What possible incentive is there for including ANOTHER repug in the cabinet when the party has shown absolutely no intention of compromise or bipartisanship. If you can't get a Democratic Senator out of the deal, for God's sake, drop the idea! Take back the tax reduction stimulus compromises made for the purpose of winning over the goopers and start playing hard ball. The election was won and the people have spoken.

...trading one relatively moderate GOP senator for a dependently moderate GOP senator...

I think you meant to say dependably.

Isn't it a little Blago-ish to try to trade his seat for something he wants?

i do think we should distinguish between the gop house, which largely represents safe wingnut districts and really is interested in remaining a minority party, and the gop senators, some of whom face actual non-wingnut voters....

that said, there must be a better choice than gregg unless we get a democratic senator out of the deal....

Uhm isn't this the epitome of quid pro quo? BTW every Rethug isn't created equally. Maybe the Governer could find a RINO who was pro choice and wants universal healthcare. I would think there might be a few of those in NH which is trending decidedly blue.

We don't need his seat in 2010 -- we'll win enough then. If Obama still chooses him, my opinion of O will go down even more.
:-(

Why and how is Judd Gregg's attempt to make a deal for an appointment to his Senate seat different from what Governor Rod B. is alleged to have attempted to do in Illinois?

Nate Silver had an interestingly jaundiced take on the whole thing yesterday. Upshot: Having fewer than 60 Dems actually doesn't hurt O's chances of moving legislation all that much, but does give him cover of being able to call the GOP "obstructionist" at key times. He's better off keeping Gregg there so whatever excuses he has to make in 2010 are more credible.

Besides, given how center-right many Senate Dems are, he'll have to appeal to that crowd regardless -- it's not like 60 votes gives progressives the field.

Finally, I don't see what putting Gregg in the Cabinet gets Obama. He's a conservative Republican, not a moderate. He only looks moderate next to Jim DeMint and that crew. But his recent voting record is purely a feature of his re-election fears; stick him in a cabinet sinecure and he'll go right back to his old conservative self. Do we need that on whatever issues Commerce actually does?

Funny, though -- clearly O has no real policy plan for that cabinet seat . In what world to Gregg and Bill Richardson share common goals and interests?

All of the speculation over this will be cleared up on Monday morning, when Amerika's jackboot brigade gets its goosestepping orders from Rush(icklgruber) Limbaugh....

I say go ahead and make the deal: appoint Gregg, then, after he's confirmed, welch on the "appoint a Republican" part. Let Gregg "sue" the governor, Obama, whomever. Ain't never gonna win THAT lawsuit.

With Gregg out of the running the chance of this seat going Dem in 2010 increases massively.

Gregg would in all likelihood be a dreadful Commerce Secretary, but 86-year-old Peterson, who chaired the "Republicans for Lynch", won't run in 2010 thus creating an open Senate seat in increasingly Democratic New Hampshire. As a long-term investment in a 60-vote majority that might make some sense to tacticians. There has to be more to this than the transparent tactic of picking off a Rethug senator from a Democratic state.

You quote: "Gregg would never allow his seat to go to a Democrat, the only way he would allow it is if he died," said a Republican close to Gregg. "He would consider it to be a breach of trust to people who elected it."

WTF?

First, what is this "it" that the people elected?

Second, what's this "if he died" business? A threat to Gregg himself?

Finally, what about this power to "allow" things after death? Does this power emanate from Repub corpses, or are Repub zombies coming to take over our entire nation (I hear they've already arrived in Texas)?

Could Gregg's appointment be intended to pacify Chamber of Commerce types, rather than the congressional GOP? Even partially neutralizing the business lobby could advance Obama's agenda a lot more than "bipartisan" deals with Republicans on Capitol Hill.

Elevating Gregg to the Cabinet to get one more D in the Senate is playing cheap politics for no real gain. Obama has more respect for the duties of the President and the role of the cabinet then to waste them on such tawdry ploys.

Is Gregg a valuable addition to the Cabinet? If yes (either based on his own knowledge and experience or by bringing more Republicans into the administration) then nominate him.

It seems to me that Obama is playing the Blago game. He offers a cabinet post to Gregg as a way to pry loose a Senate seat for the DEmocrats. I understand the Obama allies in New Hampshire are raising hell, threatening a huge push to defeat Gregg in 2010 if he turns it down.

The major motivation for Obama to appoint a GOP Commerce Sec is to have a scapegoat to share responsibility when the porculus bill doesn't help.

Mike K.--
Your points are to stupid to have come from Limbaugh. I'm going to guess: Hannity or Cavuto. Let me know.

This just shows how much things have changed with Obama in office. If we played by the Karl Rove rules, the Democrats would accept the offer, Gregg would resign, some very liberal Democrat would register as a Republican and get the nomination. Probably won't happen though.

actually this is a great idea:

a) even more bipartisan cred, which continues to make the gop look like the partisan obstructionists they are.

b) commerce is useless, no reason not to put a token there.

c) having 59 seats is actually better than 60, which puts far more pressure on dems.

d) a more dependable vote in the seat, since the gop senator appointed would be more liberal and won't have to run for re-election.

e) the dems will take the seat with relative ease in 2010, and probably have 60-something seats as opposed to exactly 60, which will give nelson, lieberman, etc, way too much power.

I'm curious, though: if Gregg sticks to this, what's the incentive for Obama to select him?

I can't speak to Gregg's qualifications, but if Obama really just tabbed him in order to gain another seat in the Senate (rather than, say, because he thinks Gregg is the most competent candidate for the job) that would be a sad, sad thing indeed.

