Their announcements took place about one week apart, and the end result of b
oth political officials is that their careers doing “the people’s business” are effectively over.
I’m writing, of course, about the soon-to-be-former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and the can’t-leave-soon-enough-for-some Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill.
YET IT IS with the two of them that perhaps we ought to think seriously about the concept of “lame ducks” – that breed of politician who knows he’s history, but still remains on the government rolls for a little while longer.
In the case of Palin, the reason she allegedly is leaving her political post later this month is that she doesn’t think she can accomplish much as a “lame duck” governor – she realizes that the powers-that-be are not about to do a thing for her.
Of course, she spins her reasoning to try to give herself a high-minded purpose in resigning now rather than f
inishing the four-year term to which the electorate of Alaska chose her back in the 2006 elections.
Lame ducks are merely people living off the government teat, enjoying the perks of a political post while being unable to do anything for the public good. In short, they’re a waste of space (and a government paycheck).
YET BURRIS SEEMS to think otherwise.
When he announced last week that he is not going to run for re-election because he does not see he has the ability to do the kind of fundraising needed to run a serious political campaign, he claimed that he will now be one of the few public officials who will be able to focus his time on “the people’s business.”
Public policy will be his goal for the 18 months remaining on the term he’s finishing up for Barack Obama (who resigned with about two years remaining so that he could be the guy who gets to throw out the first pitch at the baseball All-Star Game to be played Tuesday in St. Louis).
So who’s right? More importantly, which of these two political has-beens (whether they realize it or not, both of them have seen their best days) is more absurd in his/her logic?
NOW I REALIZE a lot of people reading this commentary are going to suddenly shift into a politically partisan mode. It is going to be what decides this question for their mentalities.
Those who are inclined to oppose Obama and the current partisan leanings of the federal government are going to claim that of course Palin is correct, while those in support are going to find ways to back Burris.
And I must admit my own partisan leanings (I’m a Democrat largely because I see that party as the one that keeps urban America’s interests in mind) impact my viewpoint.
In theory, Burris is correct, and I must admit that I am pleased with the way the situation for Illinois’ representation in the U.S. Senate has turned out (Roland, Roland, Roland gets to be the fill-in through next year, while the voters of Illinois will decide in the 2010 elections who gets the post for the long term).
THOSE OF YOU who think Roland should resign and are going to start screeching for a special election need to get a grip. Do we really want to go through the mess of an election in 2009, only to repeat the process in ’10?
It seems so wasteful of the tax dollars that would be spent to conduct such special elections, which is money we in Illinois really don’t have to spare these days. That ought to become blatantly apparent in Springfield on Tuesday when the Legislature gets one last crack at doing something to pass a balanced budget before there have to start being serious cuts – we’re that far into the fiscal year that began 13 days ago.
But back to Burris. The reason I write “in theory” is that I realize the baggage that some people are determined to attach to Roland (because they despise the memory of Rod Blagojevich that much) probably makes it difficult for Burris to be a political heavyweight in the U.S. Senate.
He may try to take on some serious issues, but he’d be better off (as would the people of Illinois) if he realized he’s just there to vote on our behalf on the bills that come before the Senate.
REPRESENTING OUR INTERESTS, rather than his own ego, could be the best thing Roland could do to overcome the absurdity that has developed around his reputation during the past six months.
He could leave with a little bit of dignity. Go for it Roland.
That is more than Sarah Palin will leave with. Admittedly, she’s younger and theoretically still has a future ahead of her.
But Palin is one who despite her youth and political inexperience has managed to make many enemies and has given herself a neophyte reputation that she will never overcome.
IN THAT SENSE, she truly is Daniella Quayle (We’ve got to credit the New York Post for coming up with that label).
I honestly believe the only chance she had to redeem herself was to suddenly get serious with the ways of Alaska government and politics. Show that she really does have some substance.
Instead, she tries to bill her departure as the substance, which is just ridiculous. She may very well wind up with some sort of conservative think tank that allows her to build up a reputation of support among the far right, but that just won’t do when it comes to a national election and where any candidate who tries to get elected despite the opposition of the masses is doomed to failure.
In short, I can’t help but look at these two officials, and think that the irony is that in Sarah Palin, we finally have found a public official who makes Roland Burris’ performance of the past six months look downright competent by comparison.
-30-
oth political officials is that their careers doing “the people’s business” are effectively over.I’m writing, of course, about the soon-to-be-former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and the can’t-leave-soon-enough-for-some Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill.
YET IT IS with the two of them that perhaps we ought to think seriously about the concept of “lame ducks” – that breed of politician who knows he’s history, but still remains on the government rolls for a little while longer.
In the case of Palin, the reason she allegedly is leaving her political post later this month is that she doesn’t think she can accomplish much as a “lame duck” governor – she realizes that the powers-that-be are not about to do a thing for her.
Of course, she spins her reasoning to try to give herself a high-minded purpose in resigning now rather than f
inishing the four-year term to which the electorate of Alaska chose her back in the 2006 elections.Lame ducks are merely people living off the government teat, enjoying the perks of a political post while being unable to do anything for the public good. In short, they’re a waste of space (and a government paycheck).
YET BURRIS SEEMS to think otherwise.
When he announced last week that he is not going to run for re-election because he does not see he has the ability to do the kind of fundraising needed to run a serious political campaign, he claimed that he will now be one of the few public officials who will be able to focus his time on “the people’s business.”
Public policy will be his goal for the 18 months remaining on the term he’s finishing up for Barack Obama (who resigned with about two years remaining so that he could be the guy who gets to throw out the first pitch at the baseball All-Star Game to be played Tuesday in St. Louis).
So who’s right? More importantly, which of these two political has-beens (whether they realize it or not, both of them have seen their best days) is more absurd in his/her logic?
NOW I REALIZE a lot of people reading this commentary are going to suddenly shift into a politically partisan mode. It is going to be what decides this question for their mentalities.
Those who are inclined to oppose Obama and the current partisan leanings of the federal government are going to claim that of course Palin is correct, while those in support are going to find ways to back Burris.
And I must admit my own partisan leanings (I’m a Democrat largely because I see that party as the one that keeps urban America’s interests in mind) impact my viewpoint.
In theory, Burris is correct, and I must admit that I am pleased with the way the situation for Illinois’ representation in the U.S. Senate has turned out (Roland, Roland, Roland gets to be the fill-in through next year, while the voters of Illinois will decide in the 2010 elections who gets the post for the long term).
THOSE OF YOU who think Roland should resign and are going to start screeching for a special election need to get a grip. Do we really want to go through the mess of an election in 2009, only to repeat the process in ’10?
It seems so wasteful of the tax dollars that would be spent to conduct such special elections, which is money we in Illinois really don’t have to spare these days. That ought to become blatantly apparent in Springfield on Tuesday when the Legislature gets one last crack at doing something to pass a balanced budget before there have to start being serious cuts – we’re that far into the fiscal year that began 13 days ago.
But back to Burris. The reason I write “in theory” is that I realize the baggage that some people are determined to attach to Roland (because they despise the memory of Rod Blagojevich that much) probably makes it difficult for Burris to be a political heavyweight in the U.S. Senate.
He may try to take on some serious issues, but he’d be better off (as would the people of Illinois) if he realized he’s just there to vote on our behalf on the bills that come before the Senate.
REPRESENTING OUR INTERESTS, rather than his own ego, could be the best thing Roland could do to overcome the absurdity that has developed around his reputation during the past six months.
He could leave with a little bit of dignity. Go for it Roland.
That is more than Sarah Palin will leave with. Admittedly, she’s younger and theoretically still has a future ahead of her.
But Palin is one who despite her youth and political inexperience has managed to make many enemies and has given herself a neophyte reputation that she will never overcome.
IN THAT SENSE, she truly is Daniella Quayle (We’ve got to credit the New York Post for coming up with that label).
I honestly believe the only chance she had to redeem herself was to suddenly get serious with the ways of Alaska government and politics. Show that she really does have some substance.
Instead, she tries to bill her departure as the substance, which is just ridiculous. She may very well wind up with some sort of conservative think tank that allows her to build up a reputation of support among the far right, but that just won’t do when it comes to a national election and where any candidate who tries to get elected despite the opposition of the masses is doomed to failure.
In short, I can’t help but look at these two officials, and think that the irony is that in Sarah Palin, we finally have found a public official who makes Roland Burris’ performance of the past six months look downright competent by comparison.
-30-
1 comment:
Of course, as a partisan Democrat, you failed to credit Palin with the fact that she was responsible for passage of the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act, and cleaning up the ethics wreckage left by both the Murkowski and Knowles Administrations.
Which is a damn sight more than both Roland Burris and Barack Obama ever accomplished in either of thier short careers in the Senate.
You may be entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to your own set of facts.
Post a Comment