As a hard-core political nerd, for a few years now I’ve subscribed to Roll Call’s “Breaking News Alerts.” They usually deal with things so inane only beltway insiders could possibly care. But hey, that’s Roll Call. (If you don’t know what Roll Call is, count yourself lucky, then imagine ColoradoPols as a full-fledged DC newspaper.)
So earlier today when I read that several anonymous sources had confirmed rumors about Obama possibly considering New Hampshire Republican Senator Judd Gregg for Secretary of Commerce, I hit delete like I usually do. I never really cared much about the Commerce Department, mostly because I have no idea what they do, and the “possibly maybe” just didn’t pique my interest. While Gregg does have an R after his name, the bipartisan Obama cabinet thing is nothing new.
As for the larger implication of this pick, I completely missed it. Luckily I turned on CNN tonight and had it explained to me. I never thought I’d say this, but thank you Anderson Cooper.
Senator Gregg comes from New Hampshire. New Hampshire has a Democratic Governor, John Lynch. As we well know here in Colorado, Governors get to fill vacant Senate seats. Chances are good Lynch would appoint a Democrat. (He won his last election roughly 70-30, so he can pretty much do whatever he wants.)
This means that should Minnesotan Al Franken prevail in court, a new Senator from New Hampshire would give Democrats the magic 60 vote majority they need to shut off a filibuster, thus removing the last legislative roadblock Republicans still have in Congress. Most importantly, I now care about who becomes Secretary of Commerce.
That’s some smart maneuvering, Mr. President. House Republicans, eat your heart out!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: ParkHill
IN: Trumpflation is Here
BY: Genghis
IN: Why DNI Tulsi Gabbard Should Scare The Hell Out Of You
BY: Genghis
IN: You’re Gonna Need an Actual Opinion on Ukraine, Gabe
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Trumpflation is Here
BY: SSG_Dan
IN: Wednesday Open Thread
BY: kwtree
IN: Jeffco GOP Sure Knows How To Pick ‘Em
BY: harrydoby
IN: You’re Gonna Need an Actual Opinion on Ukraine, Gabe
BY: Conserv. Head Banger
IN: Jeffco GOP Sure Knows How To Pick ‘Em
BY: spaceman2021
IN: Trumpflation is Here
BY: unnamed
IN: Obligatory Lauren Boebert/Kid Rock Gossip Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
on Judd accepting. You can bet every republican is going to be pressuring him not to take it. Although I bet it’s appealing to him, he’d be up for a pretty tough fit in 2010 as it sounds like Schumer is adopting one of Rahm’s proteges to make the chamber hop.
Though I have a feeling that when the President of the United States sits someone down and says, “Your country needs you,” most people listen. Just ask Ken Salazar.
Plus, Secretary of Commerce? How cool would that be?! (I’m serious, how cool would it be? I really don’t know because I have no idea what they do. I even looked at their website and I still have no idea, except they want to make sure I’m ready for the switch to digital broadcasting. I am, thanks. I hope the new guy puts up a FAQ that says, “Here’s what we do,” because it’s really unclear right now.)
although I think the heartfelt pleas of the president will be carefully weighed against every republican saying “we will destroy you if you take this position.”
As to what the Secretary of Commerce does, it would be part cool, part not. They share a lot of the mind-numbing number crunching with the Department of Labor (calculating GDP, trade deficits, inflation, etc.), which is obviously critical but sounds terribly boring to me at least. I’ll admit though, I’ve always been biased against math! Other part though that would be cooler would be working on trade agreements, both enforcement and oversight, and probably passage too, working with the U.S. trade rep and such. Since the main job of the Secretary of Commerce is to promote/encourage economic growth and productivity, this is quite an interesting time to be involved there. Plus, pertinent to Colorado and Boulder particularly, Commerce runs NOAA, which is neat I suppose.
Oh yeah, and they deal with that little deal known as the census. Keep forgetting what that’s used for, but I’ll bet it’s important.
Like that wasn’t obvious enough from the House R’s this past week.
The Republican party, now under Rush Limbaugh’s control, has resorted to eating their own unless they toe the party line on every vote; so much for a big tent party indeed. McConnel is probably right, the Republican party will dissolve into a one region party.
All they did was vote no against something they couldn’t buy into, and now they’re unpatriotic? THis coming from someone who trumpets in their signature that now it’s “cool” to be patriotic only because their party’s candidate won an election?
Look, I really like you GB. I honestly do – I think we’ve gone around and around on some things but I think you’re funny and I love debating with you, but a ‘no’ vote on the floor of the house or a disagreement with a particular spending bill might be considered more patriotic if this plan fails, and IMO is putting their country before their party.
What would you say about the 10-11 Dems that couldn’t vote yes on the bill?
I hope more Dems are as over-confident as you are.
if there had been 8 – 12 Repubs voting for it just as a few Dems voted against it. The 0 Repubs has the feeling of a we’re going to oppose everything response.
