New Hampshire's Dem Governor Officially Names Republican For Gregg's Senate Seat
New Hampshire's Democratic Governor John Lynch has officially announced that he will appoint Republican Bonnie Newman to the Senate seat of Judd Gregg, as soon as Gregg resigns to become Secretary of Commerce.
Gregg made it a clear condition for accepting the cabinet appointment that a Republican would be appointed to his seat, rather than let a Dem come in and potentially give the party a filibuster-proof majority. Thus Newman, Gregg's former chief of staff and an ex-interim president of the University of New Hampshire, is getting the seat.
It is now also official that Newman is serving strictly as a caretaker -- she will not run for the seat in 2010. This means that while Democrats haven't gotten the seat immediately, the chance of picking it up later is actually pretty good. New Hampshire has realigned to the Dems in recent years, and an open-seat race has to be considered as leaning towards a Democratic takeover.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
Okay. Party affiliation aside, is Bonnie Newman an improvement over Gregg?
February 3, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's probably going to depend on the issue. Gregg hasn't exactly been Obama's best friend. He voted against both the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and SCHIP.
And BTW, it had to happen. Nate Silver now has a OSS (Obama Support Score) for every Republican Senator. Some surprises on the list.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/most-powerful-women-in-america.html
February 3, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh, look at Vitter.
February 3, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look at Snowe! I think the Democrats ought to be recruiting her hard. Collins may be voting correctly, but she is nonetheless a toady.
February 4, 2009 8:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, 91% is pretty high. GMA this morning was mentioning that Snowe will be a factor in the stimulus wheel and deal.
February 4, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't that what what Blago got arrested for? Making a deal over who'd get appointed to a Senate seat?
February 3, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Others will take issue with this, but in my view your point is right on target.
February 3, 2009 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hear what you are (both) saying, but obviously the distinction is between a deal aimed at personally benefitting the dealmaker and one aimed at politically benefiting the deal maker's agenda.
It's somewhat slippery, but not THAT slippery. For instance, if Blago had been negotiating to trade Obama's senate seat in exchange for, say, a promise by his appointee to support a bill in support of Illinois' infrastructure needs, not only would no one bat an eyelash, but that would be an example of his working on behalf of his voters - doing his job. Instead, he was looking for the equivalent of cash on the barrel. It's the difference between seduction and prostitution, to put it bluntly.
________
www.obamalondon.blogspot.com
February 3, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
More accurately, the difference between prostitution and high-class prostitution. But yeah, this deal is totally legal.
February 3, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's the difference between prostitution and an arranged marriage.
February 4, 2009 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree! At least Blago put a Democrat in the seat.
February 3, 2009 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah a Democrat we all hate and despise,so who cares. No matter what this is good because we most like replace Gregg with someone moderate and with Gregg out of the Senate and Bonnie Newman not running in '10, this is a prime opportunity to take this seat by a ful blown progressive (Paul Hodes).
February 4, 2009 3:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you all aware that there are a number of states in which the Governor is REQUIRED to name a replacement from the same party? Moreover, if the voters of that state have chosen a member of one party to represent them, isn't there just a teensy bit of justification for that?
February 3, 2009 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't think Biden had a hand in who replaced him in Delaware? As has been mentioned by others, it's not about deal making, but rather personally profiting from deal-making.
I took heat here before when I suggested that if Snowe or Collins ever considered taking a Cabinet seat that they would only do so if they were to be replaced by a Republican.
I really don't have a beef with what happened. Now I wouldn't expect a Republican to do the same thing, but that's just because I think lowly of them as a whole.
I suspect that Newman is a fiscal conservative but will be more socially liberal than Gregg was.
February 3, 2009 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
All I'm saying is what Blago was trying to do wasn't that much difference from the norm. He was an idiot, possibly deluded, but he didn't stray that far off the well-trodden path.
February 3, 2009 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Debbie, I hope you're wrong; I hope the norm for governors is not selling appointments for cash or anything close.
Please note the difference here: Blago wanted cash in his personal bank account in exchange for an appointment, while Gregg wanted a promise that the nominee be from his own party. Also, one of these things happened basically in public. It seems not only reasonable but proper for political concessions to be allowed while personal profiteering is prohibited. If you can't tell the difference, I can't help any further.
February 3, 2009 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
PLEASE STOP CALLING IT A FILIBUSTER-PROOF MAJORITY!!!
We aren't the mainstream media here, we aren't that stupid, and we aren't that lazy. Call it what it is, 60 seats in the US Senate, nothing more, nothing less.
Have you heard of Blue Dogs? Have you heard of Joe Lieberman? If you answered "yes" to either of those, I shouldn't have to explain why it is idiotic to say something like "filibuster-proof majority".
Worse, using stupid phrases like that just feeds into the right-wing media bias that aids Republicans in their attempt to make 60 Democrats some scary thing that we can't let happen. Don't think it is a big deal now? Wait until the 2010 election gets warmed up.
Do everyone a favor and please stop saying "filibuster-proof majority" NOW!
February 3, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I second that emotion.
February 3, 2009 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign. By the way, dems are well north of 60 seats probably on most issues because of the republicans up for reelection and the handful of moderates. It really is silly.
February 3, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hate to pile on, but I also agree. Well said.
February 4, 2009 3:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I smell Rahm Emmanuel here and I'm glad that party politics is not entirely dead. She may not be a Dem, but she's a woman, and maybe she won't quite be as heartless as her Mitch McConnell male buds.
Get that stimulus passed! Let Justice go over all the damning records that the crooks left behind! Bring in the New and let the Thains in their boardrooms tremble. God, I wish they had to work like the rest of us to keep a roof over our heads and fight for a decent education for our kids.
It's been interesting since Reagan, but all things must pass, as my friend George Harrison once said.
February 3, 2009 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with Senator Feingold that these appointments to elected office are an offense to our democratic pretensions.
We should have elections only. The political class has a strong enough strangle hold on the offices of power in this country.
February 3, 2009 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
And the running total so far would have been around $300M in special elections.
February 3, 2009 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have a point. Without special election rules limiting spending, we'd be creating another stimulus package in each state a member of Congress was snatched....
February 3, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Except the cost is borne by the states, who are mostly in a serious financial bind. I think this whole thing boils down to a couple of common-sense principles:
1. If there is an intervening national election date between the time a seat becomes vacant and when the term is up, it's a no-brainer. Have an election on that date to fill the vacancy.
2. If there is no such date, it becomes a cost-benefit analysis. Is it really worth it to have a special election if there is only 6 months left in the term? How about 9 months? A year? There is obviously some point at which a special election doesn't make sense.
Special elections aren't free, and in the current environment, most states can ill afford them.
February 3, 2009 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I assume that Newman also starts with much less seniority than Gregg. So, in a matter of speaking, the Republican Senators still lost a bit of power in the Senate with this deal.
February 3, 2009 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's what I was thinking and maybe the Democrats wanted Gregg inside the tent instead of outside (see LBJ).
February 3, 2009 8:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess I shouldn't be a bit stunned by some of the comments. I guess there's a justification for anything. Not only was Gregg a terrible pick (talk about rewarding failure!) but to massage back-room deal making that gives 0 benefit to Dems (unless we wait 2 years!) into some sort of poitive is beyond belief. And this is while we have a Dem President, House and Senate! It's breathtaking.
February 4, 2009 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is Obama thinking? It's mind-boggling. They should have told Gregg good-bye when he demanded terms for accepting this cabinet post. This guy will prove to be trouble. There were plenty of capable nominees to choose from who at least shared Obama's political and economic philosophy. An astute politician (Roosevelt) would have gotten a 60 seat Senate with this and furthered the people's business. What did Obama get? A man opposed to his economic policies and zero political gain.
This sounds like more of that idiotic drivel about a team of rivals administration. Teams of rivals don't work, for Lincoln or anybody else.
February 4, 2009 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink