Yeah, he’s a perennial loser, and clearly a big part of this Senate seat thing has to do with wanting to be able to include “United States Senator” on his tombstone, but you know what, so what? Losing elections doesn’t make you a bad public servant (just like winning elections doesn’t make you a good one), and frankly his detractors have no case whatsoever. Burris is the legal Senator from the Illinois—it’s flagrantly ridiculous to not seat him, and we all know it’s even more flagrantly illegal. Despite the intense, intense spotlight on him, nobody can drum up even a second-rate allusion of pay-to-play here, and the precedent that Secretary of States have veto power of a Governor’s legal appointments in the absence of ANY convictions against said governor is a pretty rank notion. I also remain thoroughly unclear that the Senate has the authority to not seat Burris, but even if they do, it’ll be the first time they’ve exercised it without even an accusation of misconduct against the appointee or even a thread of a legal case against his appointment (plenty of indicted criminals return to Congress nearly every session, let’s remember, and does anyone believe Stevens or Jefferson wouldn’t have been seated, ultimately, if they came back)?

Hell, I even think that Burris would make a pretty good Senator, and he is about the only major player in this entire thing that does NOT really have blood on his hands. The Illinois Democratic machine is a wreck and a disgrace. Blago is a tumor, not the cancer. If Burris runs in 2010, I’ll vote for him.

And all this stuff of “but could he win reelection in 2010″ is the sort of partisanship that turns my nose. If the Democrats don’t believe he’s got a shot, they’re welcome to run people against him in the primary. It’s a little hard to get high and mighty about the whole thing, though, if what it comes down to your own desire to game the system to keep your party in power. I have precisely no respect for Quinn and the rest who could throw it to the voters if they were interested in the integrity of the seat, but would much prefer just bypassing the entire impeachment, conviction, and primary process and just have Harry Reid allow the state’s party elders to pick whoever the hell they want despite having no legal authority to do so.

You don’t seat Burris now, and that’s a bad, bad precedence that we’re going to be aching from down the road.

And this guy *does* have ties to governor B. Doesn’t make him crooked, but let’s not paint him as some sort of outsider.

The tale I see unfolding here is one where a corrupt governor who has been caught red-handed vindictively makes an appointment that he ought not to have made under the circumstances. Blago chose to USE Burris, and Burris has gone along because he thinks this is his last shot at the big leagues. So there’s the tang of sweaty desperation about it all.

Let’s face it, regardless of Burris’s noticeable merits, he’s in a position that’s fairly analagous to that of a scab worker. People think he doesn;’t deserve to have the job he’s claiming a right to.

But still it’s an unusual position, because while most folks agree that Blago ought not to have made the appointment, the person he appointed appears to be acceptable in all respects except that Blago was the one who appointed him. That’s what makes it all so very absurd.

Although he was elected 4 times in Illinois, he’s LOST the last *five* Democratic primaries, including those for Senator, Governor, and Chicago mayor. Clearly his career as an *elected* official in Illinois has run its course. With 5 losses in a row, there’s no reason to believe he could hold the seat in 2010.

Second, that circus in D.C. wasn’t about “moxie” or strength.” It was about pure ego. The man has a giant granite monument to himself with “Trail Blazer” carved on it, along with a list of ‘accomplishments.’ And to drive the ego point still further, his kids are named Roland and Rolanda. He has said “God has ordained” his appointment and is already demanding to be called “Senator” even though he hasn’t been sworn in.

We may be stuck with him, but 5 consecutive losses would indicate we won’t be keeping him. And the Illinois GOP can hardly wait.