There is nothing at all wrong with voting against a bill that one believes is a bad one. But it’s hard to swallow that every single Republican congressperson in the house unanimously believed that this was a bad bill, even though outside of politics, plenty of conservatives who are experts in economics think it’s a pretty good idea. It doesn’t take a genious to see that there was a call for party loyalty on this vote, and some persuasion of those members of Congress who might have voted for it on grounds other than the merits of the bill.
It wasn’t that all Republicans independently came to the same conclusion, they were “whipped” to it. That means the leadership decided to pick this fight as a partisan issue – exactly the opposite of the approach Americans want to see right now, especially when it comes to the economy.
It’s SUCH a bad bill that all the Republicans and even some Dems voted against it. If it weren’t really that bad, some would have crossed. It’s the House, for Christ’s sake.
some of us were complaining about the repubs not being able to whip votes for shit when the bailout came around late last year.
Now we’re complaining when they get their act together…
Dabee, you’re one of my favorite posters. You’re able to light me up when I need it, and at the same time have a low tolerance for BS.
—although I think the heartfelt pleas of the president will be carefully weighed against every republican saying “we will destroy you if you take this position.”—
That really illustrates the difference between Dems and Repubs, doesn’t it? I can’t imagine the Dems applying this kind of pressure. First, they could never all agree, and second they just don’t have the “go for the jugular” instincts Repubs do.
It’s an interesting power play and if it’s true I like the moxie of Obama for trying to pull it off. Even still, it makes me slightly uncomfortable and thinks it provides another argument for Russ Feingolds Constitutional Amendment.
A Dem would easily win that election. With that said, I think requiring a vote is a good idea too.
Says that Lynch is likely to appoint a caretaker Republican, a sentiment echoed on Political Wire as well. Silver seems to think it’d be the chairman of “Republicans for Lynch,” though, who would be an Olympia Snowe-esque vote on the floor.
Has anyone else seen her numbers this session? She’s voted with Democrats on 26 of 31 roll call votes so far this session. Damn.
The one I can’t wrap my head around is Lisa Murkowski out of Alaska. She’s voting with Obama as often as Susan Collins did. It’s absolutely out of this world.
This move is too clever for Democrats not to screw it up by giving Republicans whatever they want. We’re far too trusting.
I’m not so sure this is a bad idea. Would you rather have an Olympia Snowe figure in that seat than Judd Gregg, and instead let him number crunch over at Commerce?
Bush gave Commerce to a bunch of cronies during his time. Arguably, Gregg will be the most qualified person who will have held the job in 9 years or so. In turn, we get a better Republican (or maybe even a Democrat) in the Senate, Obama gains because Gregg will become the most conservative person thus far put in the Cabinet…
I don’t know. I think it could be a definite win-win.
some of the 60 Dems are blue dogs and a few Rs, as pointed out, vote often with Dems so the magic number 60 need not be so magic, give or take. On the other hand, hard to imagine the R far right leadership allowing this to happen even if they may get a soft R instead of a Dem. Unless they actually WANT to be able to continue to vote only for their own political considerations while being rescued from actually stopping good legislation that helps the country? Nah. Don’t think so either.
this like it is gold. New Hampshire has transitioned from red to blue, arguably more than any other state, since he last ran for the Senate (both chamber of the state legislature, both of their US House seats, the other Senate Seat and there are now more registered Democrats than Republicans in the Granite State). Rep. Paul Hodes has already been gearing up for the Senate race and would make a formidible opponent for Gregg.
Besides, how much fun can it be to be a minority (moderate) within a minority party in the Senate?
one of the key persons on the line between a bill being filibusterable or not.
In the House the key seat in negotiations over any bill is the person in the political 51st percentile (which is roughly on the liberal end of the Blue Dog caucus within the Democratic Party). In the Senate, it is the 60th least conservative Senator who holds the power position (which is in liberal New England Senator territory).
Are we prepared to give Harry Reid 60 votes? Harry doesn’t do to well in a land where there are no excuses for not getting things done. If they can’t invoke cloture on something it’s entirely the Dems fault for not lining up all 60 of our votes.
No more whining about “obstructionist republicans” unless they’re literally filibustering, old school, all-nighters, cots in the cloak room, the whole shebang.
60 votes means no excuses. It means dealing with Lieberman, Nelson, Pryor, Lincoln, etc… the whole gang of mod to conservative dems in the caucus.
Are dems ready to not be able to blame repubs for delaying bills in the senate? I’m not so sure…
Your question makes as little sense as the one going around a few days ago on whether Obama should veto a bill that no Republicans vote for.
Filibusters do not concern me, Dabee. I want those bills, not excuses.
so, Judd Gregg would be wise to say yes, even though it further undermines the tenuous position of the GOP in the region.
The other political implication of the Commerce Department appointment should not be overlooked, however. Obama’s Secretary of Commerce will preside over the 2010 Census, which is the basis upon which seats in the House of Representatives are allocated.
The Gregg appointment may be an effort by Obama to have an “honest broker” in the form of this moderate Republican, in that seat, to reduce any conservative harping about the legitimacy of the census. But, Dems have cause to be concerned that close calls in that process may not go their way under Gregg’s leadership.