. Let’s only hope that when the day comes several years from now that Blagojevich appeals his case to that same high court, they behave in an equally logical manner.

  -30-

Will a “vote” for Rahm count?

With all likelihood, the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners is going to tell us Thursday whether or not they think any of the challenges filed against the mayoral candidacy of Rahm Emanuel have any legitimacy.

EMANUEL: Not close to over



Not that the date means all that much. It merely means that after this week, we will be able to see this issue shift to the court system and work its way up through the legal structure. This could get settled by the Illinois Supreme Court in Springfield.

YET WHAT I fully expect to happen is a situation by which someone decides that Emanuel ought to be included on the ballot with all the other mayoral candidates, and elections officials in the city use that as the basis for deciding that the ballots should be printed up with Rahm’s name included.

So no matter how the court battle turns out, I expect that when people walk into the voting booth on Feb. 22, they are going to see the name “Rahm Emanuel” listed with all the others who survive the challenges.

The trick will be whether or not “Emanuel” is a valid choice for voters. Will putting a mark next to Emanuel’s name be the equivalent of spoiling a ballot, or will it be counted as a legitimate vote?

Yes, there have been many elections in the past where someone’s name was listed on the ballot solely because the ruling knocking them off didn’t come until after it was too late to change the physical form.

WHICH MEANS THAT anyone who thinks these challenges have to wrap up soon because of ballot-printing deadlines is being naïve. This legal fight can literally stretch right up to the days before Election Day.

In fact, a part of me wonders if that is the real strategy by Emanuel opponents. Force Rahm to divert all his attention and campaign cash to paying for the attorneys engaged in the legal fight, and they can keep him from being a serious candidate who might be able to focus on issues relevant to voters.

It is all-too-real a scenario in this particular election cycle.

So for those of you who think that the report hearing officer Joe Morris will file on Tuesday making his recommendation about Emanuel’s fate is “the light” at the end of the tunnel, and that this particular fight is almost over, it’s not.

THE LIGHT” IS from a GOP-oriented freight train headed straight for us, prepared to barrel over anyone who dares to try to get in its way.

CHICO: Seeking attention

This ride (meant more to embarrass the candidate and soften him up for a challenge in an April 5 runoff election) is going to run its course. We’re likely to have to hear these same charges over and over throughout the court system, with the critics hoping that somewhere, a sympathetic judicial ear can be found who will take the charges seriously enough to rule in their favor against Emanuel.

This search for a sympathetic judge will also continue to dominate the campaign season. I’m sure his critics (who mostly are just critics of Democrats being involved in federal policy) are going to be disgusted to hear this idea, but their actions have had the result of turning the entire mayoral campaign into “All Rahm, All the Time.”

With the whole process deteriorating into a question over whether or not Emanuel belongs, other candidates are going to be extra-challenged to get any attention for themselves.

HENCE, FORMER CHICAGO board of education President Gery Chico was resorting to praising Congress for voting to repeal the laws that maintained restrictions against gay people serving in the military, all in hopes that someone might pay attention long enough to catch his name and remember it on Election Day.

It also is the big reason (I am convinced) that former Sen. Roland Burris decided NOT to run for Chicago mayor, after all.

BURRIS: Riding off into the sunset

His backers filed the nominating petitions to get him a slot on the ballot, only to have Roland himself announce late last week that he wasn’t going to proceed with an actual campaign.

It is too bad. Roland’s egomania always has a knack of making a political campaign for any public post more interesting. Burris’ presence in the mayoral election could have caused a moment or two of intrigue in what will otherwise be the Rahm Emanuel election cycle.

YET FOR BURRIS, I’m sure the fact that he would not be the focus of all campaign attention (not even in his own mind) was enough to make the mayoral campaign not worth his time.

It’s not like Roland had a huge stash of campaign cash that could have paid the cost of making him competitive. Those days are long gone (Roland hasn’t run a real campaign since his unsuccessful 1994 bid for the Democratic nomination for Illinois governor).

