normal is democrats holding their toes and backing up to the nearest republican -- sorry. this arrogance/acquiescence game in washington really really sucks...

giving President Obama a fresh independent voice in his Cabinet but at a huge cost to Republicans and the larger Senate.

Why a huge cost to Republicans? Gregg has supported Obama in 47% of votes cast so far. How much more will a Republican replacement do?

And if he (Gregg) doesn't vote at all, Republicans may find it more difficult to sustain a filibuster

If Gregg doesn't vote at all, it doesn't help get 60 votes, so it does help kill a cloture vote. I suppose that if the Dems actually made them speechify, they would have one less speaker, but ...

"I assume the political establishment is satisfied with three?"

Never! The rethugs will only be satisfied when Obama appoints all rethugs & accepts everything that the Rushbo party says should be done. The coporate media will continue in their role as echo chamber & amplifier for the rethug talking points.

I assume the political establishment is satisfied with three?

Ha ha ha ha ha. They will never be satisfied with anything, that is how they keep moving the goalposts in what they think is a game. Next they will be complaining that Obama didn't pick any Republicans from "real" conservative areas (i.e. the South). In 3, 2, 1.....

As I've been saying, this is absolutely the right thing to do, if Obama wants Gregg. (Though I would have preferred Rudman -- more conservative, perhaps, but also one of the few Republicans (Dick Lugar may be the only other one left in the Senate) whose integrity is unquestionable. And who is one Republican who wouldn't attend a policy discusssion involving a Wurzelbacher.)

This is a long-standing tradition and a good one. Without it, in a closely divided Senate, a President could change the results of an election by 'cherry-picking.' More important -- and the argument against the Feingold Amendment -- without that surety, any Senator from a close state could not be chosen for the Cabinet. (If Salazar were being replaced by a Republican -- as he might have been in an election -- would we have been as happy. Or, for that matter, even Biden might have kept his seat rather than accepting the VP post were Delaware as Repubkican as it was a few years ago.

I still hold out for a variant, the "Wyoming Plan" and elections guaranteed in no less than six months after a vacancy.

Amazing how on an early Wednesday morning in November, the RepuGs, suddenly, became aware of protecting the rights of minorities, well, at least one minority Party, that is.

Didn't someone say that bipartisanship is like date rape?

The Dems never fail to live up to their stereotype. Spreading their legs comes to them very naturally.

I get the idea Obama supporters (Prup excepted) aren't too happy about this choice. A hardcore fiscal conservative whose vision stops at the Chamber of Commerce, whose job will be to promote development but doesn't particularly believe in it, who comes from a Democratic state but will be replaced by another Republican, who, in short, represents everything that those who worked to put Obama in office have come to loathe -- what's the upside?

The Administration's argument is that Gregg will work to convince those few Republicans still left in Congress who aren't absorbing their political theory from Joe the Plumber that Obama's policies aren't so bad after all, that he in fact embraces classical Republican principles such as letting Wall Street crooks keep their publicly-funded loot. Again, where's the upside? As noted, the Repug hardcore won't be buying since Gregg isn't a "real" Republican, from the Confederacy or the Mormon Triangle. And at what cost? We need to move fast, and so far all we've done is bail out the million dollar bonus crowd at the cost of middle class jobs and homes.

Even giving Obama every point he asks for, it's hard to see the long, or even short term benefit in this. Changing the Democratic Party to make it more like the Republicans is heading in the wrong direction. Clinton proved that, old DLCers Daschle and Geithner reinforce it, and appointments like this put a funny hat on it. Who was the guy who said "I'm from the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party?" I think he's from Steve's hometown.

There's obviously no equally or better qualified Democrat for this job, so some of you just need to chill. Supporting Bush policies shouldn't disqualify anyone, ever. American citizens have no right to question our President. If you think otherwise, best keep it to yourself or I might roll my eyes disapprovingly!

Really good Kool Aid, by the way. I see some of you have had some already.

Yesterday, Dr. Biobrain said, rightly, that some of you had been treating Obama like a six-year old political naif. What he didn't point out was that this has been a consistent stance for some of you. It is as if you bought into the Republican portrait of Obama as an 'empty-headed celebrity' who 'made a good speech but had never accomplished anything.'

I would love to look back and see how many of you who are criticizing Obama made any or all of the following mistakes:

"The primaries don't matter. The superdelegates will throw the nomination to Hillary however many votes Obama gets."

"Obama's lost the primaries already by not hitting Hillary on her obvious vulnerabilities."

"Hillary's success with certaing groups shows that Obama can't win, because those groups will vote for McCain en masse rather than vote for the 'sexist' Obama."

"Obama's acceptance of Hillary's none-too-gravious withdrawal will give her and Bill a chsance to stampede the convention for her." (Okay, on that one, "Guilty")

"Hillary will stab Obama in the back during the campaign so she can run in 2012."

"McCain's choice of Palin will attract enough women to ensure his victory."

"Obama's too 'nice' and 'respectful' during the debates. He's lost."

"The mainstream media are in the Republicans' pocket. They'll swing the election to McCain and certainly will never point out the inconsistencies in his campaign."

and most of all

"Obama won't let the 527s attack McCain. He'll be swiftboated the way Kerry was. That's it, the election's already lost, let's start planning for 2012."

Now I'm not arguing that people who have made 5 or so of these mistakes should STFU. I'm just asking some of you who recognize your own howls of anguish in the above to stop a bit and maybe consider that your basic view of the world and of Obama needs adjusting.

(Ironically, many of you are the loudest in -- rightly -- criticizing Republicans for not reevaluating their positions but instead holding steadily to their own errors against the evidence.)

Sorry Prup, I'm clean. Hillary never represented the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" anyway. Instead, she and her amanuensis drove people like me to become independents in the 90s. I'm just glad Howard hung in there. How about focusing on what's going on today? In the forty minutes since the last post, another Obama appointee (#2 OMB, I believe) has been dumped in the broth over tax problems. Depending on how you count 'em, I think that's five (Holder, Geithner, Richardson, Daschle, vassername) with significant problems. Score for the Progressives: zero. That's scandals, and appointments.

Lost a clause. Should have read "...that's five with signicant problems, plus three Republicans. Score for the Pros: zero."

Obama will be "the first president since Theodore Roosevelt to appoint three members of the opposing party to his cabinet."

Actually FDR appointed three Republicans too (and Cabinets were smaller then): William Woodin to Treasury, Harold Ickes to Interior, and Henry Wallace to Agriculture. Woodin left the Cabinet early on and both Ickes and Wallace became such vigorous New Dealers that their original party was forgotten. Later, Henry Stimson at the War Department was a Republican. The FDR/BHO parallels mount up ...

I dunno, Prup. I only read the first few lines of your post, but I can say that the "Obama is to the right of Attila the Hun! He personally betrayed me!" crowd is no more tiresome than the "Shut up! He has a secret plan!" gang. This blog seems to attract more than its share of one-note johnnies on both sides who never vary their stance no matter the topic, issue or nominee being discussed.