If you are upset about Leon Panetta, please speak to your analyst. Please do not let your fit of pique abet the political calculations of Rod Blagojevich.
Thank you. That is all.
Love,
Dan
Update: Josh Marshall has a slightly different take. And I can't argue on the merits. But I don't see the value of undercutting the majority leader, inept as he may be, when so much attention is being paid. There are lots of fights about important issues that are right around the corner, and it really doesn't bode well for party unity when they can't present a united front on this particular brouhaha.
Update #2: Commenter Fred has seen fit to call me on my 100% transparent intellectual incoherence on this issue. (Curse you, Fred!) Sadly, I have to concede this one. Thinking about this post yesterday on the day off, I really began to reconsider it. However, rather than simply delete the error, I will merely say that I had the above visceral reaction for two reasons:
1) Roland Burris totally sticks in my craw. His willingness to play ball with a flagrantly corrupt governor in service to his own ambition, coupled with his (obviously cynical) use of the race card makes me respect him not at all. I am unhappy to know that he's probably going to get seated, but must accept that it is legal and unavoidable under the law. Previous objections remain.
2) Harry Reid is a totally ineffectual majority leader who is constantly getting mau-maued by the Republican minority, various errant members of his own party, and the occasional Girl Scout. That he was unable to keep Feinstein on the reservation for the extra day required before he made his own conciliatory gestures toward Burris makes me fear that Mitch McConnell will be able to bully him merely by glowering at him across the Senate chamber.
Posts
Weren't you decrying craven political calculation just a few posts ago? What do you call valuing the rule of law lower than not "undercutting the majority leader" if not craven political calculation?
ReplyDelete