UPDATE: For those wondering what, specifically, I'm referring to, dig Reid's mushy performance below. From what I can tell, Blago is playing this dude like a fiddle. I found his legal arguments to be unpersuasive. Moreover, why Reid thinks telling people that the Senate decides who they'll, seat and who they won't, will play well, is beyond me. But most disturbing, I found his denial about Jesse/Danny/Emil to be not credible. The "I don't remember" part is particularly disturbing. Dude, it was only a month ago. I don't believe that the Illinois Senate seat should be a "black seat." But I also don't think disqualifying three black possibilities, for someone who lost a congressional run, is smart politics. I've always waved off complaints about Reid's relative weakness. I'll have to look harder at those charges now.
UPDATE#2: Here's Dick Durbin. Much, much, much more effective. I'm still skeptical, but he was much better. He was better defending Harry Reid, than Harry Reid was.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Agreed. This thing is turning into something that even in their wildest dreams the Republicans couldn't have hoped for.
I don't even know what to say anymore.
Dannity Kane-
Agreed. Huge cluster. But if unemployment is hovering around 5.5% to 6% in November 2010, this won't matter, the D's will keep the seat (provied Burris doesn't actually try to run) if it's not, it won't matter anyway....
k1
ryanculver.blogspot.com
I watched it too - or actually, I tried to watch it and couldn't manage more than a few minutes. Embarrassing.
He sucks. If the last two weeks have shown us anything, it's that the Dems have no depth whatsoever.
It's the 1986-87 Chicago Bulls: Jordan and Oakley supported by Steve Coulter, Granville Waiters, Earl Cureton, Dave Corzine, Gene Banks, and Brad Sellers. Yeah, Johnny Paxon was there too. I guess he's Pelosi.
Yep. It was a shameful performance. Thing is, it's not like Harry Reid didn't have time to prepare before he went on the air. I mean, was that really his best defense?
Thing is, TNC, Reid didn't have a legal argument to rely upon. He knows the law isn't on his side in this case. But he couldn't even argue the facts of the case intelligibly either.
Not only did Blago play him like a fiddle. Gregory did too.
Meant to throw that in, black. Gregory really did mash him.
This is just another reminder of the deeply pathetic leadership the Democrats have in Congress. Reid and Pelosi are in the urban dictionary next to "weak sauce". I symbolically voted for Nancy Pelosi's Republican opponent because of her absolute cowardice in failing to marshal any meaningful opposition to a spectacularly unpopular lame duck president (symbolically, because there was, of course, no chance she'd lose in SF).
Now is not the time for gutless, ordinary, politicians of this stripe being in charge of twisting arms and making things happen. This is actually the main reason why I was disappointed that Rahm Emanuel ended up working in the White House; I had hopes he'd lead an insurgency against Pelosi and we'd have someone with some huevos in the driver's seat there. With big initiatives planned by the Obama administration in 2009, does anyone trust Harry Reid to stand up, twist arms, use the bully pulpit, and otherwise force Republicans to take responsibility for their filibustering of Obama's appointees and legislation? You must know that this is what is going to happen - every big progressive push will be watered down by Reid's inability to run the Senate. If you think this man isn't going to get pwned by the Republicans again and again, you're crazy. The only way Reid could manage to stop a filibuster is if the Democrats had an ironclad 60+ seat majority.
Blocking Burris makes no sense either legally or politically.
The law is clear that Congress cannot add qualifications (such as "not appointed by someone we don't like") to those listed in the Constitution. If Reid & Co. persist in trying to do so, the Supreme Court will have to stop them, just as in the Powell case.
Politically, this is just as dumb. Okay, so they are terrified of being associated in any way with Blagojevich. But couldn't they come up with a statement that recognizes Burris as a legal appointee, even as they denounce Blagojevich? Voters are smart enough to know that accepting the legal validity of the governor's actions is not the same thing as endorsing the governor personally.
Isn't it possible Reid and Blago are fiddling together? Typical good-cop/bad-cop? Nate Silver thinks the Dems benefit by looking publicly like they are standing up to one of their own, but then just as publicly losing a legal battle over their authority to seat Burris.
Personally, I'd like to see more of this directed at the other side of the aisle. The equivalent would be making the Republicans filibuster instead of playing the cloture shell game.
God DAMN it. Reid is so beyond worthless. He is going to knuckle under like frigging Play-doh. Anyone who watched his inept handling of the turncoat Lieberman could have seen this coming.
How on earth did this asshat get to be the Senate majority leader? Don't you have to be effective in some way?
Justin Case,
Pelosi has been very effective as a leader the problem has always been the senate. Harry Reid is an idiot. Given the circumstances, the senate is within its rights to investigate the appointment. If Burris is innocent then he and his partisans should not be upset with the senate conducting an investigation. And besides it makes the Dems look pro-active while not being tied to Blago.
Reid has always been pathetic and weak. He caved on FISA, wiretapping, torture, war funding---he is weak sauce defined, as someone would say.
In the end, odds are he folds on Burris as well. If he doesn't then he's really picked the stupidest possible to time to stiffen his spine.
TKD, the trouble is that Reid and company told Blago well in advance that no appointee he chose would be seated. If Burris is seated without at least an evident fight, then it only proves that Reid has no power to back up anything he says.
Dan, what's worse for Reid, backing down now, or having the supreme court shoot him down? Because those are his choices.
He's praying for the impeachment to go quickly, but I doubt it gets done before February
As Wonkette noted when Blago made the announcement, politically outmaneuvering Harry Reid may be the easiest achievement known to man. I bet there are middle school student council presidents out there who could do it while simulataneously completing their math homework.
I do credit Reid (and Pelosi) with our not being at war in Iran, which as some may recall back in 2007 Cheney thought would be fabulous and fix all our problems in Iraq and that other country we invaded that doesn't have oil. And I still like Pelosi, but man, Reid is not handling Dem control of all 3 branches in a manner to inspire confidence.
There is plenty of reason to block Burris "legally and politically." The process by which he was selected was corrupted. It's not about Burris being corrupt, but rather about the other choices which were tossed off the list for refusing to "pay to play". The supreme court has said the senate cannot block a legitimately elected or appointed senator, but whether or not Burris's appointment is legitimate is very much in doubt. Politically, it would be massively damaging to the Dems if they declared they would not seat Blago's appointed and then roll over when he pull such a flimsy and transparent race card manuever.
Without getting into issues that I'm not prepared to get into on the internet, the thing that bugs me about this situation is I know Reid is a weak leader. Anyone who cares about and follows progressive issues knows it. And it can be frustrating after the Gingrich's and the DeLay's and Frist's ran roughshod over Democrats and advanced the agenda of the right so effectively to see him in a leadership position.
The thing is, part of the reason for that I supported Obama very early on was I agree that our politics are simply too polarized. And accepting that, you accept that there will be compromise in issues that you care about, and that this compromise is a good thing provided its done in good faith and advances an important agenda. And Harry Reid seems to have the respect of his colleagues in the Senate and is known as someone with intimate knowledge of Senate rules and technicalities. And I try to remember all that everytime I see Reid doing a piss poor job explaining some issue or another. I try to remember that you can lose a battle and win the war, and vice versa. That subtlety and wisdom trump bluster and bullheadedness. Speak softly and carry a big stick and all that happy bullshit. And for this reason, I often end up defending Harry Reid online, even if I don't think he's a very effective leader. I figure that he has other strengths that aren't seen publicly.
But, there's no way to defend what's unfolding right now. Especially if the story about his sticking his nose in Illinois' Senate appointment is accurate. For God's sake, the man can't even defend himself adequately against charges of racism lobbed by a relative dullard like Gregory. He can't publicly articulate a reasonable case against seating an appointment from a muppet like Blagojevich when given days to put one together. How can anyone expect him to advance a difficult legislative agenda against a party that has nothing to lose by obstructing anything and everything that Obama sends their way? What coalition can Harry Reid keep together?
I'm done. I don't care how this plays out. Personally, I don't want Burris seated as I think it's a big step back too the two steps forward that we took in seeing Obama elected, but in the end, who really cares. What I don't want is for Reid to be majority leader in 2010. And that is a battle that I now think is important enough to take to the mat.
Dan,
when Reid made that statement, he had no law on his side.
This is what it's about. Either we are a country of laws again after 8 years, or we are not.
Blago wasn't the impeached Governor. Or the convicted Governor. Or even the indicted Governor when he made the appointment.
Put the blame where it belongs: with Ill. Speaker of the House Michael Madigan. He and Reid thought they'd be SLICK about the 'special election'.
What they are now is STUCK.
