Will Harry Reid Stand in the Senate House Door to Keep Burris Out?

As a conservative, it does not escape me that many of the "sexiest" scandals of the year were Democrat scandals, such as Blago, Eliot Spitzer, Kwame Kilpatrick, and John Edwards.

Though Edwards was on his way down, the others were widely viewed as rising stars of the Democratic Party. Losing up-and-coming stars from your bench is bad news, of course, for any team.

It also does not escape me that, while Republicans were rightly punished for their scandals, the Democratic Party -- as a brand entity, at least -- does not appear to be tainted by the many incidents of corruption and scandal they were responsible for this year.

This is nothing new, by the way. Republicans have long complained that Democrats aren't held accountable by the media for their bad deeds.

To illustrate this, Republicans often point to the fact that, while Republicans are frequently limned as "racists," a larger percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than did their Democrat counterparts. They also cite the fact that most southern segregationists were Democrats -- and that the Democratic Party is still hope to former Klan member Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-WV)

As the Blago controversy has now arrived at the intersection of corruption scandal and race, it is interesting to note the similarities between the Democratic Party's Blago, and another controversial Democratic governor.

On June 11, 1963, Democratic Governor George Wallace blocked the doorway at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa to prevent the registration of African-American students. Like Blago, Wallace had enough chutzpah to take on the federal government, which included a president of his own party (Blago is essentially standing up to President-Elect Obama, in this instance).

Wallace's statement might well have just as easily been uttered by Blago, yesterday: "I stand here today, as Governor of this sovereign State, and refuse to willingly submit to illegal usurpation of power by the Central Government." Like Wallace, Blago's defiant argument is a legal one -- that, as governor, he is within his rights to make this appointment. Ironically, in appointing a black man to the U.S. Senate, Blago is standing up to the federal government, and essentially making a "states' rights" argument.

As David has pointed out, Rod Blagojevich and Bobby Rush are, in fact, playing the race card. By picking an African-American (and by using heavily-coded racial language to buttress his appointment), Blago is essentially playing the Wallace role -- in the sense that he is standing up to the big, bad government. But he is also putting Harry Reid in a difficult position by also forcing him to play the Wallace role. In short, Democrats now face a lose/lose scenario, where no Democrat gets to play the role of "good guy".

Will Harry Reid stand in the doorway of the U.S. Senate and attempt to keep the only African-American senator from being seated?

... Bad behaving Democrats playing the race card on other Democrats??? I would be enjoying the schadenfreude if it weren't such a serious situation for our nation ...