Looks like a win-win-win for Juddhead. If he gets his way he gets a cushy job for four years (assuming he's nominated). If not, his refusal to take the job shows he sticks to his principles, which would make for some nice campaign ads. If Obama says fine, we'll get someone else (or Congress gives him a hard time) he can talk about how Dems don't like to cooperate.

So how would this work?

Gregg gets the promise, but he has to RESIGN before the Gov. can appoint anyone.

So he resigns, the Gov. appoints a Democrat, and in a hissy-fit Gregg does what? Says "no" to the Cabinet post.

BFD.

It's a win/win.

Anyone here think the ReThugs wouldn't do the same damn thing?

Let's see how he votes on the stimulus bill first.

"Still, all things being equal, if Gregg is applying this condition, the appeal of his nomination goes down considerably."

Well, there goes the usual "it's a Privilage to be asked to work for our country". Instead, you want me, here is what I want.

Unless Gregg is "the Houdini" of Commerce, this is an easy one: "Stay home in NH, where you is gunna get whooped bad in 2010, and be a nobody; Gregg is a little toooo big for the britches he is currently occupying.

Maybe they would Sarah, but making phony baloney cabinet offers on one hand, or putting someone you just backstabbed into your cabinet on the other still aren't good ideas.

I have rarely been as shocked and disgusted by a set of comments at PA or TCBR as I am right now. You guys are rarely this ignorant or absurd.

Of course Gregg wants to make sure his party keeps his seat. Every Senator or Representative who is offered a Cabinet Position -- whatever his party or the party in power -- has wanted to be sure of this, and rightly so. Imagine if a Republican Governor had replaced Biden with a Republican. Even Hillary probably would have hesitated to accept if Pataki was still in office and been responsible for appointing her successor. (Representatives don't have the same right, but they rarely accept if they think their District will switch parties -- and they are shocked if it happens, as when, I think, Mel Laird took a position under Nixon and David Obey won the seat.)

This is why I favor the Wyoming rule, that the Governor makes the appointment, but has to choose from a list of three provided by the party that had held the vacancy. (I disagree with those who demand 'only elections' because I don't like the idea of Senate seats staying vacant for three to four months until the process can be completed. If a Governbor was permitted to make a temporary selection until an election could be held -- no more than six months after the vacancy occurred -- that would make sense. But leaving vacancies for that long doesn't.)

So this isn't some 'evil Republican ploy' but standard, and desireable, operating procedure. (The comparison to Blago is too stupid to be funny.)

And, btw, one thing about the 'Commerce Department.' It is one of the least important Cabinet posts, has very little to do, and a lot of commentators have suggested abolishing it entirely and moving the few important components elsewhere.

"..if Gregg is applying this condition.." and Obama does hire him, the president should have his head examined. In fact, he probably should anyway, for approaching Gregg in the first place.

What nerve to impose such a potentially far-reaching condition to his appointment.

He's essentially wants his cake and eat it too!

Just say no, Obama.

Forget about calling Gregg's conditions for accepting the Commerce Secretary post "quid pro quo". It sounds more like BLACKMAIL to me!

I don't know which is worse, the ignorance that ignores the fact that every Senator demands this or he doesn't take the job -- and some Senators are not picked for important positions simply because they would be replaced by a Senator from the opposing party.

Or the sheer loathsomness of those who suggest 'make the promise, then break it.' If Bush had done something like that, we'd still list it as among the reasons we detested him, and rightly so. We may rightfully hate Republicans, but that doesn't give us the excuse to act like them against them.

I'm with prup on this. We are supposedly better than that - or them - or something.

My confidence in Obama will also plummet if he tries this move. The "supermajority number" of 60 is fundamentally stupid. The only way it has meaning is if the Senate decided to vote on 4 years worth of bills at the same time. In the real world, bills are considered and voted on one at a time. All the President, Reid, Rahm, and the Whips need to do is get a supermajority for one vote! Then another, then another, and then another. The "supermajority number" was invented by and for people with short attention spans.

"I can't speak to Gregg's qualifications, but if Obama really just tabbed him in order to gain another seat in the Senate (rather than, say, because he thinks Gregg is the most competent candidate for the job) that would be a sad, sad thing indeed."

I agree. If Obama really does think that Gregg is the right man for the job (and my understanding is that Obama hasn't made a decision yet; Gregg is merely on the short list), then Gregg is doing Obama a favor by insisting on a Republican replacement. This thread makes clear that if Obama selected Gregg and there wasn't a stipulation that Gregg's replacement would be a Republican, then even people who are not reflexively opposed to Obama would believe that Obama made the appointment in order to get another Democrat in the Senate. If Obama selects Gregg now, people may still criticize the choice, but at least Obama will have a shot at convincing people that Gregg is the right man for the job.

Judd Gregg is rated at zero by the AFL-CIO -- what kind of message would it send to appoint a pro-labor Secretary of Labor and an anti-labor Secretary of Commerce? These are not exclusive little kingdoms that can be run in opposite directions without provoking chaos. There needs to be a coherent overall direction to federal policy -- and putting a right-wing, pro-war, anti-labor Republican in a powerful Cabinet position makes no sense. The only excuse for this nonsense was that Dems might pick up a 60th vote in the Senate. But now with McConnell declaring that Gregg has promised his replacement will not be a Dem, even that thin thread is broken.

Meanwhile, it seems like he's saying that there is something wrong with Democrats. If he feels that way, he can go pound sand, we don't need an enemy inside our tent.