OT: Richardson Withdraws as Commerce Secretary
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28493919/
Can I just say that, as a citizen of the northwest side of Chicago, Illinois, I am so unbearably frustrated by all this. One of my senators just became president (yay!), my governor is a corrupt and castrated clown, my US Rep (Rahm) is retired and his seat is empty for now, my state legislature is a pack of useless brainless bickering ditherers who only care about their own backsides, and my alleged "new" Senator is a stubborn old fool who I am convinced represents his own interests more than he'll ever represent mine.
I have never felt more voiceless in my life, and it's just as I was beginning to believe my voice might be heard again. Every day I turn on the news I just want to throw shit as I shout GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER, MOTHERFUCKERS. And the media just act like it's a fab juicy storyline, the latest in a soap opera, and they're only there to pass out the popcorn.
There is no point to this except to vent.
I have vented.
The end.
Oh, and thank god for Dick Durbin.
While were dumping on Reid could we also slam him on folding to Republican threats of filibuster. Threaten to filibuster? Who cares make them get up and do it. Too many of our Senators our weak but the ones they got on the other team are crazy and really stupid and if we make them get up and talk and talk and talk they will say the kinds of stupid things that the smart guys on our team ( out of the ones out of the White House and hopefully contested states in 2010) can use to skewer them.
rikyrah, admittedly Reid probably overstated his case when he said that anyone Blago chose would be barred. However, now that he's said it, he has to put a little muscle behind it. Keep it in the Rules Committee as long as possible and hope that the impeachment gets going quickly enough to make it moot.
And boy, Richardson sure isn't ready for primetime.
"But if unemployment is hovering around 5.5% to 6% in November 2010, this won't matter, the D's will keep the seat" k1
TR: If they fail to lower unemployment that will keep them in? That's so crazy I kind of believe it.
Scratch that as 5.5-6 is lower than now. I'd forgotten how high it got.
Glad to see all the Reid slamming around here. Can anyone explain why this uncharismatic, unpersuasive, capitulation-prone moderate zero from Nevada became majority leader? I'm not being facetious - I actually want to know.
About the ' unelectability' of Jesse Jackson, Jr.
I was reading on OpenLeft, and someone brought up a fabulous point about the ' electability' of Jesse Jackson, Jr. They backed Harold Ford, Jr., and damn near everyone in his family had been arrested, indicted or convicted. But, they supported his DLC behind.
Jesse Jackson only has his father, who, by my account, had never been arrested (on anything other civil rights issues). His brothers are solid businessmen. His sisters have led quiet private lives.
Quiet as it's been kept, Jesse Jackson, Jr. has shown a strong independent streak beginning with his quest for his Congressional Seat. There have been some moves by him that I have questioned over the years, but he's been willing to take risks on candidates that were NOT machine-approved. Some won, some lost, but he still was willing to do it. And, he's been building bridges and reaching out to other communities from the moment he entered Congress.
I'm not buying the 'electability' argument. In fact, I believe it's just the opposite. They were afraid of him WINNING the seat in 2010. And once he did that, it would be hard to get him out, unless HE wanted to leave it.
Just call me a tinfoil hat wearer.
I doubt that Reid is actually a spineless, craven wimp. (He was an amateur boxer, after all.)
I 'm afraid that the problem is worse. Given the presence of numerous Blue Dogs, and that Schumer, Hoyer, Emanuel, etc., pass for liberals, Reid really represents the critical mass of the Dem Party.
Reid is in fact a spineless wimp. He was an amateur boxer decades ago and that has no bearing on his current lack of courage and principle. He is in the top 5 of worst majority leaders in history and he won't get any better any time soon. Any part of Obama's plan that gets passed will be inspite of him not because of him.
Sad thing about it is there aren't enough Dems in the Senate who actually have backbone to get someone else to unseat him. Its a party wide affliction.
Is anyone going to challenge Reid's majority leader role? If that's to happen it would happen this week, right?
I just read that Cornyn is threatening to filibuster Franken now. If Reid would just seat Burris that would be one damn less drama to deal with this week. But now he'll have to deal with two dramas.
I swear, if Reid does not FORCE Cornyn to actually filibuster (i.e., go up there and read The Joy of Cooking for twenty-six hours in order to block Franken my head is going to explode.
res ipsa loquitur
You might want to order a new head. The day Harry Reid actually DOES force a real filibuster is the day MY head will explode.
