The Blago, Bobby and Burris show

Over the last eight years, many of the Bush administration's major political decisions, a disturbing number of their appointments, in fact a great share of the administration's public policy was engineered simply to give the finger to their enemies (and the rest of us). In a similar way, by appointing Roland Burris to fill Barack Obama's seat, Illinois' disgraced but unrepentant governor, Rod Blagojevich, just told everyone to f-off. There was a moment during his announcement that he was appointing Burris to fill Obama's seat when Blagojevich couldn't contain himself. After saying, "This man actually once was an opponent of mine for governor," Blagojevich paused, smirked, and licked his lips. It was unmistakable: he was flipping us off. He was saying: try to stop me from doing this.

Any policy (or appointment) made simply to demonstrate contempt for the process, or the people, or to tell opponents or the public to f-off, is bad public policy. There is a reason we call our elected officials public servants. Because, ideally, they are elected to serve our interests. When George Bush proposes Harriet Miers for a vacancy on the Supreme Court, or Blagojevich appoints Burris to fill Obama's seat, we should see the choices as they were intended, as an insult. As an expression of bitterness or hubristic presumption. A poke in the eye. No one should be suprised that Bush and Blagojevich think and act this way. Or that they place themselves - rather than the public - at the center of all policy choices they make. Over their years in their current offices, they have demonstrated that they are enormous, unapologetic assholes.

Which brings me to Roland Burris and Bobby Rush. It turns out they are a-holes too. That's a bit more of a surprise. It seems clear that Burris is along for the ride because he wants to claim an office that fits with his exaggerated view of his own worth. At 71, he is likely thinking about his legacy. And looking back at three failed attempts to become governor, one failed run at the Senate, and a failed effort to become Mayor of Chicago, Burris grabbed the chance to be handed an office he could have never won on his own. Sad? Maybe a little. But, in the framework of the conversation we just had, he's clearly a poor choice for public service. He wants the office for entirely personal reasons. For his own self-aggrandizement, or fame, or as a prize for years spent laboring in low-visibility offices. He can't possibly believe he can actually make a contribution to public policy or to the citizens of Illinois. Only a deeply, deeply deluded politician could believe he could accomplish anything under the cloud of suspicion that would undoubtedly darken any appointment made by Blagojevich.

And Bobby Rush - my god - he is a champion arse-hole. Still mad that Obama challenged him for his congressional seat eight years ago, and obviously angry that Obama has rolled a series of doubles and jumped far, far ahead of him on the gameboard of life, Rush showed up alongside Blagojevich to preemptively paint opposition to Burris as a "lynching." Not content with that, he went on the morning news shows today to suggest opposition to Burris' appointment was analogous to the work of those who stood up to defend segregation in the Jim Crow South. There is no way to rationally make this claim. Rush was deliberately and self-servingly positioning this fight as a continuation of the civil rights struggle. Among the many misguided things Rush might be aiming to achieve, one, I am certain, is to portray Obama's principled opposition to Blagojevich's nomination of Burris as a betrayal. As he did in 2000, when Obama ran against him in the contest to retain his seat in Congress, Rush wants to depict Obama as insufficiently Black or worse, as an Uncle Tom, helping delay the advancement of the African American community.