GOP Senator Judd Gregg passes on Obama Cabinet Slot
The battle over the Porkulus bill has claimed another victim, and one which will send some larger ripples across the political pool. New Hampshire Republican Senator Judd Gregg, selected by President Obama as our next Secretary of Commerce, has taken himself out of the running. Citing “irresolvable conflicts over the stimulus package and control of the 2010 census” the Senator has withdrawn. Gregg represented one of the chief areas of the President’s efforts to build a bipartisan or “postpartisan” cabinet and theory of government. From Chris Cillizza:
Gregg abstained from the Senate vote on the stimulus package, which passed the chamber 61 to 37. He had not previously offered any public comment on the White House’s plan to have the Census director report to White House officials. Many Republicans, however, had voiced serious concerns about the potential politicization of the department given that move.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) praised Gregg’s decision as “principled” and added: “It’s great to have him back.”
At this point, the pickings may be slim for Obama to find a high profile Republican to serve in his cabinet, and the stimulus package will likely be the defining barrier to building that type of coalition. This concept was actually one of the serious hopes I had for the Obama administration, but as the days wind on it looks less and less likely to me. Democratic Congressional leadership will likely leave Obama with no options but to watch his own party use their dominant majorities to rifle through whatever is on their agenda. The loss of Gregg is only the latest symptom of the problem.
UPDATE: This makes three failed nominations, tying Obama with Bill Clinton. Will he manage to reach Tyler’s record after all?
opinions powered by SendLove.to
21 Responses to “GOP Senator Judd Gregg passes on Obama Cabinet Slot”
It's starting to look as though Obama's best approach would be to cite irreconcilable differences between the two parties but insist that they split amicably for the sake of the kids.
IOW, stop pretending that there's going to be a new postpartisan era, but instead promote civil debate between members of each party with each side arguing their positions in good faith and presuming that the other side will do the same.
So, Obama had three Republicans selected for his cabinet when the “Porkulus” package was being voted on (LaHood, Gates and Gregg), more than any other president in history. Obama held more meetings with Republicans than with Democrats during the negotiations. Tax cuts were increased to more than 40 percent of the package (by the way, now the largest tax cut in the history of the nation as well), plus billions spending was cut to help Republicans vote for it. The entire Republican Party rounded up a grand total of 3 votes for the package.
But you're disappointed in Obama and the Democratic leadership? Really?
Obama held more meetings with Republicans than with Democrats during the negotiations.
That was the problem, actually. If you're going to be a mediator, you have to actually mediate something.
Tax cuts were increased to more than 40 percent of the package
Wrong. Obama started with 40% and eventually it got reduced to somewhere around 1/3.
I've given credit where it was due but I'm not going to fall for the good cop/ bad cop routine.
You know, CS, did you ever see a poll in which the American public specifically expresses wish for “bi-partisanship” (sentiment) or did they actually express their frustration with a condition (gridlock).
I'll grant Obama's sentiment is constructive, but it doesn't necessarily nail the only solution to the condition. Yours is just as effective.
So, until some industrious progressive can find that “we want bipartisanship poll”, I am going to proclaim it to be a sentiment of Obama more than some dictum of the independent electorate.
CStanley, my comment was directed to Jazz. I got the figure of over 40 percent from multiple sources, including this bit from Reuters ( http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKTRE… ), which pegs the cuts at 43%.
Didn't Gregg resign his Senate seat?
Wasn't another person was appointed to Gregg's Senate seat?
But no–he's going right on back to the Senate. Where he was welcomed back by Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. Paying no consequences of any kind for anything.
I find the bad faith on Gregg's part pretty repugnant.
To proclaim him a “victim” for acting out his own folly seems rather like a folly of its own.
And to blame Obama for anything but trusting in the good faith this high ranking Republican is ridiculous.
And as to tax cuts, this bill, if passed, represents a huge tax cut, possibly the largest in American history.
It also represents Obama fulfilling one of his main campaign promises and doing it in the first few weeks of his Presidency.
I don't understand how Gregg could be surprised at his philosophical differences. He's a Reaganite and this Administration is moving the country beyond the 1980s.
Mike P,
The final version was actually around 36% tax cuts. That's far too high, in my opinion, as only certain targeted tax cuts have a real stimulative effect. But Obama set up 40% as his target and he ended up near there.
That's a presumption with no evidence to support it wouldn't you say?
Davebo: It's self fulfilling to always presume the opposite, which is what both parties have been doing of the other for quite a while now.
CO: Good point, and I'd think it's a pretty hard thing to nail down in a poll. Personally though I feel that we have to come to terms with the facts: each party represents a different part of the political ideological spectrum and will come to most problems with a different approach. Our system, for better or worse, is set up as an adversarial one where compromise doesn't actually happen much at all (instead you get some horsetrading when there's a split in the balance of power, or you get a majority party rolling over the minority when there's an imbalance.) The fact that the two parties are behaving this way isn't a sign of bad faith, it's a sign that they're exerting as much influence to advance their own side's philosophy as they can under changing circumstances.
The sooner we can come to terms with that and grow up a bit, we'll stop being like the kids who get hurt by the divorce because Mommy and Daddy aren't getting along.
Didn't Gregg resign his Senate seat? No. Appointees almost never do until it's a done deal.
Wasn't another person was appointed to Gregg's Senate seat? Technically no, though a person was chosen who would be appointed. See #1, he hadn't vacated the seat yet.
And bad faith? What about Obama offering a position and then removing a major responsibility of that position, giving instead to his partisan chief of staff and bringing it directly under WH control?
CStanley–
If you're satisfied that it's nothing more than the Census Department, okay. If you think it's satisfactory for him to go back to Senate, okay.
But do you really think he's a “victim”?
Victim? Who said that he's a victim? You mean because I said that Obama acted in bad faith by offering him the post but then removing one of it's key duties? That doesn't mean I think he's been victimized, I just think he saw the writing on the wall, that he was given the nod simply as another flimsy fig leaf of bipartisanship, but the Obama WH wasn't actually going to give him the real authority of the post.
And look, I just read someone speculating that Gregg specifically wanted to get the Commerce position in order to control the census. I'm willing to entertain the idea that might be true. So perhaps he was playing a political game in trying to wrest control of the census from the Democrats, but then Obama/Emmanuel played the game right back by trying to give him the post without that authority (AR in another thread shows why that's not even Constitutional.)
In the end, they both may have acted along partisan interests, but really I think it reflects badly on Obama (I'm not just saying this is my opinion, but what I think the general opinion will be) because it's one more example of him supposedly demonstrating bipartisanship but really it's just for show. And coming on the heels of his other Cabinet troubles, I just don't think he benefits from this at all. He may have known that he didn't want a Republican running the census, but then he shouldn't have appointed a Republican.
The census has not been placed under White House control. Sullivan: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily… .
CStanley–
First of all, Jazz said he was a victim, right up there in the first sentence of this very post we're commenting on:
As for who acted in bad faith, I guess we'll see how that plays out.
See also the story linked above by Mike P.
First of all, Jazz said he was a victim, right up there in the first sentence of this very post we're commenting on:
Then, perhaps ask Jazz why he used that characterization? His word, not mine.
And I guess I should be pleased to see that Andrew Sullivan has moved on from his quest for Sarah Palin's medical records to be made public, but I'm puzzled as to why anyone thinks he still has any credibility.
Ha ha! Why Sullivan “still has any credibility?” Well, fact o' the matter is, he has more credibility than any other blogger, if the Weblog Awards are any indication. Granted, when it comes to Hillary or Palin, he occasionally loosens his grip on the rails, but let's face it, not without provocation. And he's quoting fellow Atlantic blogger Marc Ambinder in the post I linked – which you'd know if you bothered to click. And attacking the messenger doesn't debunk the message, by the way.
“Didn't Gregg resign his Senate seat? “
Apparently not. A “deal” was made, but it seems that he wasn't going to officially resign until after confirmation and setting a date/time for swearing in, etc. Similarly, it seems that his designated replacement was not sworn in, of course.
[...] Judd who let the Obama admin know he was out by letting reporters in on the news first. By, by again to bipartisanship. It’s tough to be bipartisan when the other side doesn’t want to be [...]
GOP Senator Judd Gregg Passes On Obama Cabinet Slo
Which now makes his makes three failed nominations, tying President Barack Obama with former President Bill Clinton for the number of Cabinet appointees who withdrew or were rejected. It is only one behind former President Tyler. Jazz Shaw, a moderat…