I doubt it would actually get to a real filibuster on Franken. Maybe my faith is misplaced, but I have a hard time imagining that the few sane Republicans (including my two from here in Maine) would actually go along with it. They will eventually lose one way or another, and it would merely look like a petty waste of energy.
Dan
Thats the beauty of having Harry Reid for a Majority Leader. They know he will never actually force one.
Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin sounds a lot better than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid right now. For that matter, if Al Franker prevails over Norm Coleman, I would support Franken for Senate Majority Leader over Harry Reid; at least Franken knows how to fight.
How and when can Reid be replaced?! It's one thing to pick your battles; it's another to never battle at all. Reid never wants to battle. He needs to be replaced with someone who can back up words with action. Otherwise the Democratic congress will be as big an impediment to Obama's agenda as a Republican one.
Wow. Yeah, I totally agree. I think Durbin was far more convincing and effective.
There should be a course given to politicians on how to answer questions without actually sounding like politicians...
Did yall really think Durbin was that much better? I didn't
First Durbin says, "there is not a question about Burris doing anything wrong to get the appointment"
Later Durbin says: "the Senate has a Constitutional right not to seat Burris while we investigate what went on in the process of Blagojevich making this appointment"
George S asks "Did Harry Reid really tell Blago not to seat 3 African American men"
Durbin answers with the history of African American Senators from Illinois. Total whiff on the question.
I might also point out his George Bushesque statements on the I/P conflict but I don't want to thread jack or start a flame war over that.
Durbin was about a hairs breadth better than Harry Reid if you ask me. At least Harry Reid did point out BRush's hypocrisy and how he didn't back Obama in 04 in the primary.
I classify both of them as WEAKSAUCE. If I was going to choose a different Majority Leader I would probably go first to Schumer then Feingold, get some younger blood in there.
Its over. Reid will have to back down and Burris will be seated. As Chris Rock says "it's not the words you say, but the context in which you say them." Reid calls Blago to object to three African American elected office holders, while supporting a White woman who just lost an election. More context--Reid uses the same damn rationale for his objection against the three Black office holders that the Clinton's used against Obama in the primaries--not electable! More context--no other Black U.S. Senators. This doesn't even included the monumental stupidity displayed by Reid in his "strategy" and comments this morning (I'm just so sure the people of Ill. were thrilled to hear that Harry Reid thinks he holds so much sway over their representatives.) Do I think Burris should be seated or will make a good senator--nope. Do I think Harry Reid is racist--nope. But it does appear that he is a complete blockhead who has probably made it inevitable that Burris will in fact be seated.
It's like Reid and Blago have been playing poker all night, and it's the last hand. Each is holding a pair, only Blago has a joker too. Game over, Reid. Mr. Burris will be the senator from Illinois...for now--Jesse Jackson Jr. is busy building his army for 2010. There are currently three "JJJ for Senate" facebook pages.
If Reid is the doofus he appears to be, why on earth have senate democrats kept him in a leadership position? Are they as incompetent as Reid? Or do they for some reason think there is some advantage to being led by a fool?
Well, no kidding TNC. Blago is a delusional sociopath, but he's from the Chi. Durbin is at least from Illinois, and thus has some experience with Chicago. Reid is Las Vegas, which hasn't been properly run since the days of the Rat Pack, when the Chicago Outfit was in charge. The guy can't lead/govern his way out of a paper bag.
Ok I had to share this. Harry Reid gets minimal props for calling Bush the worst president ever but thats pretty much low hanging fruit with him leaving in a few days but check out the White House's response in the update at the bottom. I guess Dems aren't the only one who recognize how weak Reid is.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/04/reid-bush-worst-president/
I'm with Felipe and others who have complained about Reid giving in to GOP THREATS of a filibuster. Compared to the weakness involved in allowing the GOP minority to run the senate, this is nothing. At least this time Reid is in a legitimately difficult position. The filibuster thing is absolutely nothing more than a lack of spine.
I think Watson is right, the Democrats are now the ruling party and they are going to govern closer to the DLC than to what Moveon.org would want. Just look at who was named DNC Chairman and how many Clintonites made the cut in the cabinet.
Nobody is questioning Blago's authority granted by the constitution to appoint a senator but the senate also has the authority to investigate the circumstances surrounding the appointment.
Just popped by to see how everyone's doing and whether or not this one has gotten legs yet...it has. Probably going to be overshadowed by Bill Richardson's apparent mountain of fail until Tuesday when Burris is due to approach the Senate chamber (que drumroll, dramatic music, and that dude that does the voiceovers for blockbuster trailers).
What strikes me about this particular story is the fact that nobody is calling for Reid's resignation from his leadership position. Not that I've seen, anyway. Here we have what is quite possibly a black-and-white (pun intended) example of racial politics with if not malice than certainly political realities on the Hill. Trent Lott made a stupid comment in passing at some idiot's retirement party and was forced to abdicate.
How is what Reid has done any less vilifying or quite simply wrong? If some Republican from Tennessee or Alabama were to have done this, they would have tarred and feathered him by now.
Nobody is questioning Blago's authority granted by the constitution to appoint a senator but the senate also has the authority to investigate the circumstances surrounding the appointment.
Sure. But absent some specific finding of wrongdoing, its pretty tough to make the argument that Burris shouldn't be seated when the session starts. At this point, they are not even claiming any reasonable suspicion that there is anything illegal about this appointment. If they want to claim that they have the right to reject any appointment they see fit, then that's one thing and one sort of legal argument. But saying that they are delaying because there might be something amiss is pretty thin IMO.
Scott says
1. Harry Reid denies he tried to block Triple J, Davis and Jones from the seat. He says Blago is lying through his teeth. Thankfully for him he is seens as being a lot more truthful than Blago
2. The Senate Dems along with PE Obama all said long prior to Blago naming a black man that they wouldn't accept ANY appointment by Blago. If this was a random white guy nobody would really care.
3. BRush and Burris probably screwed themselves by playing the race issue in the first place. If they stuck to the legal argument they would have legs to stand on. Because they played the race card you have all kinds of prominent black folks including Clarence Page denouncing the both of them as they should.
4. PE Obama himself reiterated AFTER Burris was picked that he shouldn't be seated no matter what his qualifications because of Blago's taint. That pretty much kills any race based argument.
5. BRush backed Obama's white opponent in the primary in 04 thereby destroying any credibility he has in his "we need a black face" argument.
6. No other prominent black pol or civil rights leader, not even the usual suspects of Jesse Sr or Rev Al have taken up Burris' cause which means he isn't even getting the support of people who normally LIVE for this kind of shit.
Add that all up and it says the reason nobody has called for Reids resignation is because everybody know Blago-BRush-Burris are full of shit.
Any more questions?
When the hell will the Dems get rid of this guy? He's done more damage to both our brand and our policy than anyone else on our side in the last eight years, Lieberman included.
You couldn't get this guy to stand up to the Republicans if they were gangbanging his wife, and when he finally takes a stand, it's a badly thought-out, poorly executed attack on a DEMOCRAT. What. The. F*ck.
If you thought that was embarrassing, you should have seen how Reid responded when he was asked about his comments in 2006 that the Iraq War was lost. He didn't even have the courage to repeat his own words. All I heard was counterinsurgency and other military terms that Reid himself probably did not even understand. The most sickening part was how he lionized Gen. Petraeus into a modern Clauswitz. I am grateful for everything that the General has done but I also reserve a special kind of loathing for politicians who have no military background themselves using soldiers as political props.
“You couldn't get this guy to stand up to the Republicans if they were gangbanging his wife, and when he finally takes a stand, it's a badly thought-out, poorly executed attack on a DEMOCRAT. What. The. F*ck.”
I do seem to remember a story about Reid being involved in some undercover operations with law enforcement. The feds were conducting a sting on some mobster-ish types, who were trying to bribe Reid. The big meeting/videotaped bust ended when Reid got so mad that he tried to strangle one of the guys.
I think Sen. Reid’s problem is that he views politics, particular U.S. Senate politics, as some sort of gentlemanly country-club thing. I saw a C-Span interview he gave former Senate colleague Tom Daschale, with Reid’s new book as his topic. Daschle brought up the fact that he called Bush a liar in the book, (not all that caustic of a charge), and Reid could barely agree with himself when he was on camera. A poorly executed political attack, on anyone, would definitely seem to fit the pattern.
-sg
I meant to put a disclaimer in there that I was aware the story hadn't been fully vetted yet. My point was if the story is true and that Reid actually suggested none of the three black possibles be seated for 2010 reasons.
Assume for a second that it is true. That conversation would have happened before all the broohaha.
Second, and this sort of dovetails with the first issue (Blogogate), I'm have to say I'm starting to be of the mind that some of the pundits might have something in the way of a legal leg to stand on. Blago has NOT been impeached. He is STILL the governor of Illinois and, by state constitution, has the authority to pick the replacement, bar none. To my slowly widening knowledge, there's no check on this particular power that the state legislature has.
That being said, what legal authority does the federal Senate have to block Blago's completely legal appointee? This doesn't speak to whether or not Burris should have excepted (he shouldn't have) or whether or not B Rush is a race-bating anachronism (he is).
What it does seem point to is a shelving of the rule of law. Blago, despite my complete confidence that the man is a lying, strong-arming, self-centered lout, has not even been indicted yet, let alone removed from office. If he follows in Slick Willie's footsteps, he won't be because he'll run legal circles around them.
I hope that doesn't happen, but what it's starting to look like to me is that the Dems are starting to pull their hair out and do what's wrong in order to do what's right.
sgwhiteinfla is almost completely right, if Reid is not on tape dissin' three Black elected officials for a senate appointment in a state he doesn't represent. If Reid used the rationale that they were not electable statewide (remember, he doesn't live there) he is toast for all the obvious reasons, especially if he bars the senate doors to someone who is at least (and I mean that literally) on paper is at least as qualified as several other senators i could name.
All I can say is, whatever anyone thought of him, Russert really did make himself appt. viewing. Even if he sucked journalistically (and I think that case has been overstated, though it exists), he had style. His opening, "Our issues this Sunday..." (perhaps Brokaw and Gregory have been saying it too; I don't watch...) could be flat-out bracing at moments of political drama or international uncertainty. I haven't seen more than two MTPs since Brokaw took over, never an entire episode. It's an obsolete instrument -- the very space I type in proves that. It's a testament to Russert's sense of moment and ability to convey it that Sunday political TV remained a going concern as long as it did. It will now die a (perhaps not so) slow death, as the steamliners that convey it have hit their respective icebergs, and the unthinkable has become inevitable.
"That being said, what legal authority does the federal Senate have to block Blago's completely legal appointee?"
Everyone is assumeing the appointment it completely legal simply because the Illinois state constitution gives the governer the power to make is. But, it depends on how you read the US constitution.
Here is a slate article which deals with the issue:
http://www.slate.com/id/2207754/
Everyone is assumeing the appointment it completely legal simply because the Illinois state constitution gives the governer the power to make is.
That article doesn't seem to actually challenge the legality of the appointment in the normal sense. It just makes the case that the Senate has the power to reject an otherwise legal appointment because they suspect corruption. At the very least the article is working with a definition of "legal" that doesn't require judgment in a court of law. Illegal in that context means something more like "found by the Senate to be improper or corrupt." Its a pretty weak case in my opinion and I sincerely doubt that the Senate will even try to make it on the grounds the Slate piece suggests but I would agree that its probably the best case they have.
Well, its kindof like an impeachment, isn't it? You don't need to be "legally" guilty of anything in order to be impeached. That's not the point of the proceeding. Everybody is focusing on how Burris didn't do anything wrong and but it isn't about that at all.
Everybody is focusing on how Burris didn't do anything wrong and but it isn't about that at all.
Right. I get your point and the point of the article. I am just saying that its not just that Burris is clean, its that the appointment itself, what Blago himself has done, is also perfectly legal. The article is arguing that the Senate can make the case that although there is no violation of Law in the appointment, that by questioning the process surrounding the appointment, the fact that Blagojevich tried to sell the seat to other people, even if he did not try to sell it to Burris, they can, merely because they have the votes, reject it. The writers are saying that it can be thought of in the same way as questioning the results of an election when there is reason to believe that the will of the voters is at question. I get all that. I just doubt they will really try that argument or that it will actually work if they do. Essentially they would be arguing that Blago somehow gave up his right to make legal appointments by corrupting the process before he got to that point. Its a pretty tough case to make that an otherwise legal act is made illegal by the fact that other illegal acts may have been committed by the same person. I can't legally spend money that I stole but that doesn't mean I can't spend my own money.
So far, it seems as if they are trying to rely on a series of stalling tactics that run out the clock until the Gov is impeached after which they think the Lt. Gov can legally invalidate his appointment. That's probably going to open up a whole other barrel of worms but for now, that seems to be where they are going with all this.