I was watching a cable news station for most of the day on May 27 when the story broke about the release of the secretly recorded telephone conversation between now Senator Roland Burris, Democrat of Illinois, and Robert Blagojevich, the brother of Rod Blagojevich, then the Democratic Governor of Illinois. In the conversation, Mr. Burris could be heard cooking up Kingfish style (Now let me see here) scenarios on how to pay for an appointment to the US Senate seat vacated by the election of Barack Obama to the presidency of the United States. Mr. Burris ran through many of the possibilities, and having found them all to be equally unsatisfying, promised to send a personal check for the governor before November 15 (2008). What is heard in that telephone conversation is clear: Mr. Burris was willing to help the governor financially in exchange for appointment to the US Senate.
Mr. Burris even disclosed that his backers, the people from whom he would raise money to donate to the embattled governor, would be disappointed if after laying out their cash, their man did not get the appointment, thereby denying them a seat at the table of power. What this says is that Mr. Burris was already divvying up shares in the Senate seat he was now seeking to buy. The Kingfish would be proud — and envious. Now, none of you ought to be snickering. This is a near normal transaction in politics; it is only because of the release of the wiretap that we get this glimpse into the inner workings of government.
In an early segment of the news, I saw Senator Burris’s attorney and law partner, Tim Wright, explaining how the secretly caught conversation proved that Mr. Burris had done no wrong, because it showed that Mr. Burris was only placating the governor’s brother to stay in their good graces while the Senate seat was still open. If Mr. Burris had made a contribution to the governor, his attorney explained, it would had been for under five thousand dollars, far short of what a Senate seat could bring on the open market. This trifling amount, in itself, proved that Mr. Burris could not be attempting to buy his way into the Senate. But since Mr. Burris never intended to make a contribution to the governor and never did, the taped conversation proves that he did not engage in “pay-to-play,” a form of Chicago political affirmative action. Oh yeah, I thought, man, that reminds me of Algonquin J. Calhoun – just the argument Calhoun would make in defense of his client George (Kingfish) Stevens. The information you have that shows my client’s guilt, if you turn it over, it also shows my client’s innocence.
Article comments
1 - Ruvy
Beautiful! Corruption as sitcom! Life imitates art!
I hadn't thought of how much Israeli politics imitates "Amos'n Amdy", but it does. And that sitcom plays day after day, with our tax dollars and lives as the bait for the local "Kingfish", in all of his various guises in Israel. The races and culture seem so different - but S-W-I-N-D-L-E seems to spell the same in Hebrew and in Emglish. You may rue having written this article in future. I'll be referring back to it time and again (with proper accreditation, of course!) to skewer the petty and gross thieves and swindlers in Israeli politics who make our lives miserable. Humor is just as effective as denunciation, and I'm gonna have me a ball!
2 - roger nowosielski
Another great article, Horace. I can't comment on the show (wasn't in US until 61). What I do find interesting, however, is the lack of response from our little, politically astute, I should think, BC community.
The point you're making is universal, and yet . . .