home

Gregg Tapped To Head Commerce

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Obama Administration
Posted on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 11:23:19 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

WaPo:

President Obama named Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) as his Commerce Secretary on Tuesday, reaching across the aisle to pick a fiscal conservative with whom he openly disagrees on certain issues to round out his Cabinet.

Gregg brokered a deal with the New Hampshire governor that he would be replaced by a Republican in order to not shift the balance of power in the Senate. Gov. John Lynch is expected to name Bonnie Newman, Gregg's former chief of staff, as an interim caretaker in the role.

I assume interim caretaker means Newman won't run in 2010. The real question then is will she join GOP filibusters. I do not know the answer to that question.

Speaking for me only

< Tuesday Morning Open Thread | Daschle Withdraws, As Does Killefer >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Gregg Tapped To Head Commerce | 59 comments (59 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I assume one of their points of disagreement (5.00 / 10) (#1)
    by tigercourse on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 11:27:19 AM EST
    is that Obama believes that their should be a Commerce department and our new Secretary of Commerce does not.

    Hilarious.

    Harsh! (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 11:59:01 AM EST


    Parent
    As of today, (none / 0) (#47)
    by KeysDan on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 03:55:45 PM EST
    I am more with Gregg on this, than Obama.

    Parent
    The Chief of Staff (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 11:29:07 AM EST
    is typically considered to be a Senator's alter ego. I think that means that the voting record will not be so good. The only upside I can see is an open Senate.

    Yes. . . (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 11:31:34 AM EST
    at least as reported on NPR, she "will not run" in 2010.  I assume that means she's given a promise not to run.  For whatever it's worth.  That's what Obama said in 2005.

    What could go wrong? (5.00 / 5) (#4)
    by lambert on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 11:37:45 AM EST
    I mean, just because Gregg is a Social Security privatizer....

    Well, after Gregg successfully gets (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 11:46:01 AM EST
    rid of the Commerce Department, he can get right to work on "reforming" entitlements like Social Security.

    I'm sure if he waits until everyone's 401(k)s are completely worthless, it will be a super-easy sell.

    "Heads Tapped, Looking for Brains," is what this pick makes me think of.

    Parent

    He's also a free trader purist! (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by suzieg on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 06:27:25 AM EST
    He's voted for all the outsourcing trade agreements + he's a staunch supporter of more guest workers. He voted to raise the cap on H-1B visas. He authored legislation that would have more than doubled the size of the H-1B visa program to 150,000 and let us not forget that he's also a strong proponent of outsourcing.

    It's devastating what Obama has done to the millions of people, who worked and supported and voted for change in trade policies in the industrial states. They have to be extraordinarily disappointed. - what a hypocrite he's turned out to be after distributing all of his little pamphlets against the Clintons for authoring NAFTA while he turns around and names the biggest proponent of free trade!

    I don't know which I have more contempt for: 1- a brazen hypocrite or 2 - a bald-faced liar....  


    Parent

    Who said you had to choose? (none / 0) (#61)
    by lambert on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 08:07:28 PM EST
    It's a dessert topping -- it's a floorwax!

    Parent
    We had so much to gain (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 11:43:04 AM EST
    You couldn't make up this garbage for a low budget TV show. It just gets worse and worse.

    Ponies for everyone! (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 12:00:28 PM EST
    From the NYT:

    Even when the possibility of putting a Democrat in Mr. Gregg's Senate seat dimmed, Mr. Obama pressed ahead, telling his advisers that it was more important to build a bipartisan cabinet than increase his Senate majority.

    Obama channeling Jerry Seinfeld:

    Who leaves a country packed with ponies to come to a non-pony country?

    Sigh.

    Unbelievable (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 12:20:16 PM EST
    That is freakin' insane.

    Parent
    You got your pony? (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by lambert on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 11:12:32 PM EST
    My pony's still on back order.

    Parent
    Oh God (none / 0) (#52)
    by cal1942 on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 11:27:18 PM EST
    this is looking more and more like the Nightmare on Pennsylvania Avenue.

    This looks more and more like the unity schtick wasn't schtick.

    Parent

    Yes... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Thanin on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 03:38:20 AM EST
    this became apparent to me after awhile during the campaign.  Its not a schtick to him; he believes it.

    Parent
    He didn't want to admit that his plan (none / 0) (#56)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 01:54:54 AM EST
    wouldn't work.  

    Parent
    This is great (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by democrat1 on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 12:08:50 PM EST
    Now we have a cabinet secretary who opposes obama's stimulus plan.

    my question is this: (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Turkana on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 12:20:31 PM EST
    why judd gregg? what makes him the ideal commerce candidate? utterly bizarre selection, to me.

    I've been refraining from doing a lot of (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 12:25:26 PM EST
    WIHHDT - What If Hillary had done this? but this is just too funny:

    Gregg brokered a deal with the New Hampshire governor that he would be replaced by a Republican in order to not shift the balance of power in the Senate.

    I can hear the howling now if Hillary had threatened to not accept her cabinet seat unless Paterson agreed to pick who she wanted for her Senate replacement, or agreed to not picked who she didn't want. Amazing.

    or if hillary were (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by sancho on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 02:00:17 PM EST
    prez and picked this republican for commerce and said, don't worry about replacing him with a dem. i'm sure those decisions would have been hailed as brilliant far-sighted politics on her part.

    Parent
    Not by me (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 03:42:16 PM EST


    Parent
    It occurs to me that it would be pretty fun if (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by tigercourse on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 12:28:09 PM EST
    every month or so a cabinet secretary had to step down for one reason or another. Make the executive branch a kind of game of musical chairs. Once we get the new HHS guy in there who else can drop out? Arne Duncan seems like a pretty good candidate to me.

    Daschle out. (none / 0) (#9)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 12:02:29 PM EST
    Banner on NY Times site.

    What Republican will be chosen to replace him? (5.00 / 7) (#11)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 12:03:59 PM EST


    Parent
    I've got my fingers crossed for Saxby (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by tigercourse on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 12:07:51 PM EST
    Chambliss.

    Parent
    Inhofe would be fun (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 12:13:12 PM EST
    Now there's a chance for real unity

    Parent
    McCain and (none / 0) (#41)
    by KeysDan on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 02:03:29 PM EST
    Palin, as undersecretary.

    Parent
    Of course it's gotta be Frisk (none / 0) (#43)
    by esmense on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 03:02:58 PM EST


    Parent
    Oops, Frist (none / 0) (#44)
    by esmense on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 03:03:45 PM EST


    Parent
    Heh. (none / 0) (#13)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 12:06:14 PM EST


    Parent
    How about Mitt Romney? The Dems seem intent on (none / 0) (#30)
    by masslib on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 12:23:25 PM EST
    pushing nationalized Romney-Care, so wouldn't he be ideal?

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#31)
    by andgarden on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 12:24:18 PM EST


    Parent
    Coburn (none / 0) (#37)
    by jbindc on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 12:58:57 PM EST
    Then Obama can say they pushed a bill through together in the Senate, and Coburn, is, after all, a doctor.

    Parent
    Frist (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 01:07:19 PM EST
    Might want to get back with the old gang again too. He can continue to do his diagnostics from the video tapes.

    Parent
    He looked like he was going to get the votes (none / 0) (#14)
    by byteb on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 12:07:21 PM EST
    His buddies were circling the wagon. I wonder why he's bowing out now?

    Parent
    Maybe they read the comments. . . (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 12:09:52 PM EST
    in one of the Talk Left threads?

    Parent
    I have two guesses on that one: (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 12:15:06 PM EST
    either the story was going to get worse, or, it was the withdrawal of Killefer over less than $1,000 in taxes owed.

    I'm sensing a headline with "Disarray" in it somewhere...

    What a disaster.

    Parent

    Why (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by lentinel on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 12:15:36 PM EST
    do these people - including Obama - do that?
    Circling the wagons - against what? A little integrity?

    Parent
    Daschle was one of his earliest and staunchest (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by byteb on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 12:33:30 PM EST
    supporters. Obama was blind. Too bad Daschle 'forgot' to mention those tax lapses in his quest for HHS. Too bad he wasn't vetted more completely. It's a mess.

    Parent
    Yes... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by lentinel on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 06:04:33 PM EST
    but once the information came out, why does Obama want to protect Daschle? Can't he put us first?

    According to the Times, Obama said that he had "screwed up".

    So - once he knew he had screwed up, he goes ahead and gives us the good old "I stand behind ( fill in the blank)  110%" routine.

    Parent

    He said it was because of the NY Times (none / 0) (#57)
    by BrassTacks on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 01:55:51 AM EST


    Parent
    I'll bet it's not just the taxes . . . ? (none / 0) (#27)
    by wurman on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 12:21:21 PM EST


    Parent
    What do the most awesome ethical standards (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 12:38:14 PM EST
    ever say about a guy staking a claim to being the voice in Obama's ear on health care, then withdrawing and becoming a lobbyist? I don't think there is a 'withdrawn nominee clause' that says he has to wait until Obama is out of office,

    Parent
    OT (none / 0) (#10)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 12:02:56 PM EST
    Dashle has withdrawn nomination according to NYT

    This is (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by lentinel on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 12:14:15 PM EST
    the best news I've heard in quite awhile.

    I will never forgive Daschle for his enthusiastic support and arm-twisting to get Democratic approval of the invasion of Iraq plan - otherwise known as the Iraq resolution.

    Parent

    Yup, me too (none / 0) (#26)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 12:21:02 PM EST
    Obama sure forgave it in a hurry though.

    Parent
    I have (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by lentinel on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 05:55:35 PM EST
    consistently felt that the significance of Obama's endorsement of Lieberman over Lamont in the primary was completely underestimated by the left.

    Parent
    I would include (none / 0) (#53)
    by cal1942 on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 11:49:45 PM EST
    what I personally considered the Rosetta Stone to understanding Obama:

    The Roberts nomination.

    I don't know about the left but certainly the Obama Masses got rolled.

    Parent

    That leaves Phil Gramm (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by ThatOneVoter on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 12:21:31 PM EST
    an opening.

    Parent
    She's fairly moderate (none / 0) (#12)
    by cotton candy on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 12:04:00 PM EST
    She endorsed the current Democratic governor as part of a group called "Repblicans for Lynch."  She might not be all that bad but if she is just a caretaker, she has nothing to lose.

    What do think (none / 0) (#17)
    by lentinel on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 12:09:13 PM EST
    do we need this for?

    Off topic but WOW, Daschle pulls out (none / 0) (#32)
    by esmense on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 12:24:44 PM EST
    according to a news alert from the Washington Post. I'll admit I'm shocked. Was there something bigger than what has already been revealed that led to his decision?

    Well (none / 0) (#38)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 01:04:11 PM EST
    Apart from whatever expertise or Gregg may add to the mix, we will be all but guaranteed a second Democratic senator from NH in 2010. As far as I can tell the only way NH would vote GOP is for Gregg as incumbent. He held the seat since 1993.

    Yes, (none / 0) (#42)
    by KeysDan on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 02:05:58 PM EST
    the maybe silver lining.

    Parent
    Also depends on Obama doing well --for the people, (none / 0) (#50)
    by jawbone on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 09:40:43 PM EST
    not just the Big Bankster Boiz.

    If he blows it, he may have some cushioning going down, but the regular Dem pols will pay for the failures. The electorate will take out their anger and disappointment on the first Dems they have a chance to vote for or against. We may not hold the Congress if the Obama Stimulus, for example, is as bad as a whole lot of economists say it seems to be.

    The lack of Obama speaking out to help the public understand the how's and why's of the stimulus and what Obama is trying to do scares me. The paucity of public statements from him, and his utter lack of support for Democrats putting their votes on the line is worrisome.

    I keep asking myself why he's behaving this way. The "No Drama Obama" can't get up enough enthusiasm for his own program to put our some energy and effort?

    Cokie Roberts, of whom I am no fan, made a somewhat strange observation about Obama's pre-Super Bowl interview: She described him as "so serene," and her emphasis on "serene" almost made it seem like a pejorative. It did not seem to make her serene that Obama seemed "so serene." But I'm reading tea leaves and tone in noting this.

    Today, talking with another Dem in the local libary, we were speaking quietly, then her voice dropped to a whispher that she feared Obama did not know what to do. Just no way knew what to do. She tried to rationalize it by saying we're in such strange economic times that who does know what to do. I asked why he was sticking with the same kind of people who helped get us in this mess. We have no idea.

    I think we both whisphered bcz no one wants Obama to fail, yet fears it.

    Parent

    I think Gregg (none / 0) (#54)
    by cal1942 on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 11:53:53 PM EST
    could have lost.  That may be one reason why he was willing to accept the nomination.

    A cabinet secretary post will insure that he can possibly continue to gum up the works past January 2011.

    Parent

    If something does not seem to make sense (none / 0) (#45)
    by tokin librul on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 03:10:05 PM EST
    I usually council that the perplexed should try to imagine under what conditions that which is perplexing WOULD make sense. Ask yourself: What would someone have to believe were 'true' to act in such an apparently irrational manner?

    The answers, viz Prez.O, are not comforting.

    1. Obama believes Commerce is irrelevant.
    2. Obama believes Gregg will change his stripes.
    3. Obama wants cover to attack Social Security, etc and having a GOPuke there gives it to him.
    4. "Change" means changing the names, but not the policies.

    Other?

    According to a NYT article (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by cal1942 on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 11:57:39 PM EST
    quoted by a commenter above, Obama thought it was more important to have a bi-partisan cabinet than to increase the majority (filibuster proof by the way) in the Senate.

    How's that for everybody's comfort level.

    Parent

    Per Krugman: (none / 0) (#60)
    by JoeCHI on Wed Feb 04, 2009 at 04:30:14 PM EST
    You know, it was widely expected that Obama would have a stimulus plan ready to pass Congress even before his inauguration. That didn't happen. We were told that this was because the economic team was working flat out on the financial rescue.

    In fact, when it comes to bank rescue it's hard to see much evidence that anything was accomplished during all that time; the team is still -- still! -- running ideas up the flagpole to see if anyone salutes. And the ideas look remarkably bad. (Welcome to the Ancient and Hermetic Order of the Shrill, Yves.)

    Meanwhile, when it came to stimulus legislation, when Obama finally introduced his economic plan he immediately began negotiating with himself, preemptively offering concessions to the GOP, which voted against the plan anyway. (And Obama appears, in the name of bipartisanship, to have thrown away a Senate vote he may well need.)

    As a wise man recently said, failure to act effectively risks turning this slump into a catastrophe. Yet there's a sense, watching the process so far, of low energy. What's going on?

    I thought Krugman's post was interesting, and I posted it on Taylor's blog earlier.  Unfortunately, the Obots flamed both me and Krugman, calling Krugman "peanut gallery", "monday morning quarterback", "back-seat driver", etc.

    It's unfortunate to see Krugman, a Nobel Prize winning economist, as well as an outspoken and articulate progessive policy advocate, geting trashed by the Obots for daring to criticize The One.

    Gregg Tapped To Head Commerce | 59 comments (59 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment