I don’t think it was the “nutroots” that first made the racism claim. It was Congressman Bobby Rush who used the word “lynch” to describe the Senate’s possible refusal to seat Roland Burris.

This isn’t about Burris, it’s about the guy who picked him. That’s not difficult to understand, unless you have biases that won’t let you understand it.

Exactly, if you don’t even acknowledge what the Senate Dems said they were going to do before Blago appointed anyone, you don’t seem to be engaging in a serious argument. I just don’t see how you can claim racism at all in this case. If someone makes the legal argument that I’m seeing online, then that’s the way you go, but racism? Nah, doesn’t apply.

I think it was as Teddy says above. I didn’t read what was over at Jack & Jill but I wouldn’t call Harry Reid a racist. I’d just call him a dope and a fool. I wonder what Reid would say if Burris takes this to court. Reid might look like an even bigger dope than he does now.

And who else was calling for Blago to step down just two weeks ago? None other than Roland Burris:

He [Burris] described Blagojevich’s alleged efforts to sell the Senate appointment as “pretty appalling” and “just reprehensible.” He also endorsed Attorney Gen. Lisa Madigan’s effort at the time to get the Illinois Supreme Court to remove the governor from office, describing Blagojevich as “incapacitated.”

http://progressillinois.com/20…..int-burris

A lot of evidence to suggest Burris and Blago have some shady shit goin down, and this is why Burris or anyone that would accept Blago’s request is a bad, bad pick. Hell, he tried Rep. Danny Davis (who is also melanin-enhanced) before Burris, and Davis said no because of the taint around Blago.

I agree that the racism charge is ridiculous in this case.

PW, thanks for the post.

FWIW Harry isn’t shy about blocking legislation that is important to Democrats who had ancestors who were slaves:

Bill is on hold for look at slayings in civil rights era
From the AP, December 2007:

WASHINGTON – Legislation to beef up investigations into unsolved murders from the civil rights era looked like it would breeze through Congress.

The House passed it 422-2 last summer. Its Senate sponsors included some of the most senior Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill.

But the bill has stalled since the House vote in June. Its supporters acknowledge that prospects are slim this year with just days left on the legislative calendar. The breakdown offers a case study in how even the most popular legislation can get caught up in Washington gridlock.

“The bill should have passed a long time ago,” said Rita Bender, widow of Michael Schwerner, who was killed in Mississippi in 1964 along with fellow civil rights organizers Andrew Goodman and James Chaney. “Every indication is that if it were brought to the floor and voted on there would be enough votes to pass it.”

The bill is named after Emmett Till, a black teenager who was murdered in Mississippi in 1955 after being accused of whistling at a white woman. His killers were never convicted.

The legislation would authorize $10-million annually over 10 years for the Justice Department to rejuvenate its prosecutions of pre-1970 civil rights murders. It calls for another $3.5-million annually for Justice to provide grants and other help to local law enforcement agencies.

The man most responsible for obstructing the measure is Sen. Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican. Coburn says he supports the cause but feels the FBI can pursue the cases with existing resources.

A spending hawk, Coburn has put a hold on the legislation and dozens of other bills that would increase the federal budget without offsetting costs elsewhere.

“It’s absolutely outrageous that one senator and one senator only appears to be blocking us from passing this piece of legislation,” said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Of course, Coburn alone can’t stop the bill. He can only hold it up by forcing time-consuming debate and registering his opposition.

If the measure is so important, he asks, why not bring it to the floor?

So far, Senate leaders have declined to do that. The process could eat up several days and require a series of votes on procedural motions. It also could open the measure to amendments that could weaken the bill.

Senate Democrats say Coburn is blocking about 90 bills, and working around him on all of them would take months – leaving little room for other work.
[…]

As we all know from FISA, Harry wouldn’t allow either Feingold or Dodd to block the demolition of the Fourth Amendment. Why did Harry accept this particular hold from Coburn?

I understand the tainted argument and I agree that Burris and others use of terms such as lynching is completely inappropriate and wrong. A lot of Democrats, however, who had slaves who were ancestors, do not agree with me. They DO see this as a metaphorical lynching and another example of white supremacist attitudes. Optics matter and I think that’s what Jane was trying to point out.

In terms of keeping the party together, I think this is an easy one to give on. As far as I’m concerned, the only reason Harry doesn’t want Burris in the Senate, is because he isn’t far enough to the right.

Boo – we are trying not to use AP sources until they stop threatening to sue people who use more than 35 words without paying them. In any case it would be better to provide a much shorter excerpt, a link, and then a summary of the rest if you like – thanks.