Burris will now be able to have his cemetery memorial amended to include the fact that he was a U.S. senator from Illinois, before he goes into retirement.

And when the day comes that Burris (now 73) departs this physical existence for whatever exists after life, perhaps the winner of the Feb. 22/April 5 elections will be among the people who show up among his mourners.

  -30-

Where’s the mayoral consensus?

Rep. Danny Davis, D-Ill., is now the officially designated African-American candidate in the running for mayor of Chicago. Not that the “honor” is going to amount to much come Election Day.



DAVIS: Does his 'endorsement' matter?

A coalition of activists, ministers and political people who all have an interest in seeing a black person become the successor to Mayor Richard M. Daley has been spending its time in recent weeks interviewing candidates – trying to pick who they think would be the best bet to win in 2011.

THEIR HOPE WAS to pick an African-American mayoral hopeful, get the bulk of the African-American electorate to back their choice, and by coordinating such unity could have a chance of actually defeating anyone else who decides to run for what could become a free-for-all.

So they wound  up picking Davis – who back in 1991 tried challenging Daley himself, only to become one of the masses of people who got their electoral butts whomped in a Chicago mayoral campaign by Daley.

I’m not sure what is more ridiculous; the fact that Davis is going to be far from the only African-American candidate following a process that was supposed to give him a sense of exclusivity? Or is it the process itself that initially rejected Davis, but then reconsidered him when it became apparent how foolish they were behaving?

On the latter point, it is because that coalition let it be known at one point that they had their process narrowed down to two candidates – former Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun and Cook County Board of Review member Larry Rogers.

CONSIDERING THAT ANY campaign by Moseley-Braun is going to get tied up in all the baggage of her personal story (her ex-boyfriend, her mother’s receipt of Medicaid, etc.), there was a very real chance that this lengthy, detailed process to put up a united front by African-American voters  would have wound up making the announcement that “Larry Rogers” would be their preference for mayor.

To which, Chicago would have responded, “Who?” Then, it would have yawned and moved on to other candidates.

Hence, Davis got the pick. He is a former alderman and county board commissioner, before moving “up and out” to Congress following the 1996 elections. He is the big politico from the West Side. He sounds as credible a candidate as anybody else will in this free-for-all of a mayoral election to take place.

And maybe he’d like to have an option beyond Congress. Because the reality of reapportionment in Illinois is that the Latino population has risen to the point where there probably should be two congressional districts designed for such representation – and the easiest way to achieve that “goal” is to do away with Davis’ district (which will run into significant opposition).

SO DAVIS IS now the “official” black candidate, as chosen by the coalition, which has failed. Not that it ever had a chance to succeed. The reality of political ego means that some of the people who appeared before the coalition made it clear they’re running for mayor, regardless of what that activist body had to say.

Moseley-Braun, who lost out on getting the coalition’s endorsement, went so far this weekend as to open her campaign office – picking out a space in the Bronzeville neighborhood that gives her both cheaper rent than a downtown location AND a symbolic tie to the African-American Chicago of old.

We also have soon-to-be former Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill., making it clear he is very interested in running for mayor (if we could only get Circuit Court Chief Judge Tim Evans and Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., into the mix, we’d have the bulk of Daley’s challengers trying to be his successor).

Davis is also going to have to take on Rev./state Sen. James Meeks, D-Chicago, saying he plans to be a candidate, hoping that his far South Side mega-church with its 20,000-member congregation gives him a solid base of supporters from which to begin a campaign for city-wide political office.

THERE’S EVEN PATRICIA Van Pelt Watkins, who may be a political unknown but claims to have already raised some $400,000 for her mayoral campaign, and seems to be playing off the theme of being a “new voice” for our city.

There may well be other African-American officials who decide to get into the mix – perhaps even Larry Rogers, who won’t let the fact that the coalition didn’t pick him stop him from filing nominating petitions with his name on them.

That is the one good part of this political process. The time to actually file those petitions is next week. From Nov. 15 through Nov. 22, candidates will have to either “put up or shut up” when it comes to being a candidate for mayor.

Which means that after next week, there won’t be any more speculation about IF a person will be a candidate. They either are or aren’t, then we can move on to the part of the process by which the candidates have their followers challenge the legitimacy of their opposition – in hopes of knocking a person or two off the ballot to try to bolster their own chances of winning.

THERE IS ONE aspect that strikes me as bizarre.

Since it is obvious there will be several African-American candidates in this campaign, it is ironic that things are shaping up thus far for there to be only one significant white candidate in this campaign – former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

There still is time for someone else to get into the mix. But how ironic would it be if the candidate choice for mayor next year becomes Emanuel and a slew of African-American candidates?

In short, the exact opposite of what that coalition had hoped would occur to begin with.

  -30-

Will Burris be “rollin’, rollin’, rollin’” back to City Hall for mayoral bid?

He’s got the itch. He wants to be an elected official.



BURRIS: Will he drop from 36 percent to 1 percent?

I think it is pretty clear that Roland Burris intends to campaign for mayor of Chicago in the 2011 municipal elections.

BURRIS IS OUR incumbent senator who is going to be replaced sometime around the end of the month, enabling Sen.-elect Mark Kirk, R-Ill., to gain about one month’s seniority on the other Senate newcomers.

I’ll be honest. If it would have been possible, I would have voted to keep Burris for the remainder of the term, because I think the bureaucratic bopping about that will take place soon is unnecessary, and likely will cause more confusion than it is worth.

Also, it may well have let Burris leave the U.S. Senate on his own terms (instead of booting him sometime about Nov. 29), thereby making it easier for the 73-year-old to accept the idea of political retirement.

Because after seeing him be interviewed this week on WTTW-TV, it was so obvious that he won’t leave electoral office voluntarily. He WILL be in the mix for mayor – most likely as a stubborn candidate who stays in all the way to the end and takes 1 percent of the vote.

WHICH MEANS WE’RE going to have to assume the role of a vampire slayer and drive a stake through the heart of his electoral ambitions with our lack of votes. Where’s Buffy when we need her?

Two things caught my attention about Burris’ comments.

For the record, he claims he’s not a candidate right now. He admits nominating petitions are being circulated on his behalf to try to gain the support required to get his name on the ballot for the February municipal elections, but says the people doing the legwork are doing this on their own – and that he will make up his mind what to do in a few weeks after seeing the results of their work.

Roland thinks we love him to the point where we’re going to sacrifice our time and effort to keep alive his political career (which really came to an end following the 1994 elections, even though he has been a perennial candidate for many offices ever since).

THE OTHER THING that caught my attention was Burris’ memory of the 1995 mayoral election, when Roland himself ran a campaign as a political independent and lost to Richard M. Daley.

In that election cycle (they were still having partisan primary elections back then prior to the general election), Burris managed to take 36.1 percent of the vote to Daley’s 60.1 percent. In short, Roland is just one of the many black politicos whom Daley has beaten up on (Tim Evans, Bobby Rush and Danny Davis are a few of the others) in mayoral elections.

I don’t think anybody has any special memory of the ’95 mayoral race, except for Roland, who described his performance as, “the highest performance against a Mayor Daley in our time,” while also pointing out that he got the one-third support during a campaign that lasted little more than 30 days.

In short, Burris thinks that he’s something special who can achieve victory come 2011.

ABOUT THE ONLY people in Chicago who suffer from greater delusions than that are Chicago Cubs fans who seriously believe their team is JUST THIS CLOSE to actually winning a National League pennant.

The thing to consider about Burris’ mayoral bid is that it came just one year after he lost his bid for Illinois governor, and just a few months after he left office as Illinois attorney general.

In short, Burris was still a viable political commodity. That first campaign he ran for the Democratic nomination for governor in 1994 (losing to Dawn Clark Netsch) was a legitimate political bid. There was no shame in that loss. He just got beaten. It happens.

