Gregg Confirms It: GOP Senate Appointment Is A Condition For Accepting Cabinet Post
Senator Judd Gregg and New Hampshire's Democratic Gov. John Lynch have both confirmed what has been much discussed over the last several days: Gregg has made it clear that he would only accept an appointment to the Obama Administration if it would not cause the Democrats to gain his Senate seat.
"Senator Gregg has said he would not resign his seat in the U.S. Senate if it changed the balance in the Senate," the governor said in a statement given to the Union Leader. "Based on my discussions, it is clear the White House and Senate leadership understand this as well."
Gregg issued his own statement, making the point even clearer: "I have made it clear to the Senate Leadership on both sides of the aisle and to the governor that I would not leave the Senate if I felt my departure would cause a change in the makeup of the Senate. The Senate Leadership, both Democratic and Republican, and the Governor understand this concern and I appreciate their consideration of this position."
So there you have it. A Democratic governor will appoint a Republican Senator, as a condition of the Republican leaving the seat and creating the vacancy in the first place.
Josh
Elana
Matt
Eric
It's so frakking stupid.
February 2, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about they appoint a dem anyway and let Gregg resign before his appointment if he doesnt like it? That would be hilarious but way to ballsy for these sickly donkeys.
February 2, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
So a Republican Senator gets a graceful way out of what was probably going to be a pretty tough re-election fight, gets to dictate the terms of his replacement, and Obama gets...exactly what?
The public relations value of pointing to the fact that his cabinet how has three Republicans?
At what point will this extensive display of bipartisanship start to produce positive benefits for the American people?
February 2, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
How, exactly, is this a problem? They're not going to appoint a far-right whacko. Whoever is appointed will probably be a RINO who is to the left of where Gregg is. What's the big deal?
February 2, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's the Obama Administration getting out of this? Is Gregg the best person for the Commerce job? And if not, then what's the point of giving it to him, and having Gregg dictate to the governor which party gets to offer up a candidate?
And again: when is this bipartisanship going to start a) paying dividends and b) being reciprocated?
February 2, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Presumably he does think that Gregg is the best person for the job. Why else would he pick him?
February 2, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some have said it was to be his chief of staff. Doesn't sound like RINO.
February 3, 2009 3:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
It already has benefited the American people. The American people who invested in Banks. The American people who are Republicans.
I dont really care if he has a few repubs on board. I will start caring when they allow repubs to fillibuster everything until cowardly dems submit to stupid deals.
It sure as f*** doesnt seem like dems run the whole show. Only dems can operate from a position of power as if they are powerless.
I believe it is all an act anyway. They do this so they can push the same agenda no matter who is in power.
So we will be broke and suffering with regular renditions as opposed to extraordinary ones, better EPA standards and the wealthy bailed out by everyone else.
Change? Can you spare some change?
February 2, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you're counting Gates as a Republican, you're in error. Gates has always been an Independent (although Id bet he's voted for more Republicans than Democrats in his life).
February 2, 2009 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Today's WH press conference:
"Q The White House said this weekend he's the leading candidate. I'm just curious why.
MR. GIBBS: I read those articles. (Laughter.) I'm not going to get into -- obviously the President has great respect for Senator Gregg. I'm not going to get into personnel announcements before we are there. And as it relates to picking senators in states that need new senators, I think you can rest reasonably assured that this administration has had nothing and wants nothing to do with that going forward. (Laughter.) And I would bold and underline that."
Is this clear enough? Neither the White House nor our Prez is out making deals...Blago was an object lesson that apparently these GOP nutcases haven't yet been taught.
February 2, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not going to judge this until it is announced who is replacing Sen. Gregg. If it's a pro-universal health care moderate Republican who will not be pressured to toe the party line, then it's a solid move. If it's another obstructionist wingnut, then it was a colossal muck-up.
February 2, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"a pro-universal health care... Republican"
Do those even exist?
February 2, 2009 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Probably that repub mayor who supported the Governor and Obama.
February 2, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, they exist. They just can't win primaries. Which being appointed would bypass neatly.
Not directly responsive to you, but it does give me a segue. I've been saying for a long time that the people so hotly and angrily denouncing Obama's bi-partisanship here and in other liberal blogs, are making the mistake of confusing Obama with buying in to High Broderism--the idea that nutjob Republicanism should set the policy agenda no matter who is in power or who won the last election.
The confusion is understandable given that that's the both the Republicans and the MSM's definition of "bi-partisanship" and is thus the only one we hear about.
Obama, however, is not doing all this because he needs Republican votes in Congress (or at least needs more than the one or two he can pretty much always count on getting in the Senate as long as his stock is high). If you have actually read what he's written and listened to what he's been saying, his bi-partisan gestures are directed not at winning over the current politicians, but, rather, at winning over the actual voters who identify themselves as Republicans. The people he's really reaching out to are the segment of the Republican party rank and file who are looking at their leaders, and at some of their fellow party members, and finding it increasingly difficult to ignore the fact that they're absolutely out of their damn minds.
He's looking, in other words, to peel away somewhere between a quarter and a half of self-identified Republicans, the ones who are, in fact, sane. If he succeeds, the Republican party is well and truly screwed for at least a generation. It's never going to happen, however, if they get the impression that all they're going to get from those of us on the other side of the wire is spitting and invective.
February 2, 2009 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've been making this argument for some time, NCSteve, and while I hope I'm not one of those invective hurling crazy lefties who is convinced Obama will never pass some mythical purity test only I know about, I have to say, as I said upthread, when is this going to start paying dividends?
In 2010?
2012?
What happens in the meantime?
February 2, 2009 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it will pay off sooner. But if not, in 2010 Obama will be able to say to the American people that he did everything in his power to reach out to the GOP.
And then we will absolutely trash them in the elections.
But really, isn't it a bit early to be expecting a payoff 14 days into his administration? The pugs are trying to size him up and see how far they can push him. Meanwhile, the President is calmly laying his foundation to support his larger plans.
February 2, 2009 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Give it more than two weeks. We're seeing the first real test. By all accounts, the stimulus plan is enormously popular, and even about half of Republicans are for it. When all those Republican congressmen hear it from their constituents back home, you will start to see the payoff. Remember, there will be another vote on this when it comes back from conference. Expect a number of Republican congressmen to get religion between now and then. Self-preservation trumps even party loyalty.
February 2, 2009 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cosign, big time. I have been saying the same thing and it keeps falling on deaf ears. Not all republican voters are wackjobs and in lock step with their increasingly wacked out leadership. He does what he is trying to accomplish and it will be the demise of the republican party as we know it. That would be a good thing for the country.
By the way on timing, it won't happen in 2010. There will be major shrinkage of senators and house members hopefully. Nor will it happen in 2012, when it will be a slaughter, hopefully. It will happen in 2013 or 2014.
I really want to see a logical, rational opposition party that is looking out for the interests of the american people. I do not believe that democrats have all the answers and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We need a 21st Century conservative party to keep dems feet to the fire, not a 19th Century retread that is based on lies and distortions of reality.
February 2, 2009 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
They don't exist. If you can find me a handful of pro-universal healthCARE Democrats, I'd be surprised. They're mostly pro-universal health INSURANCE lobbyists.
February 2, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now see, there's that spitting and invective I was talking about.
With respect, You've got the conversion process it exactly backwards.
Get them over to this side of the wire on the basis of a generalized conviction that we are sane, well-intentioned and not denigrating their intelligence or their motives, and then let the power of cognitive dissonance go to work on individual policy positions.
I'm not speaking out of the basis of some idealistic hope. I've seen the conversion process happen--you may, perhaps, have noticed that my state swung more than five points from red to blue between 2004 and 2008--and that is invariably how it happens. Once you commit to switching parties, you begin to adopt their policy positions.
I know there's a lot of pent-up anger, and a feeling that much rightous payback is due that makes it hard for a lot of Democrats to accept it, but its true nonetheless--they really are actual people, many of them are sane and the last barrier between them and us is their fear of rejection. It takes a lot of moral courage to admit you were wrong, or even that you've grown apart from those around you, and change sides. Its hard to cross that bridge and burn it behind you when you're expecting a hostile reception on the other side.
February 2, 2009 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
WADR, TCFKNANCS, the problem I see with this analysis is that your "rational Republicans" are results-oriented. If they don't see this Congress and the Obama admin producing actual positive results, they will see no particular reason to peel off their former party identification.
My problem with what Obama is doing, particularly on the economy, is that if he buys into too many Republican ideas in the name of "bipartisanship", he will wind up with a package that will not work. Krugman and others have been pointing out why spending works better than tax cuts for stimulus purposes. And when we're spending on the order of a trillion dollars, on top of a ten-trillion dollar debt, we'd better make sure we're spending the money well. The more Obama triangulates on this one or lets the likes of Rubin and Summers run the show, the less likelihood that he will produce positive economic results and hence, the less likelihood that your "rational Republicans" will actually be with us in two or four years.
That's not some mythical purity test that you're so fond of complaining about from us lefties. It's a pragmatic evaluation of what's likely to work, based on what economists like Krugman and Stiglitz are telling us.
February 3, 2009 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do the people of New Hampshire not get a say?
February 2, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you think this is? A democracy or something?
February 2, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look at it this way - Gregg would be a formidable Republican candidate in NH in 2010. Whoever runs as a Republican in 2010, whether his replacemnet or someone else, is not likely to be as strong a candidate. That alone imeediately places this race in the lean Dem category for 2010 (more of a toss-up to lean Rep with Gregg).
Plus if you read the AP(?) piece linked earlier at TPM, there seems to be speculation about a couple of (Republican) allies of Gov. Lynch (D) who might be picked. They may be pledging to Lynch not to run. If Lynch then goes for the Senate in 2010 that puts the race as likely Dem.
February 2, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chris Cilizza's The Fix/The Line had him as sixth most endangered seat as of December 2008, and with potential to rapidly become much more endangered. Your argument's fine, but "formidable" may be over the top.
February 3, 2009 3:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's no reason to appoint Gregg under these circumstances. He was voting overwhelmingly with the Dems this year and he was going to lose in 2010. It's not like he's that talented.
I think Obama is making a big mistake appointing this pasty-face troll.
February 2, 2009 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to agree - seems like he's making it pretty clear he puts the interests of the GOP over those of the country - so why exactly would he make a good appointee?
February 2, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The uproar over this is pretty amusing. Over at DailyKos, some of the commenters are calling the President a traitor (to be fair, some of them were already doing that before the inauguration).
My first instinct is to trust Obama on this. He obviously wants Gregg badly, so I assume there's more that just bipartisanship going on here.
My guess is that Obama feels a conservative Republican will be much more useful in selling some of more adventurous programs that the Admin may be planning. Remember that the President made it clear that while those in his cabinet are free to challenge him, in they end he decides policy and the staff is there to implement it (does anyone really think Obama is going to let him push for a repeal of the minimum wage?). Hopefully, Gregg will be used to 1) put a GOP face on Obama's programs, 2) corral at least a few GOP colleagues in the Senate to cross over when needed (as well as the Blue Dog Dems). Let's face it, like him or hate him (and I certainly do not like him), Gregg will be more effective in selling Obama's vision to Republicans than Richard ever would.
BTW, the appeal to Blue Dog Dems can't be stressed enough. They are the reason a 60 seat majority is irrelevant in most matters. If you can get them plus a few Republicans, it make the choice a good strategic one.
And as bonus, it makes Lieberman even further irrelevant.
February 2, 2009 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
sometimes I picture DailyKos members with fangs and foam coming from their mouths.
February 2, 2009 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The more venom spewed by Kos the better Obama looks to the rational right. If the progressives leave Obama, they'll vote a 3rd candidate or stay home. If Obama can peel off 10% of the moderate republicans, they'll be the double whammy of taking a vote vote away from the Republican and voting for Obama, so it would be a two vote swing every time he can flip a Republican voter.
February 2, 2009 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it appeals to Blue Dogs, I oppose it.
February 2, 2009 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you nailed it, Peaches. Well said!
February 2, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
if the situation was reversed, republicans would be hollering about how unethical it is to make deals like this and telling anyone that took issue with the governor using an appointment to do what's best for his party, to go screw themselves. yet if democrats even tried to do this, the beltway would implode; somehow it's been decided that appointing a republican to the seat vacated by a republican is simply "the right thing" to have happen in this situation. it's endlessly frustrating how the party with the really crappy ideas, gets to do whatever it wants because they're just much smarter, louder and much more shameless about the politicking aspect of the game.
February 2, 2009 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about if the govenor takes a year or more to make the appointment? Or at least until Norm Coleman stops delaying Senator Franken taking his seat.
February 2, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
PARTY FIRST --- that WAS McCain's campaign slogan, wasn't it.
February 2, 2009 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Scr*w him.
February 2, 2009 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll take this moment to confirm NcSteve's illustration of Obama's strategy to 'peal away rational republicans' and add my anecdote to evidence that it has already started to pay out dividends. I would never have bought initially from this line of reasoning since I would think the idea of a 'rational republican' after 8 years of such rock solid evidence to the contrary that the party would have already atrophied this category of GOP'ers that self identify with its label.
But even before it was announced that a republican would appointed to succeed Judd, I was reading through the comments section of Politico (which I should note, has some of the most rabid right nut job posters of any site I visit) to a story on Judd's consideration, with almost all the right wing comments in complete support of Judd's appointment regardless whether a Dem was taking his place or not, many of these republicans calling themselves in signatory 'republicans for Obama' and utterly slamming the GOP leadership for branding Judd a traitor should he decide to join the administration.
I was speechless. It was mind boggling.
And again, this was before the announcement that the replacement would be a republican.
February 3, 2009 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
This made me look at the commentary you've spoken about, and it is as you say on a site that indeed has wildest nutjobs.
Is the result overall that people feel Obama is bending over backward to be respectful and that's good, or that he's weak for it.
At this point, I think it's better for him if he gets Gregg, because it's better that he gets what he is asking for. It hasn't been handled very well, though, and I don't know what power Gregg will end up having on the Hill with the people he's supposed to convince.
February 3, 2009 4:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Then what's the point of having another GOP moron in the cabinet?
February 3, 2009 6:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
pjwhite,
excellent question.
I see no gain on this, but quite possibly a problem. I can't see a Republican like Gregg ignoring his conservative principles to push Obama's ideas.
February 3, 2009 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink