Roland Burris
And any other of these other random Negroes who keep piping up in support of Burris’ decision to accept this appointment. Here’s why: Even before the election, the dominant logic around Barack’s replacement was that, since Obama was the only African American in the Senate, he not only should be—but probably would be—replaced by another black person. Liberal media outlets like The American Prospect and Huffington Post as well as non-partisan publications like The Hill all ran stories in which folks like Jesse Jackson Jr. and State Senator Emil Jones were listed among those most likely to receive the appointment because they—like Obama— are black.
Now, while I may happen to think that every member of Congress except for Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy should be black, I also think that this kind of logic does actual little good for the black community.The last time a chief executive had to appoint someone to replace a pioneering black man who had recently left one of our most august branches of government, President George H.W. Bush chose Clarence Thomas to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court created by the death of Thurgood Marshall (and we all know how well that has worked out for black folks).
On top of this, you have Bobby Rush—a veteran of the civil rights movement—telling members of the media, from the very first day Burris’ appointment was announced, not to “hang or lynch” Burris because of Blagojevich’s legal and political troubles. Next, you have Charlie Rangel, who represents Harlem, declaring that the Senate’s refusal to seat Burris reminds him of when Congress tried to deny Adam Clayton Powell Jr., the first
African American to be elected to Congress from New York, his House seat in 1967 because of unproven and eventually disproven corruption allegations.
Now I wasn’t alive in 1967, but my oldass black grandfather from Alabama told me all about it before he passed. And trust me, I’m not trying to figuratively lynch Roland, nor am I advocating that Congress use procedural methods to deny Brother Burris his congressional office. In fact, I believe that as he was appointed by a still-serving governor, Burris has every legal right to be the next Senator from Illinois. My issue is that Burris seems to hold the same opinion regarding politics that my grandfather had when it came to sex (and shared with me during our one and—praise Jesus—only convo about the subject):Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? Congressman Danny Davis, who is also black and was Blago’s first choice to replace Obama, turned down the offer because he knew that in the next election, voters would remember that he accepted his office from a man who no longer had the trust—the political mandate granted by the people of Illinois—to make that appointment. Meaning that, while the Governor may hold the legal right to name someone to fill the seat, he has not earned that right, and by accepting the offer, neither has Roland Burris.
Look, I get the inclination of certain black leaders to rally in support of the man poised to become only the sixth African- American Senator. These leaders lived through the 1960s and experienced real political exclusion (fun fact: out of the nearly 220-year history of Congress, only 29 of those years has seen a black member in the Senate). But this is not the 1960s, and black politicians have better options than the one Blagojevich has offered Roland Burris. Just ask Doug Wilder, former Governor of Virginia; Carol Moseley Braun, former Senator of Illinois; Michael Steele, former Lt. Governor of Maryland; Deval Patrick, Governor of Massachusetts; and Barack Obama, future President of the United States of America. I’m sure they’d agree that it’s time we stopped acting like disenfranchised Negroes and started acting like the politically powerful African Americans— perfectly capable of being elected by whitemajority constituencies to some of the highest offices in the land—we have proven ourselves to be. C
EMAIL SUBMISSIONS TO EDITORIAL@NYPRESS.COM
John Doe