It is his political activity in the years since that mayoral bid that have created the image of Burris as the old-timer who can’t accept his time has passed, and manages to chip away at his reputation bit by bit with each token campaign he runs.

THAT WILL BE the end result of any serious mayoral bid, although Burris during his television appearance this week admitted he thinks there are other credible candidates, including former Chicago Public Schools President Gery Chico, Rev. James Meeks, and former Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun – all of whom he said he could consider endorsing, should he decide NOT to go for Chicago mayor.

But he will. We will all snicker at the sight. And perhaps events will occur that will cause Burris to think that there is some other office he can run for in the future.

Although I have taken my share of pot-shots at Burris throughout my two-plus decades as a political reporter-type person, I have to confess to having some respect for the record he accomplished as the state’s attorney general, along with three terms as state comptroller.

It’s just too bad that Burris doesn’t return to his South Side home (the one he bought from famed gospel singer Mahalia Jackson) and become one of our historic figures – adding accounts of his two “Golden Gavels” (earned by presiding over the Senate for 200-plus hours) and support for President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform proposal to his tales of integrating the public swimming pool in Centralia by just diving in.

  -30-

A special election for 8 weeks in office – that’s the legal mess Illinois is in now

The complications being experienced in U.S. District Court these days in trying to figure out how to hold an election to pick a replacement for what is left of the Senate term Barack Obama was elected to in 2004 ought to be evidence of how inane the appeals court ruling was that called for such an election.

It was the federal appeals court in Chicago that earlier this year ruled that federal law requires special elections to be held to pick an interim senator, and has rejected claims by elections officials in Illinois that conducting a special election in this case presents too many logistical problems.

SO NOW, WE have U.S. District Judge John F. Grady hashing through the process with elections officials, trying to figure out just how we Illinois residents will pick a permanent replacement for Obama’s term, on account of the fact that Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill., can only be regarded as a temporary replacement.

Never mind the fact that he has been senator for nearly twice as many months as the permanent replacement will serve in weeks in the U.S. Senate.

Some people are just election-happy, regardless of how impractical it was.

Now anyone who has consistently read the commentary here knows that I did not have as much of a problem with the idea of Sen. Burris as some people did. I liked the idea of an older caretaker who would merely finish out the last two years of the Obama term representing Illinois in the Senate, and would not be a serious candidate to win a six-year term in the Nov. 2 elections.

I DIDN’T WANT anyone getting the benefits of incumbency. I wanted the two major party candidates for the Senate seat to have more-or-less equal footing (which is what has happened, we’re in a political fight in Illinois to see whether Alexi Giannoulias or Mark Kirk is the bigger fool).

I also did not want what some incredibly impractical people were calling for – a special election in 2009, followed up by the regular election in 2010.

Having to go through this nonsense of a full-fledged campaign cycle in two consecutive years, right after going through a presidential election in ’08 (and followed up by what many people consider to be the important race – for mayor in ’11) would be electoral overload.

It would break elections officials financially to have to do that, as well as fry us mentally.

BUT WHAT WE’RE going to get is something more ridiculous. Because the people who think they’re pushing for a good-government ideal by wanting yet another election to deal with are going to have to cope with the fact that all they’re doing is putting the major political parties in complete control of the process.

Isn’t that what they want to believe is the root of the actual problem?

Nothing is definite (that’s what elections officials are trying to resolve with Grady), but it seems that the Democratic, Republican and Green parties (they are still legitimate in Illinois) will get to pick the actual candidates to represent them in any special election. The “voters” will get no say. There’s also a good chance that any other parties or political independents will be shut out of this process – even though “Roland, Roland, Roland” Burris says he wants to be a part of any ballot to pick his successor.

How long until one of those independents challenges this whole process? What about Burris himself? I still think it would make the most sense to let him have those final eight weeks in federal office. This may be the one time that those people have a legitimate point.

AS HAS BEEN speculated, when people show up at their polling places on Nov. 2 (or at an early voting center in the weeks leading up to Election Day), they will be asked to vote twice for U.S. Senate – once for a person to serve from Nov. 3 to Jan. 3 at noon, then another to take over at that time and serve the full six-year term.

