Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

  • Calendar

    May 2024
    S M T W T F S
  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

  • Archives

A senate hypothetical

Posted by Richard on January 7, 2009

Imagine there is a vacant Senate seat in a midwestern state, and the governor appoints a black man to fill the seat. The governor is under an ethical cloud, but hasn't even been indicted. He remains in office, performing all the gubernatorial duties every day, and he appears to have made the appointment in accord with state law. Imagine that the appointee appears to have a long and successful civic and political career, with a much stronger resumé and more experience in elected office than the senator he's replacing.

Oh, wait — that's not hypothetical, that's the news. 

Here's the hypothetical: Imagine that the Senate is still controlled by the GOP. Imagine that a bunch of white Republicans block the Senate chamber door and deny the black appointee a seat.

Can you picture it? Just imagine …

[No, I'm not rising to the defense of Roland Burris. He's rabidly anti-gun-rights and has worked for a national handgun ban (while owning one himself), and I'd rather not have him anywhere near a legislative body. I'm just struck by how once again different standards apply to Democrats. I believe this is example #694,371.]

On a somewhat related note, you might be interested in Dawn Trice's thoughtful column about "Magic Negroes" and "authentic" black men.

Subscribe To Site:

7 Responses to “A senate hypothetical”

  1. Tabacco said

    Cute, but no cigar!

    First, no Republican governor would nominate a Black Senator. He would have a tough time finding a Black Republican, who is qualified.

    Second, if that Republican governor were guilty of the same crimes as this Democrat, only a complete and utter idiot would miss the fact that the governor is merely attempting to preempt his own expulsion by “using” the Black man. And nobody can trust this appointee. If Democrats cave in and allow him to even finish out Obama’s term, they should be boiled in oil.

    During the last 8 years of the Bush presidency, I have learned valuable lessons. One of those lessons is this: “As we cannot trust George W. Bush, so we cannot trust any Bush appointee”. That Truism also works for untrustworthy Democrats.


    PS You requested that I “say something”! (Smile)

    See, even Democrats are not above “using” Blacks.

  2. rgcombs said

    Nice try yourself, Tab.

    First, it’s not as hard to find a qualified black Republican as you suggest. To cite a recent example, Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele was eminently qualified for the Senate (and I hope wins the RNC chairmanship now). But Democrats threw Oreos at him and “proved” he wasn’t qualified by portraying him as a black-faced minstrel.


    Second, how does Blago “preempt his own expulsion” by appointing Burris? He doesn’t. He’s just decided that if he can’t get a big check, he’ll poke a finger in the eye of his political allies who’ve “betrayed” him. I must admit I grudgingly admire the audacity and cleverness.

    Third, the very circumstances of the appointment make any funny business or collusion between Blago and Burris highly unlikely. I suspect Burris was picked at least in part because he seems to be as squeaky clean as anyone in Illinois politics can be. Your truism isn’t true, either for Bush or for this situation — unless you can present evidence to back it up.

    That said, I hope your position prevails and the Dems keep him out. As I said, I don’t want him doing any lawmaking. 🙂

  3. rgcombs said

    Tab, your arguments distracted me and I almost forgot the most important point: Burris was appointed ”in accordance with the law!” It doesn’t matter what you or the Illinois Secretary of State or the Democrats in the Senate think — there is no ”legal” basis for rejecting him.

    Immediately after the Blago scandal broke, Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin proposed the correct course of action (and it’s not often that I agree with Durbin): the Illinois legislature should have immediately enacted a law rescinding the governor’s power to appoint and mandating a special election.

    But the Democrats in the state legislature blocked that bill because they didn’t want to risk leaving it up to the voters. They instead hoped to oust Blago quickly so that the Lt. Gov. could appoint a Democrat. They screwed up. Tough.

    The law is the law. I don’t want to see Burris in the Senate. You don’t want to see Burris in the Senate. Democrats in Illinois and Washington don’t want to see Burris in the Senate. But he was appointed ”in accordance with the law.”

    Or doesn’t that matter?

  4. Tabacco said


    Let’s get real. When it comes to the “Law”, both Dems & GOPers use the ones they like at the moment and disregard the ones they don’t like. So that “Legal” stuff is just that – STUFF!

    As to laws, they are being changed, amended, modified, scrapped and ignored all the time. Slavery, Segregation, Miscegenation etc. have been Law in this country in various eras. Should bad laws or “incomplete” laws be obeyed just because some scum says it’s the law? I say, “No!”. All people say “No!” to bad laws that affect them negatively. Today, Legalized Bribery, known as “Lobbying” is not only the Law of the Land, but rigorously deployed all the time. And of course Bush has violated international laws repeatedly and continuously. And let’s not forget Ronald Reagan & Iran Contra. I won’t even mention Nixon, the only one to pay for breaking the “Law”.

    If that MD Lt. Gov. Michael Steele is a Republican, he is not even qualified to be Lt. Gov. No Republican is! I’m surprised you didn’t mention that Black Republican, Alan Keyes, who ran against Obama and lost. In case you missed it, Maryland is NOT Illinois. If I could, I would place a US map here so you could see for yourself. It is instructive that you went all the way to Maryland to find someone you consider qualified to be Illinois Senator! (Stretchinnnnnnnnng)

    “But he was appointed in accordance with the law. Or doesn’t that matter? ” – Only to you!


  5. rgcombs said

    ”In case you missed it, Maryland is NOT Illinois. If I could, I would place a US map here so you could see for yourself. It is instructive that you went all the way to Maryland to find someone you consider qualified to be Illinois Senator!”

    Sarcasm works better if you don’t strain so much at it. I didn’t suggest Steele for the Illinois senate seat, but simply as an example to counter your foolish claim that “no Republican governor” could find a black Republican qualified to be a senator.

    But then, you’re such a rabid, hate-filled partisan that you think being a Republican disqualifies someone from elected office, so why am I wasting my time?

    ” “But he was appointed in accordance with the law. Or doesn’t that matter? ” – Only to you! ”

    To me and a few others who still cling to John Adams’ quaint, old-fashioned notion that we should be a nation of laws, not of men.

  6. Tabacco said

    John Adams was extremely myopic and naive – as are you! Sorry. But being a nice guy, as you are, is not necessarily compatible with being realistic. I prefer being a “sarcastic” realist to being an “Alice in Wonderland” optimist. You see things as they should be; Tabacdo sees things as they are. Those, who prefer to read fairy tales, I recommend Lewis Carroll or RGCombs.

    Maybe you should write children’s Fairy Tales instead. I understand that both Carroll and Hans Christian are dead now.


    PS I am not responsible for making Republicans the way they are. Sorry! Absolute Selfishness wasn’t invented by me.

  7. Tabacco said

    One Minor Correction:

    The word “partisan”, as you have applied it to me, is inaccurate. Democrats are only slightly less virulent than Republicans as a rule. I would reregister in the Green Party, except that would preempt me from voting in Democratic Primaries. Lou Dobbs wants everyone to register as Independent. That is pure silliness, and Lou knows it. I think, therefore I can see past my nose.

    My loss of confidence in Democrats extends to Obama.

    Incidentally, you don’t NEED A REASON to vote against any Presidential nominee. Any Senator can vote Yea, Nay or not vote at all. You seem to have forgotten that fact. The Founding Fathers did not say “You may not vote against a presidential nominee if he is ‘qualified’.” They said you may vote – period! They did not say how you MUST vote. That is your silliness and the Media’s.

    And there is more anger than satire in my comments. Political Stupidity and Myopia make me an angry member of the electorate.


    PS I save my cleverness for my own blog.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.