Personally, I wouldn’t even consider appointing Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) to be Secretary of Commerce unless I was assured that Governor John Lynch (D-NH) was going to appoint a Democrat to replace him. In fact, getting that sixtieth senator would be the sole reason I would consider appointing another Republican to head a major department of the federal government. However, there are other benefits and potential benefits that could accrue to the Obama administration by appointing Gregg.
Removing Gregg from the Republican caucus weakens that caucus because Gregg is a very important figure within the caucus structure. He is the ranking member and former chairman of the Budget Committee, and he is one of the few bright minds the Republicans have on understanding how the federal bureaucracy actually works. By lines of seniority, it’s most likely that Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama would replace Gregg as Ranking Member on the Budget Committee, and Sen. Sessions might be the stupidest person currently serving in Congress. Sen. Sessions simply doesn’t have the brain power to go toe-to-toe with Budget chairman Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota. Of course, the Republicans are under no obligation to promote Sessions, so this benefit might not materialize.
If Governor John Lynch appoints a Republican to replace Gregg, there could still be some benefits. A Republican that committed not to seek election in 2010 would leave Gregg’s seat open, and therefore much more vulnerable to Democratic takeover. Additionally, other concessions could be part of any deal, including a commitment to allow an up or down vote on the Employee Free Choice Act or other key legislation that is likely to be contentious in the 111th Congress. It’s hard to tell what kind of deals might be going on behind the scenes.
Because I don’t know what is going on in the backrooms, I cannot really judge the intelligence of the appointment of Gregg to Commerce. What I do know is that it would be stupid to appoint Gregg if there is nothing of considerable value to be gained in return. I don’t think it is enough to get credit for bipartisanship, and I don’t think the Obama administration is stupid. So, my guess is that is something valuable will be won if Gregg is appointed, as it now seems he will be. The Republicans are being very aggressive about suggesting that Gregg has guaranteed them that he won’t accept the appointment unless Gov. Lynch appoints someone as a replacement that will caucus with the Republicans. I haven’t seen Gregg confirm that. I also don’t think that that is the end of it. As I’ve said, it’s possible to appoint someone that will caucus with the GOP but that won’t back them up on key votes. In particular, a Republican that won’t back them up on filibusters is not of much use to them.
We shall see.
That’s a f’ing valuable thing…
Bleeping Golden!
I’d argue that Gregg’s seat would be a prime takeover target for Dems in 2010 anyway, so there’s no real benefit in appointing somebody to the seat anyway unless they are a Democrat.
Like I said, the name I keep hearing tossed around is former Reaganite Bonnie Newman.
It’s entirely possible Newman may fit neatly in the Olympia Snowe/Susan Collins mold, but that’s going to be a big “if”.
Say it is Newman.
Will she commit to not running for reelection?
and
Would she commit to allowing an up or down vote on key legislation?
I know the latter runs into treacherous ethical territory (trading votes), but we’re talking about procedural votes. I’m not suggesting that she be asked to vote for or against any actual bills.
I’ve heard that Newman would be a placeholder and not run in 2010. Dunno about an up or down vote.
But still, what does Obama gain from doing this?
pretty much what I laid out.
plus, he proved he could pillage.
There has to be a deal in there somewhere then. I guess we’ll find out what it is eventually.
Also, the other name I’m hearing is former NH State Speaker of the House, Republican Doug Scamman. Either way, Lynch is confirming the “understanding” that Gregg won’t take the position unless it doesn’t change the balance of power in the Senate, and that the White House is aware of it.
Yeah, most governors respond well to being told what to do by the opposing party.
On the otherhand, is the Gov suseptible to a Leiberman type of election promise that Rep’s will cross the aisle to vote for him next round?
It’s a helluva move on Obama’s part if he can get a promise written in blood from the Gov for a Dem appointment.
Good to see your insights Boo! note Dixville Notch McCain 6 to Obama 15. Gregg had influence because of his budget clout (earmarks for the state) even if republicans are becoming more and more unpopular; his successor, even if a republican, should be quite vulnerable and moving Gregg to Commerce seems to be another step in the sea change taking place in the senate
Could be that Obama wants Gregg at least in part because he’s smart. During the first bailout conflict, Gregg was on the media a lot. He impressed me with his understanding of the issues and his ability to explain them to non-policy-wonks. Unlike many lefies, I still don’t see the bailout process as having a right or wrong answer, so found his take worth considering.
Given that, I was surprised to see that he’s on record as pretty much a rightwing Republican stalwart on issues like choice, energy, environment, and health care. His voting record offers little grounds for seeing him even as a moderate on most of the big issues. He voted against expanding SCHIP, against raising auto mileage standards, against repealing the stem-cell ban, against increasing tax rates on incomes over a $million a year.
So all his instincts as commerce sec will be pro corporate, pro rich. Given his views, it’s hard to see how being smart can balance his rightwing biases. Looks like yet another case of Obama getting lost in wishful thinking about “bipartisanship”.
He sounds like a mole in the Obama administration to me.
Sometimes I wish Obama would extend a hand of friendship to the liberal base.
Could someone explain exactly where the legal line lies on governors appointing senators? Obviously the NG Gov. is involved in all sorts of backroom dealing around this pick. Where does he cross over into Blago territory? To say nothing of those he’s backroom dealing with?
Blago crossed the “line” when it started to look like he was going to get money – actual hard currency – for the Senate seat.
That’s pretty much where the line is in American politics – if the governor is getting some personal material benefit out of the deal, a line is crossed. If the governor is getting something for his/her state, or a political favor or whatever it may be ethically shady but no one is going to make a big deal out of it. If Blago had drawn the line at demanding an Ambassadorship out of Obama for a Senate appointment some eyebrows would have been raised, but I doubt it would have even been made public until after Fitzgerald had finished his corruption investigation – only the suspicion of outright bribery made him stop and make the whole thing public.
That’s pretty much how the legalized bribery in the American system of governance works in general – you’re allowed to do all kinds of ethically shady things as long as you don’t receive any personal material benefit for yourself – or at least you don’t receive any “personal material benefits” that extend beyond the ones that have been formally written into the law by previous generations of politicians. So corporations can give you hefty contributions “for your campaign” and it’s perfectly legal but if they come over to your house to replace your deck for you, you get your ass hauled into court (see Stevens, Ted).
That’s how you can tell that we’re a True Bastion Of Liberal Democracy(tm) and not some backwater tinpot third world country. Because here we have a formalized process for handing over money in exchange favors to politicians, where in a more backward country they just crassly hand over the money without the extra layer of rules. Barbarians.
In a car deal this would be the point to pick up your checkbook and leave the room. I say forget Gregg. A bad deal, even a transparent one, is still a bad deal.
This blog made the “Best of the Blogs” recommendations on Real Clear Politics.
In general I think your political commentary has been very interesting and informative of late.
I may not agree with your views on Europe, but you certainly know your stuff on the USA!