Can you help me figure out this conundrum? Harry Reid has said that he will not seat Roland Burris as the next Democratic Senator from the state of Illinois because of the taint all around Blago. Harry has expressed the need to make a stand on this issue and has stated that he can use the US Senate to block this from happening. I have a little problem with that and I will get to it in a moment...

Did you know that Minnesota has an open senate seat? A REALLY wide open seat. (not a Larry Craig open seat -gutter!! people -- out of it!!) As of Saturday, Norm Coleman was no longer a sitting senator. We learned over the weekend that Al Franken won the popular vote in his state by a number closer to 200 votes. It now must go the the Secretary of State to be verified, and then to the state senate. In the mean time, Norm will be fighting it all the way.

That brings me back to Harry Reid. What will Harry do? On Tuesday, the 111th Congress convenes. 2 quick questions come to mind:
1) Will he allow Norm to take a seat in his office?
2) Will he block Roland from entering the Senate building?

I have been watching the drama unfold over the past few days and Harry has taken a bold and STRONG stance as the Senate leader. A bold stance to block a DEMOCRATIC senate selection. He has taken a NOT so bold stance to tell a GOP senator that he no longer has a seat. While I understand the desire to have the corruption taint not exist, why is Harry fighting harder to have Roland Burris NOT show up than he is to make sure that Norm knows he lost?

Tuesday will tell what happens. It seems to me that if Harry is gonna fight, it would be about keeping a non seated senator out of the senate building.

Reid keeps invoking Article 1.5 as a reason to block Burris. Why didn't he invoke Article 1.5 when Ted Steven was convicted? It seems to me that in order for this provision to be invoked, a senator needs to be seated AND commit disorderly behavior to be expelled. I am looking for a clause in the constitution that says it gives ANY member of the senate the ability to prevent an appointment. Harry never invoked this clause with Ted Stevens. As a matter of fact, the convicted felon got a standing ovation from GOP members.

This is not an endorsement of Roland Burris. I am just questioning Harry Reid's priorities. His leadership is looking like he is fighting small battles and not understanding the war. That is not real leadership, that is bad management.

We need to get our Democratic Senators seated now... it might not be the people Harry wants, but if we as Dems are going to respect the rule of law, we need to let Roland Burris be seated regardless of who appointed him. Harry needs to respect the rule, as ugly as it might seem.

Harry should spend more time making sure senators who are NOT sitting in elected office don't show up on Tuesday expecting a seat.

Let Burris stay. He was appointed legally, if not morally -- and the people of Illinois can make the choice in the next election whether they want him to remain senator. In the meantime, we have another Dem seat that we very much need. Harry Reid doesn't get to appoint the next senator from the state of Illinois. He is overstepping his authority and ignoring the one he has right now by not preventing Norm Coleman from returning to the Senate. He lost. He has no seat and he was not declared the winner.

Am I missing something here?

:peace: and :heart:
Raine

(On second thought, maybe Harry could let Coleman have a broom closet over next to storage Room B. )