Legal Does Not Mean Ethical

Roland Burris's acceptance of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's offer
of Barack Obama's former U.S. Senate seat is based on a willful, self-serving misunderstanding about the difference between
ethics and law.<br>
<br>
Here is what Burris told MSNBC in <a href="http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/12/roland_burris_b…; target="”_blank”">a
December 31 interview</a> (video and transcript):<br>
<br>
<p>I have been legally appointed by the
governor of our state. It is my hope and prayer that my Democratic
colleagues will recognize that what they are doing is not in any way,
form, shape or fashion, legal. To deny me the seat based on some
allegations by the appointee -- by the appointer -- really does not
lend itself to disqualify me as an unqualified person to be appointed.
... The appointment is legal. I mean, no one has said his appointment
is illegal. They just said his appointment is tainted. What does
tainted have to do with legal? And I don't think it's even tainted,
because his appointment, Rachel, is legal.<br>
</p>
<p>In my book, believing that whatever is legal is not tainted, is
completely ethical, alone disqualifies former Illinois Attorney-General
Burris as a candidate for the Senate. But how many politicians share
this willful misunderstanding?<br>