Can this man get RESPECT?

They say truth is stranger than fiction . . . and such is the Illinois senatorial soap opera. The irony is stark as the new phase unfolds with the politics of race coming into play even as we have just elected the first African-American president. To recap, the defamed governor, Rod Blogovich (defamed because he has been indicted by FBI who allegedly caught the governor red-handed trying to sell the open seat), has just named a career Illinois politician named Roland Burris to take the now vacant Obama senate seat. The pick has created at least two schools of thought in the democratic party:

• Those that don't want to honor the pick nor seat Mr. Burris in the senate. This list is long of state officials and democractic senate leaders who see Blagovich too tainted to make any credible pick, regardless of the credentials of Mr. Burris or anyone else. Senate majority leader Harry Reid has said the senate will not seat anyone chosen by Blagovich. Even Reverend Al Sharpton is reluctant to endorse Mr. Burris, stating, "As much as I would like there to be a black in the Senate, we should not turn around and impose any kind of racial litmus test." Those in this camp see two options: conduct an open election or impeach the governor and let the lieutenant governor appoint the next senator.


• A number of black leaders who see the justice of replacing President-elect Obama with another African-American. Bobby Rush, a former black Chicago congressman evoked past times of discrimination and stated clearly that an all white senate was unjust. The 71-year old Mr. Burris is qualified in no less important way than he was black.

My question: Can Mr. Burris be really given a fair chance if he is indeed seated as the Illinois senator? Qualification is a subjective concept. By all accounts Mr. Burris is qualified and is not tainted by the Blagovich scandal. My guess is that Burris cannot win in this situation (in terms of respect). Consider a few recent examples:

• George Bush squeaks out a disputed victory in 2000. Whether he won fair and square is irrelevant -- perception was that the process was not fair. Sure his Iraq policy was controversial, but some never saw him as legitimate.


• Sarah Palin is selected as V.P. in 2008. While a good argument could be made that her experience was credible, her pick was tainted somewhat by the perception of a flawed process. Many people believe that she was a hasty, unvetted choice by McCain and conclusions were drawn about her based on this perception. Even a number of republicans bought into the idea of an inadequate candidate (some vowing to vote for Obama who had less executive experience but who had been vetted in a reputable process).

Roland Norris was appointed on Tuesday and already we hear reports about him that are unflattering. David Broder of the Washington Post basically gives Burris at best a backhanded compliment, calling him a nice man who hit his political ceiling long ago. Chicago writer Steve Chapman is more blunt calling Norris an "empty suit." You see justice is embedded in processes not results. Bringing blacks into the senate is a worthy goal, but ensuring the integrity of the process is more important. That is what makes Obama's feat so compelling--he did it within the bounds of a fair process, absorbing the flack of political fire and benefitting from some political luck (all a part of the process), but gaining no apparent assistance from powers purporting to serve just ends by subverting fair processes.

I trust 2009 will continue the interesting theater.