so exactly wtf did obama originally pick him for commerce?

it does seem to me that the president has some shaky peeps in his dollars dept.

uderstatement?

I think it's very very interesting that ever since Gregg "turned down" the Commerce Secretary job (which he wanted), he's been dissing Obama left and right. I wonder why he's so angry at Obama. There's something else other than partisan hackery at work here. It's personal for him, and I can't figure out why.

It shows that not even about to be retired Republicans will let the truth stand in the way of a good anecdote.

It's personal for him, and I can't figure out why.

I could have something to do with the fact that his former aide, Kevin Koonce, was named in an Abramoff related plea deal just before Gregg withdrew his name from consideration. And, not to be too conspiratorial, but this recent behavior could be the start of a they're-out-to-get-me defense. It wouldn't be the first time (e.g. Delay, Stevens)

Umm, we couldn't join the European Union because we're not in, like ya know, Europe.

I had no idea Obama wanted to us to join the EU, everything makes sense now.

I think we now know why Obama wanted Gregg at commerce, to remove him as an impediment in the Senate. Commerce is where public servants go to die. Or, donors go to gloat.

The exchange between Conrad and Gregg has been great T.V. if you like watching a good fight in Senate speak. Good times.

It's cute to talk about our not being part of Europe, but Gregg clearly meant he thought we wouldn't be able to join EU in principle to make a point about our economic situation. But he has some "issues." I don't blame people for asking WTH did Obama pick him, but REM Obama would get flack no matter what he did. If he does pick Republicans to be bipartisan he has a big chance of getting a flake liek Gregg; if he doesn't, the Villagers and Pillagers will rake him for being too partisan etc.

I think Gregg had to do penance to get his Club For Growth membership (with its valuable discounts) card back.

Also, I was under the impression that the current account deficit and debt to gdp limits only applied to countries that wanted to join the Euro, not the EU more generally. Talk about giving voice to Michelle Bachman's fears that we're going to abandon the dollar.

Right. The 3%-Rule applies to joining the Euro. But it's a sham anyway.
Joining the EU would require to get rid of the death penalty, amongst other things.

Gregg is confusing the EU and the Eurozone (countries which use the Euro as currency). The Growth and Stability pact applies to the Eurozone not the EU. The UK is part of the EU and is not a signatory of the Growth and Stability Pact.

Here's some Economics Help for the Senator
http://www.economicshelp.org/2009/01/growth-and-stupidity-stability-pact.html

Also, since when did Gregg decide that if the French do something, we should too ? That is the substance of his argument.

I seem to remember that not too long ago anybody speaking out against the President's policies or suggesting the current policies weren't working was called a 'traitor'. What ever happened to that?

OMG! Does Michelle Bachman know that Gregg wants us to adopt the EURO!!!!

He must, because otherwise those requirements wouldn't matter to him, right? Quick, someone email Drudge! Judd Gregg wants us to adopt the Euro!

No wonder Obama decided not to have him in the Cabinet! Now we see Gregg's true colors - trying to bring this great country into some kind of world currency. It's disgusting.

;-)

Nice pick, Obama.

Bipartisanship!

Of course the EU requires that nations abolish the death penalty as a requirement for membership. That is churlish and narrow-minded of them, so screw them. We just won't join if they want to be like that.

It was distressing this morning to read the NYTimes story on Germany's economy. It seemed to suggest that although Germany may eventually slip into a worse economic position because of its conservative approach to stimulating its economy; it enjoys a superior position the the US because the German social safety net is stronger and it hasn't run huge deficits as the Bush administration did for the last 8 years. One can extrapolate that Republican deficit spending, coupled with Republican aversion to social programs, added to Republican distaste for financial regulation, both created our economic problems and are forcing us to spend more money to solve them! Perhaps in time the 'Anglo-Saxon' model will prove itself (layoffs without benefits, low regulations,etc.) but at present it doesn't look too likely.

If we could enjoin, would we be joining "Old Europe" or the "New Europe"? I mean, just in case we decide to start another war, or something...

Gregg, although a Senator, was relatively unknown before Obama nominated him. This is merely a case of reaping what was sown.

It's personal for him, and I can't figure out why.
Posted by: Elizabeth at 8:44 AM

It doesn't have to be personal. Gregg scared the hell out of himself, (which is personal I suppose), by not just thinking about wandering off the reservation but by actually making overtures to the enemy that he wanted to come on over and lend a hand.

He then woke up and realized it was the Ambien talking and whoever that fool was he'd better distance himself from himself and the rabble that he offered to consort with.

Gregg got excited enough about what was going on with "change we could believe in" that he temporarily lost his mind. But the real Gregg is back now so any confusion can be laid to rest.

The idea behind Judd at commerce was to win his Senate seat sooner rather than later, either in 2010 or appt (we now know it would be 2010). Simple answer.

If I may segue into how to fix the economy - few on either party seem to have lighted on IMHO groundbreaking notions like mine below.
For years I've been offering the following up here and there: change corporate tax code so the base cost of employment for deduction is multiplied by a factor like 1.2X. There'd be adjustments: a limit per person, OT pay would not get the multiplier (to further encourage hiring more people instead), and the pay *must go to US citizens* to be exempted at all (or at least, to get the multiplier.) Then charge a "high" corp rate like 48%. With this or similar, it won't pay as well to lay off workers to get robots or go overseas.

Will someone please inform Sen. Gregg that we who live in the EU have no interest in his proposition but we thank him for his interest.

Cheers,

Alan Tomlinson

Paging Michelle Bachmann, paging Michelle Bachmann

One of your own wants to join the EU! He's a communist! He's a Marxist! He's a socialist!

Go git 'em, girl!

Is Gregg polishing up his conservative bona fides in order to get a plum job in a conservative thinktank?

Alan - My feelings are hurt that you don't want US in EU. We are such a cooperative bunch, we'd fit right in.

Where did this latest goofy idea come from anyway..that the US would join the EU. Or, was he just using this a some kind of rhetorical device. After Bachmann's lunacy about the US needing to commit to not changing its currency, there's no idiotic rightwing talking point that seems impossible to them.

"I think it's very very interesting that ever since Gregg "turned down" the Commerce Secretary job (which he wanted), he's been dissing Obama left and right. I wonder why he's so angry at Obama."

File it under 'methinks he doth protest too much'. Gregg had a little scandal developing about some old military bases he had the gov funding and his brother's role in it. He would not have passed muster with the Senate vetting.

As for why obama picked him- the dems were looking to pick up his senate seat, and the commerece dept is not all that important. Only the census is important and the took that away from Gregg.

Umm, we couldn't join the European Union because we're not in, like ya know, Europe. Posted by: martin on March 27, 2009

a minor quibble which Republicans would simply solve by moving the bubble over to the right and reconnect it to the EU bubbles

I think Eisenhower would be righteously outraged at today's Repubs.

@martin.

Strangely enough, while there are countless rules and regulations you need to conform too in order to actually join the EU, Ranging from specific rules for the way butcher shops are tiled to strong freedom of press guarantees, there are no geographical qualifications for EU membership.

If they wanted the USA, Argentina and Burkina Faso could all apply for EU membership. And after implementing the necessary reforms (for example the USA would have improve their food and public health standards) they could be allowed to join EU regardless of their location.

That focus on democracy, good governance, and political and commercial equality is actually one of the more appealing sides of the union.