The shady Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has recently announced that he will appoint Roland Burris as Senator to take over the vacant seat left by President-elect Obama.

Democrat leaders like Harry Reid will not seat him because, according to Obama, they “cannot accept an appointment made by a governor who is accused of selling this very Senate seat”. Even Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White has refused to sign the required appointment papers to seal the deal. (update/correction: Jesse White’s signature is not required)

Even if Blagojevich is found guilty, there is nothing to suggest that Roland Burris was involved in any corruption. The state of Illinois has a procedure which should be followed. And even if Roland Burris was shady like Blagojevich, since when have the Democrats been arbiters of integrity?

• The longest serving Democrat Senator, Robert Byrd, skipped serving in WWII so that he could recruit for the KKK as a kleagle. He wrote “I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side”. The Democrats never had a problem seating him, now did they?
• The Democrat hero, Ted Kennedy, drove his car off a bridge with Mary Jo Kopechne, leaving her to die at the bottom of a pond. He fled the scene and didn’t notify anyone. Did the Democrats have any problems then?
• In 1994 Mel Reynolds was indicted (and later convicted) for sexual assault and criminal sexual abuse for engaging in a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old. He continued his campaign and won re-election. Did the Democrats have a problem seating him?

So what is the real reason?

• Is it because anyone that is seated will likely not have a chance at winning in 2010?
• Is it because they (or Obama) refuse to seat any Blagojevich appointment because Obama has close ties to him and they don’t want the new administration to be perceived as tainted?

I’d say its both of the above. What say you?