NH Sen Gregg To Commerce? The Replacement Game

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 12:07:52 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The rumors are becoming strong that Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) will be the next Secretary of Commerce. The really interesting part of this story is who would replace Gregg. May I suggest that in our post-partisan unity schtick world, a caretaker appointment of Warrent Rudman, as rumored here, would be a brilliant post partisan unity schtick choice.

Rudman would be the equivalent of a vote for cloture on just about every piece of legislation (which means he is part of that whole "60 votes" thing). Heck, you could get his vote a few times to boot. He'll spend two years wailing about "entitlements," but Broder & Co. will love having Rudman around to define "the Center." But the thing is he would be a caretaker (no reelection run for him), so who really cares? This is supposed to be the type of 11 dimensional chess we have been promised that Obama will deliver -- meaningless "reachout" that does not compromise a progressive agenda. We'll see if it is what we get.

Speaking for me only

< Why Even Save Daschle? | Golden Boy Phelps Lights Up, So Does (Allegedly) Obama's Half-Brother In Kenya >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

NH Sen Gregg To Commerce? The Replacement Game | 19 comments (19 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The best of all worlds (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by andgarden on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 12:17:30 PM EST

is if Lynch apoints a RINO. Such a choice would never win a Republican primary, but would almost always vote with us. So in two years we likely get a Senator Hodes.

Not a bad trade IMO.

As to Rudman (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by andgarden on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 12:20:30 PM EST

Wikipedia claims:

The Wall Street Journal later editorialized about the [Souter] appointment, saying: "Mr. Rudman, the man who helped put liberal jurist David Souter on the high court" and who in his "Yankee Republican liberalism" took "pride in recounting how he sold Mr. Souter to gullible White House chief of staff John Sununu as a confirmable conservative. Then they both sold the judge to President Bush, who wanted above all else to avoid a confirmation battle."[2] Rudman wrote in his memoir that he had "suspected all along" that Souter would not "overturn activist liberal precedents."

heh.


: Like I said (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 12:24:49 PM EST

my kind of post partisan unity schtick.

O team needs to keep it simple (5.00 / 0) (#19)
by Cream City on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 10:30:35 PM EST

as this looks to backfire on them.

But heck, maybe Gregg actually paid his taxes, and the Dems need him to improve the image of the Cabinet.

Sorry, but the Republicans (none / 0) (#3)
by ThatOneVoter on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 12:24:16 PM EST

switched to chess boxing a few years back.
Obama needs to work on his uppercut if he wants to get anything done.

I can not understand this. (none / 0) (#5)
by democrat1 on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 12:40:29 PM EST

Why on earth democrats have always to appoint republicans as secretaries to show that they are bipartisan nice guys, but the republicans never bother to appoint democrats?

: So don't (none / 0) (#18)
by diogenes on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 10:27:43 PM EST

Is it better to keep a 41 vote Republican senate minority? Playing on the ambitions of republican senators by appointing them to cabinet positions without real power is shrewd politics.

Rudman is a good man (none / 0) (#6)
by Radiowalla on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 12:45:24 PM EST

but I'd much prefer that Obama pick a Democrat for Commerce.
I see no need to offer the spot to Gregg, especially when there is no guarantee of getting a 60-vote senate in return.

What it means (none / 0) (#7)
by andgarden on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 12:47:07 PM EST

is that the Republicans will almost be required to knock off a Democrat in 2010 in order to keep their 41. They've gone two cycles without doing that. . .


CO looks like the only state where they (none / 0) (#8)
by tigercourse on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 12:51:06 PM EST

even have a chance.


maybe NV and IL (none / 0) (#9)
by andgarden on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 12:54:07 PM EST

but I wouldn't bet on it. They're on defense again.


I don't see Reid going down. Besides (none / 0) (#10)
by tigercourse on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 12:58:15 PM EST

that state is going to need a high up bringing home the pork im this economy. They'd be fools to vote him out (of course the fools did vote out Daschle).

Burris (if he wins a primary) is pretty sure to win the general. It's a quite Blue state.


: I remember when the fools (none / 0) (#12)
by Spamlet on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 02:00:15 PM EST

in Eastern Washington voted Tom Foley out. Some huge percentage of them told pollsters that Foley's replacement would automatically become Speaker of the House, as Foley had been. Moral: never underestimate the foolishness of some voters.

As much as I want 60, (none / 0) (#11)
by WS on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 01:08:51 PM EST

a liberal Republican RINO caretaker wouldn't be too bad provided that he votes with the Dems on everything especially on EFCA and he leaves in two years.

Gregg is not moderating his views, and having him out of the Senate reduces the Republican caucus of this one staedy conservative vote. But it all depends on the replacement.

Still, a Democrat should be chosen, but it's Gov. Lynch's choice if Gregg accepts.

Don;t need his vote (none / 0) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 02:01:42 PM EST

Just need him not to filibuster


Changed my mind (none / 0) (#15)
by WS on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 03:30:48 PM EST

PICK A DEMOCRATIC REPLACEMENT.

Gregg really wants to get out of there so let him. The Governor should pick a Democratic placeholder in the meantime and let the citizens of New Hamphshire decide a new NH Senator in 2010.


: Should say (none / 0) (#16)
by WS on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 03:31:53 PM EST

Democratic placeholder or Democrat who will run in 2010.

Maybe we can create (none / 0) (#13)
by KeysDan on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 02:01:34 PM EST

an additional 40 cabinet secretariats and fill them with the remaining Republican senators. The governors can then replace them with Democratic appointees, or at least, with Republican appointments that might be better. Just an idea.

More 11 levels of strategy? (none / 0) (#17)
by ricosuave on Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 05:04:47 PM EST

I understand the advantage of getting Gregg out of the Senate, but why can't we have a Democrat for Sec. Commerce? I realize the country is still well divided between R and D, but why does Obama have to govern like there are solid republican majorities in both houses of congress?

I was already asking this question with his "congress needs to get off their butts and pass the stimulus" speech the other day. Any reading of the election results gives him the ability to claim he got a solid mandate from the people for his policies, yet he still acts like he lost the popular vote and only won the electoral college through a court decision (or, at least, how a president who did that SHOULD have acted).