Common sense says that the political parties will nominate Giannoulias, Kirk and LeAlan M. Jones, which means that most people will vote for the same person for both Senate slots.

Which means that the practical result of this so-called desire for good government in picking our U.S. Senate member is that we will be giving whoever wins the real election an eight-week head start over all of the other new members who get elected to the Senate come Nov. 2.

I’m sure Giannoulias or Kirk (or, if a miracle happens, Jones) would like that. It would give them all that much more seniority among their Senate colleagues – which can mean for slightly more influence. It certainly would eliminate the end result of the 2004 elections when the Senate guidelines for determining seniority ensured that Obama was ranked as the 100th member of the Senate (out of 100).

PERHAPS ILLINOIS IS better off if our new senator ranks in the mid-90s. But it strikes me as a miniscule benefit to receive in exchange for the confusion people here are experiencing now in trying to figure out how we pick an eight-week replacement.

That is an experience that makes me shudder to the point where I just might try casting Burris’ name as a write-in vote for the eight-week term as an act of protest.

-30-

This is why ideologues should not be allowed to dominate our government policy

I’m very sure that I am one of the few people who is not bothered by the presence of Roland Burris in the U.S. Senate, because I always thought the idea of having a special election to pick someone to serve for a few months before the 2010 elections take place was a waste.

In my mind, that sentiment was reinforced when I learned of a U.S. Court of Appeals ruling this week that claims we must have an election to pick a person to complete the remainder of the six-year Senate term to which Barack Obama was elected in 2004.

THE APPEALS COURT based in Chicago issued a ruling that says the governor’s authority to make appointments to fill a Senate vacancy really means he has a “duty” to issue the order for a special election.

But the appeals court also ruled that the Illinois constitution is such that it gives the governor no leeway in terms of picking a date for said elections.

Therefore, had Blagojevich gone ahead and scheduled an election to pick a replacement for Obama – rather than picked Burris out of spite to his political opponents who were leading for his impeachment and removal from office at the time – his only choice would have been to schedule that special election for Nov. 2.

That’s the same date as the general elections across the country, and also the date upon which Illinois voters will be asked to pick between Alexi Giannoulias or Mark Kirk (there are a few alternate party candidates in the running, but none who are putting together anything resembling a campaign structure that deserves to be paid attention to).

ARE WE IN Illinois really going to subject the nation’s political observers to the sight of a senator for eight weeks, to be followed up by the winner of Giannoulias/Kirk/whatever?

Are we in Illinois really that eager to give Roland Burris an unceremonial dump that we would boot him from Capitol Hill on Nov. 3, rather than Jan.3, 2011?

I would think we in Illinois would be better off creating less confusion on Election Day by just accepting the fact that we have “Roland, Roland, Roland” for another two months, and that he will be rollin’, rollin’, rollin’ out of Washington and into political retirement as of next year.

Yet I’m sure we’re going to get the ideologues who will claim some high-minded noble goal is at stake in booting Burris from Washington sooner, rather than later.

FOR THOSE OF you who think it is just as simple a matter as letting the person who wins the full six-year term on Nov. 2 take office eight weeks early, no it isn’t.

If you’re going to go to all the trouble of demanding that the courts impose a special election, you have to be prepared to have a separate full-fledged special election, and not think you can make a special case by which one person in this country who gets elected to the Senate in November can have a political bonus of two extra months.

I would think that the rest of the country would be jumping down our throats if Illinois tried to do that, because every other victorious candidate would think it unfair that their counterpart from Illinois managed to get a two-month jump start on building up seniority – just because their state couldn’t have a goofy situation such as we had in Illinois back at the beginning of 2009.

WBEZ-FM in Chicago reported that the Illinois attorney general’s office is still studying the appeals court’s ruling, trying to figure out if there is some way they can interpret it so that there won’t have to be a full-fledged election, or if this is now going to have to wind up before the Supreme Court of the United States.

BECAUSE I AM hoping Illinois does not have to go through the embarrassment of having a separate election, and having significant numbers of people get confused on Election Day and wind up casting ballots for people for the wrong post as a result.

The Chicago Tribune reported recently how Burris, during 2009, received a pension of $121,747 for his years of government service (those three terms as state comptroller, along with one as state attorney general), along with his $174,000 salary for representing Illinois (in pretty much a competent, low-key manner) in the U.S. Senate.

If that were the case, I might just have to do a write-in vote for Burris. Roland for eight more weeks, then he gets to take his bucks accumulated during the past year and await the day he gets his final rest in that glorious tomb he already has had constructed for himself.

-30-

Roland rails against virtual Wall

Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill., is keeping himself busy this week, using his participation in a Senate committee hearing to question whether or not the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on a “virtual wall” along the U.S./Mexico border has been a waste.

Burris and Sen Joe Lieberman of Connecticut were the two most outspoken critics in Washington on the issue. It seems Roland wants to do something to get himself noticed for his partial term in Washington.

I WILL CREDIT Burris for showing a little bit of sense on this particular issue, even though I realize he has nothing to lose by speaking out because the rest of his life is going to be spent in retirement back in Chicago.

This site’s sister weblog, The South Chicagoan (http://southchicagoan.blogspot.com/) offers up more details about Burris’ activity.

-30-

ROLAND, ROLAND, ROLAND: Trying to end his career on a “high” note

Roland Burris is the man who likes to say he began his public life by desegregating the public swimming pool in his then-hometown of Centralia (he and his teenage friends showed up one day and just jumped into the pool that previously had been for white people only).

Now that the 72-year-old Burris is approaching the end of his public life, he seems determined to make an even bigger splash on behalf of political empowerment for African-American people.

FOR BURRIS IS telling that insiderish newspaper on Capitol Hill (called The Hill) that he wants President Barack Obama to pick a black person, preferably a woman, to the vacancy on the Supreme Court of the United States that will be created with the upcoming retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens.

In fact, Burris says he is spending his time these days “working on” a list of experienced legal people who happen to be African-American and female, and that he plans to use his political influence with the president to get him to take the idea seriously.

Quit laughing! You know you are.

This sounds to many of you like a bad Saturday Night Live sketch, possibly even worse than that one they actually aired last year where Kenan Thompson’s ignorance of the difference between running for multiple offices and multiple terms for the same office came up with one incredibly lame punchline coming from the mouth of “Burris.”

WILL WE SOON get Thompson once again giving us a Roland Burris, pompously sitting in his office putting together a list that no one other than himself will pay any attention to?

Actually, I should be a little honest. It isn’t even Burris putting a list together. It is his congressional staff. He has researchers to do the heavy lifting of digging up details to back up his arguments onvirtually anything – which, to be honest, all political people do.

Which is why I think those people who want to mock Rod Blagojevich for not knowing how to do basic research or use a computer are missing the point. He got elected to his political posts because of his “vision,” which basically means he wasn’t George Ryan – while Jim Ryan and Judy Baar Topinka were perceived as being too close to George.

And Milorod, in his final political act, gave us Burris, who is now trying to influence the choice of a new Supreme Court justice. Does this mean that a black woman justice on the Supreme Court could be perceived indirectly as Blagojevich’s lasting mark on our nation?

ALRIGHT, MY SARCASM there hung even more heavily than anytime Sarah Palin opens her mouth in public these days. But while I will concede there are less productive things Roland Burris could be doing with his time these days, the idea that our one-time attorney general with the incredibly ornate mausoleum already erected in his honor is trying to single-handedly pick a Supreme Court justice is worth more than a chuckle.

Then again, maybe it is something in the Washington air.

Because if one pays attention to the news reports emanating from the District of Columbia, there is talk coming from various political people about who Obama should choose for the life-long appointment to the nation’s high court.

There are those who are convinced it must be a woman. There are others who think it must be a protestant (because there is potential for a high court with nothing but Catholic and Jewish people).

SOME THINK IT should be a fairly conservative white man (because we don’t have enough of those in positions of authority), while others think Obama should make one blatantly partisan nomination during his presidency – instead of catering to people who would never vote for him in an election anyway.

I even read one report Tuesday morning from people who think the time has come for a Supreme Court justice who is gay and feels no need to cover that fact up.

So maybe in that environment, the image of Roland Burris sitting in his office, reading through research put together by his staff to make a statement about how the high court needs a black woman to go along with the Latina and the Jewish woman already on the court isn’t totally absurd.

Now I’m not going to claim to be an expert and say I know who Obama will pick. It could be someone with ties to him through Chicago, but I also wonder if he’d rather save that potential pick for a time when the confirmation process isn’t going to be such a blatantly ugly battle.

THEN AGAIN, MAYBE someone exposed to hard-core Chicago politics is exactly the kind of person who could handle the Senate Republican caucus’ hardest shots?

So what of the idea of an African-American woman, to boost the number of black people on the high court to two? What would Clarence Thomas think of such a colleague? To me, the idea makes as much sense as any of the other trial balloons being tossed about.

I couldn’t help but notice the “reader comments” published by The Hill along with their story about Buris’ desires. One reader who does not like Burris’ idea wrote, “you have your African-American justice: learn to appreciate him.”

Perhaps we should be fortunate he didn’t use another word instead of “African-American.” But to me, the idea that such people could be so offended by the idea may be reason enough to not dismiss Burris so lightly.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Roland Burris takes some credit for recognizing the skills and appeal of Sonia Sotomayor (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/91753-burris-obama-should-name-black-scotus-nominee) in an effort to bolster the chances that anybody will listen to his Supreme Court opinions this time.

Does Burris want to end his political career (http://snltranscripts.jt.org/08/08lmaddow.phtml) with another Saturday Night Live sketch “appearance?”

A former state Supreme Court justice from Georgia who also happens to be a black woman is on some versions (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Supreme_Court/obamas-supreme-court-short-list-includes-women/story?id=10359170) of Barack Obama’s “list” of potential nominees. Would Burris accept her? Or is Leah Ward Sears too friendly with Clarence Thomas for Roland to be comfortable?

EXTRA: At least he won’t be forgotten

It seems that “Roland, Roland, Roland” won’t be remembered just for turning the theme music to “Rawhide” into his own personal anthem.

The National Journal has come up with this year’s version of its “most liberal’ and “most conservative” members of Congress, and it seems that Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill., made the list. So even after Burris leaves Capitol Hill in January 2011, there will remain some evidence that he once existed within the District of Columbia.

SERIOUSLY, BURRIS MADE the Top 5 (all are Democrats) for liberal political people, which really shouldn’t be a shock. This is the guy who likes to think his life is a civil rights saga in and of itself (listen to him tell about how her personally integrated the public swimming pool in Centralia, Ill.), so it would make sense he would support most causes considered liberal.

Besides, this guy has so many eyes watching him that the last thing he needs to become is a renegade political person of some type. So is it really a shock that Burris got an “88” score on the Journal’s “liberal” scale? (For what it’s worth, Illinois’ other senator, Richard Durbin, only got an “85” score.

No Chicago-area officials made the “most conservative list” (which, by no surprise, was all Republican), but there was one other area politico who made the “liberal” list.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., of Evanston, made it among the five most liberal members of the House of Representatives.

HER COMPOSITE RATING for “liberalness” was 95.2, which puts her on top of Burris. Considering the composition of her congressional district, I wouldn’t be shocked to learn she’s celebrating tonight.

One other score caught my attention, that of Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., whose conservative score was “93.2,” with only two other political people less liberal than he. Just in case you’re wondering what kind of person takes pride in being able to say he delayed the approval of legislation to extend payment of jobless benefits or payments for unemployed worker health insurance through the COBRA program.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTE: Check out your own congressman to see how “loyal” he is being toward your own politically partisan (http://www.nationaljournal.com/2009voteratings) views.