Why did Roland Burris accept a hopelessly tainted appointment as the junior senator from Illinois?  He didn’t need the work.  He’s had a long career as a lawyer and a public servant, first as Comptroller, then as Attorney General for the state of Illinois.  His career has been on the whole successful, aside from a controversy around the Rolando Cruz murder trial in the mid-80s.  (Cruz was exonerated by DNA evidence; Burris was criticized for being on the wrong side of that issue and going after Cruz even when the evidence was mounting that he might be innocent.)

Burris ran in the Democratic primary for the Senate in 1984 and lost; perhaps he just wants the job. 

In his first news conference as the Senator-designate; Burris made a bad job of it. (http://tinyurl.com/7mou58)  He was defensive and confrontational where he should have been honest.  He tried to change the subject, talking about world events, the economic meltdown and associating himself with Barack Obama rather than the man standing beside him, the embattled governor. 

What should he have said and done?  First of all, he should never have taken the appointment, even if he wanted to be Senator a great deal.  Of course it would be ‘tainted’; the appointment will always be associated in the public’s mind with Blagojevich and his foul-mouthed attempts to sell out his integrity and the dignity of the office of governor of Illinois. 

Perhaps, though, he was thinking about the end game.  In politics, a week is a long time, and he’ll have a couple of years to create a positive impression in the voters’ minds to counteract the negative one.  Perhaps he thought, take the appointment, do a great job as Senator, make the people love me, get re-elected.  But the problem with that scenario is that it depends largely on how long it takes Illinois to get rid of Blagojevich and what kind of taste it leaves in the mouths of the voters.  Over those future events Burris will have very little control.  

Burris’ micro-expressions reveal anger and disdain in the news conference.  But his words were bland.  Therein lies the real problem.  We would have respected him if he had been honest with us, saying something like, “I thought long and hard about this.  I was afraid my appointment would be hopelessly tainted because of the Governor’s difficulties.  But in the end, I decided that the people of Illinois needed a voice in Washington more than I needed to take it easy and enjoy my golden years with my grandchildren.  So I ask you to give me a chance to show that I can be your servant and advocate.  And I promise you I will work harder than anyone else on behalf of the people of Illinois.” 

Public folks (and their lawyers) almost always go with the urge to stonewall and pretend that nothing untoward is happening.  That’s a huge mistake, because it doesn’t pass the average person test – what would the average person do and say under these circumstances?  Whenever you get away from honest, direct emotions, you begin to lose the public, and ultimately you lose your mandate. 

Roland Burris’ first day as Senator-designate was not a propitious one.