It seems to me that - in the interests of bipartisanship - Obama should not have campaigned but rather ceded the election to McCain.

What makes Gregg such a good choice for Commerce anyway? Other than the symbolism of having another Republican in the cabinet, I don't know.

I was reading about how he voted against a minimum wage increase shortly after winning $800,000 in the lottery. If Obama wants another Repub, there's got to be somebody better. Let Gregg lose his reelection and get a Democrat in his seat.

God, I pray Obama isn't as naive as he seems.

If he gets a rethug in the senate, he needs to get a committment not to filibuster any Supreme Court nominations!

I hope we double-cross them...you know they'd do it to us.

WTF!!!!!

Get a $#%#ing Democrat in there now! The stimulus is not going to be passed and the Republicans are not going to be playing nice and be bipartisan.

If the political circumstances were totally reversed this deal/pressure on not changing the makeup of the Senate would be laughed off by Republicans.

God, the Democrats are stupid. They are going to blow it completely. They need some balls and it appears at this time they don't have any.

The old saying along the lines of "the more things change the more they stay the same" certainly is ringing true with the new Administration.

Lobbyists, Wall Street, the MSM media, and elites are still being served and pandered to; and all awhile they are still thumbing their noses at us. Bailouts for them. No help for anyone else.

I guess the million plus that turned out on the Mall on Inauguration day are already forgotten by Obama and Reid.

Sadly, this country is toast.

Could someone please explain to me how the wheeling and dealing over Gregg and filling his vacancy is different than the talked about wheeling and dealing by my former Governor, Rod Blagojevich.

I despise the guy (Blagojevich) but quid pro quos can come in many shapes and sizes and I fail to see how the new Hampshire process differed from what was spoken about in Illinois but did not come to pass.

The problem with putting in a liberal or Moderate Republican will be he or she will seem sane to the electorate. But will still be a foot soldier for the crazies. And overall be the favorite to win re-election. What the Gov of NH should do is appoint a batsh**t crazy conservative - Somebody who'll not only support the republican leadership but alienate the local voters as well and pretty much guarantee a Democratic victory in 2010.

Yet another reason to support Russ Feingold's constitutional amendment eliminating the right of governors to appoint Senate replacements.

Quid Pro Quo. I am appalled that a senator can dictate the terms for a replacement. This is not bipartisanship. this is the height of naivite. If the Senator wants the job in the White House--take it. If the Governor wants to replace him with a Democrat--that's his perogative. Anything else is politics in the worst sense of the word.

Stuart Shiffman - Personal Gain!

I fail to see a net gain from this move. Sure, in 2010 a Dem doesn't have to fight uphill against an incumbent. But between now and 2010 there is a whole lot stuff to do, and not getting it done could turn the tide against the Dems. How does adding Gregg at Commerce help accomplish anything?

If he gets a rethug in the senate, he needs to get a committment not to filibuster any Supreme Court nominations!

Posted by: candideinnc on February 2, 2009 at 3:54 PM |

It's not the Republicans who believe that it is appropriate to filibuster Supreme Court nominees, but the Dems who do. Both Hillary and the One think it is proper for a Senate minority to stop a nominee who has majority support. Can't wait for the first vacancy to watch them change their tune as they have on so many things already. lol

Ugh, I hate reading comments on posts like these, where Obama makes political decisions that may (or may not) be in the best interest of the country, but which are clearly not in the best interest of the Democratic party.

These posts bring out the worst in partisans; you've got goethean up there saying that they *hope* we behave as badly as Republicans at their worst, you've got Stuart professing not to see the difference between auctioning a Senate seat to the highest bidder and agreeing not to change the balance of power in order to woo a candidate, and you've got JM going on an adolescent tirade about... I'm not sure what.

What I hate most about knee-jerk partisans is how you just *know* they would unthinkingly take the opposite position of circumstances were different. This isn't principled debate, it's the same "we've got to stick it to the other side, the country be damned."

It's depressing as hell.

Just maybe the governor will leave the seat vacant long enough to by-pass a filibuster. Then again, just leave it open for awhile, maybe 3 months, 6 months, long enough to let the R's realize how it feels to be duped.

Folks, you have this all wrong.

This has nothing to do with Gregg, the Senate, or Commerce.

This is Obama's effort to payback Stewart and Colbert for their support during the election by giving them something to lampoon despite Bush's departure from office.

I have no problem with people criticizing Obama, but at what point will his liberal critics stop pretending he's a moron? You don't have to trust his judgment, but hasn't he earned even a little credit in terms of assuming he might have a plan?

As it is, his critics seem to act like we elected a six-year-old who lacks any critical thinking skills; rather than a political genius who out-maneuvered more experienced opponents on both sides of the political spectrum. And remember, no matter how naive you assume he is, he did what your favorite politicians were unable to do. Again, you don't have to agree with his plan, but the assumption should be that he has one.

I fail to see a net gain from this move.

The gain is that it creates an atmosphere of cooperation between two branches of government. Obama selected Clinton, Salazar, and Biden in part to diminish animosity with the Senate majority. Solis does the same in the House. Hode and Gregg do it with Republicans. After sixteen years of who's on top and who owns the secrets, this is change to a more open form of government.

Also, Obama has set high standards for conflict of interest. That eliminates a lot of candidates, but it also makes Commerce a very difficult post to fill. Most experts in commerce are too closely tied to one industry or another, while academics tend not to make great managers and usually lack practical experience.

It amazes me how much grumbling and worrying people are doing over President Obama's actions so far. To all of you I say, "Chill out." He proved very adept during the campaign, exceptionally savvy in tapping into the deep pool of grassroots activism, ran the best campaign I have ever seen, surrounded himself with the best people...and generally excelled every time some nervous progressive blogger questioned his actions.

Don't get stuck on every little battle or you lose sight of the bigger picture. Take the lack of Republican support for the House stimulus bill, President Obama understands how Congress works. That's why he didn't hyperventilate. He knows that once the Senate version is passed and the House and Senate reconcile the two bills into a single bill, that many of those same legislators will support it.

The long view...that is where we need to focus. The Gregg pick needs to be seen through that same lense. I see a President sending out strong signals that he intends to listen to differeing opinions. This isn't some ignorant genture hoping to woo Republicans en mass, no, but it does lay the groundwork to more constructive dialogue with individual legislators. With a good working relationship with Congress, the President can draw on select GOP legislators for specific bills. Not necessarily the same people each time, but that is the beauty of what he is doing. For most bills, only a handful of cross-over votes are needed. So, target legislators who agree on that particular issue.

Anyway, assuring Republicans that he isn't trying to raid another Senate seat, is a gesture of good will. It will be remembered, even when public displays don't make it apparent. Much of the real work of making law happens out of the public view anyway.

Also, Obama has set high standards for conflict of interest.

I wish that were true. Daschele and Geithner are conflicted in the worst ways possible -- and it has nothing to do with back taxes. The former is an ex-lobbyist for health and insurance concerns while the latter was in the hip pocket of the people who've fucked up the economy. I don't think they are honest brokers and they are perfectly positioned to NOT make the necessary changes.

On the other hand, I think Obama has started off very well, and I don't really mind this move. Commerce Secretaries are a colorless lot and I don't see Gregg changing that. From my own partisan standpoint (and I don't think this is why Obama did it), it puts in a placeholder for 2 years instead of an incumbent and it opens up an already-vulnerable seat to favor the resurgent Democratic party in New Hampshire.

Still, I'd rather see Rudman in there, if they "have" to pick a Republican.

I fail to see a net gain from this move.

I fail to see any point whatever.

I see a President sending out strong signals that he intends to listen to differeing opinions.

Then I trust that includes mine, also.

The long view...that is where we need to focus.

As I recall, in 2002, there were a lot of Democrats who wanted to get the vote on Iraq out of the way so they could focus on the election....

Commerce Secretaries are a colorless lot and I don't see Gregg changing that.

Why not just reward some state level Democrat then?

I have no problem with people criticizing Obama, but at what point will his liberal critics stop pretending he's a moron?

When he ceases these masochistic efforts at "bipartisanship."

Why not just reward some state level Democrat then?

I have no idea. Maybe he worked with Gregg on something and thought he had some good ideas. Maybe he thought it was the right thing to do. Maybe he drew the name out of a hat.

What I know: He tried to appoint a state-level Democrat and Richardson blew it. He's appointed several very good people to his cabinet and other high-level positions (including samantha powers) and some not-so-good. He also seems to work under good faith assumptions, and he promised a bipartisan cabinet.

What I care about: The Democrats passing the best stimulus package possible.

I will wait to see if this works or is in any way connected to it. Otherwise, I'll hope that Solis is approved soon and that the Republican appointed by Lynch votes for a good stimulus.

If the governor appoints a Republican who will retire in two years then the governor can run for an open seat. So the governor agreeing to appoint a Republican might serve his own interests in that it eliminates the incumbent.

Here we go again, but thank goodness for Brooks, Doc BB, it, and danp who actually get it, or part of it. (The other part is, as I've pointed out, that this type of assurance has always been sought before Senators are willing to accept Cabinet posts. In fact, the problem doesn't occur because usually you only pick a Senator whose governor is the same party.)

At least this time there was only one braying jackass who suggested we should double cross them, maybe two with the 'leave the seat open' suggestion.

And yes the Republicans are posturing and 'talking tough' now, but they did on a lot of Cabinet nominations too, and then voted for them. They are getting a LOT of heat from their governors to support the stimulus, and they will. But later there are going to be bills which Democrats don't support unanimously which it will be good to get a few Republican votes on.

And this "quid pro quo" is different from Blago' in what way? It's a Senate seat and that's a valuable thing! What a bunch of hooey. The Dems won and the repub's lost and there is no way in hell the repub's would've agreed to this if Bushie was still around.

The gain is that it creates an atmosphere of cooperation between two branches of government.

I think you mean cooperation between the two parties, but in any case, I'm still waiting to see any sign that the Republicans are interested in working with the Democrats on anything.

Are you predicting that Mitch McConnell will end his strategy of filibustering every bill that can't get 60 votes?

Wasn't this exaclty why so many were criticizing Blago? Selling a seat? THis is just another form.

What I know: He tried to appoint a state-level Democrat and Richardson blew it.

So all state level officials are damned to hell from now on? Get real.

What I care about: The Democrats passing the best stimulus package possible.

They control Congress and the President. Assuming they are serious, this should not be a problem.

Given Obama's treatment of the Republicans so far - and the various "view the long term" type comments above, including your comment about Richardson - I doubt the Democrats are serious.

The key apparently is to choose someone who won't run in 2010. That should be, and probably is, the litmus test for Lynch: to arrange for an open Senate seat that could easily go to a Democrat.

Obama's choices for his economic 'team' don't please me at all, and that includes Gregg, but that's no surprise.

So all state level officials are damned to hell from now on? Get real.

How did you make that leap? There's a lot of pointless speculation as to why Obama is doing this. I said I have no idea. I pointed out that Richardson was originally Obama's choice and he withdrew. Not that other state-level officials were "damned to hell".

Is there a Democrat who would be better than Grigg? Most likely. Does Obama have some reason for doing it? I would assume so. But I don't know what it is -- and neither do you. I'm not asking you to take a "long term view". I'm just saying there's a ton of baseless speculation and garment-rendering over a pick that may or may not have ramifications we don't yet understand.

You people are not very smart. Judd Gregg has been the go-to debate prepper for the past three or four Republican Presidential candidates. If he is in the Cabinet during an economic crisis, a position he never would have garnered under a Republican administration, he will be loathe to relinquish his influence over economic policy to help prepare whoever challenges and ultimately debates Obama in 2012.