In withdrawing his name as nominee for Commerce Secretary, Judd Gregg helped provide a window both into the Obama Administration’s increased politicization (and subservience to left-wing interest groups) and into the reflexive attack mode of the Administration’s defenders (many of whom blame Gregg or Republicans for this embarrassment). It’s almost as if some of them (unlike Camille Paglia) can’t accept that “the One” could blunder. Any mistakes he makes must be attributed to someone else.
It’s not just that they can’t admit he could blunder, but that they assume all his actions must needs have only noble motives. Barack Obama, in their view, could never descend into the foul swamp of rank politics.
But, in tapping Judd Gregg for Commerce Secretary, he did just that. What other reason could there be to tap a Republican Senator from a Demorat-trending state with a Democratic Governor to his cabinet when that Republican had not shown great enthusiasm for that Department when in the Senate?
And, if the president had so trusted this Republican to administer a federal department, why did he remove one of that department’s primary programs from his jurisdiction?
Basically, this appointment was little more than a cynical political ploy to make the president look bipartisan by reaching out to a principled Senator from the opposing party. Yet, this is bipartisanship as window-dressing. True bipartisanship would have meant that you not just include members of both parties, not just consider the opinions of your ideological adversaries, but adapt your policies to reflect their concerns, tempering your own partisan edge.
By limiting Judd Gregg’s authority at the Commerce Department, the president was essentially saying he didn’t want to include his ideas in his Administration. He just wanted that (R) in his cabinet.
And he had hoped by having a Democratic governor pick Gregg’s Senate successor, he might tap a more malleable legislator. This was all about increasing Democratic power in Washington while appearing bi-partisan.
The Snob’s actions smell of tokenism to me. But then again, what else could we expect from the first affirmative-action-elected president? His whole life has been one big pass from the establishment.
Regards,
Peter H.
We need to check the grass knoll for the gunmen, while we’re working on implausible conspiracy theories about why Obama asked Gregg to head up Commerce… the issue of his NH successor was off the table because Gregg made sure that the Dem NH Gov selected a GOP replacement.
Why would Obama or his staff hazard a GOP nominee for the cabinet job of Commerce Secy when he knew that to fail in that effort, after the Richardson debacle, would leave egg on the BigGuy’s face and make him look bumbling?
A cynical ploy? Come on. It blew up and Gregg got cold feet after he talked with advisors and came to understand what was up with the job. Of course, I wondered why any Administration would pick a candidate from outside their Party for the job… Commerce Secy has usually be the chief fundraiser for the Pres. Maybe when you’re Obama and you’ve got the golden touch, you don’t think that traditional role is even warranted?
But a cynical ploy? No way.
You called it right, Dan. Anybody who believes he acted out of bi-partisanship has to be naive. He was weaned on Chicago politics. If he is untainted then he is like the Great Leslie (Tony Curtis, in the Great Race,) who could walk through a cake fight in the bakery and not even be smudged with a bit of icing.
yawn.
#4 – That’s the most intelligent comment you ever made on this entire blog, boob.
Regards,
Peter H.
Very well said, Dan. On top of that, why did there need to be some stupid arrangement by which Gregg’s replacement would agree not to run again in 2010? It certainly seemed to me much more geared at prying away New England’s only real conservative currently serving in Congress. I think we’re figuring out what Obama-style bipartisanship looks like—invite conservatives to the table only after they give up their principles. I think it will eventually catch up with him.
It’s kind of a pattern, isn’t it? Like appointing Hilldog as SecState and then under-cutting her authority by appointing a bunch of ‘Special Envoys’ to carry out his bidding while by-passing her.
I’m more fascinated that all these missteps and bungling occurs and Obama is still the marvelous one. You gotta admit for the first three weeks there have been a lot of screw ups. Does anyone remember who the head of Obamas transition team was? And who was incharge of vetting all the creeps and crooks in his cabinet? I know Obama has the last and final say but, who were the boobs he picked to lead his team?
Also Obamas first great decision was……choosing a running mate. The guy who was one heart beat away from the Presidency. Now even Obama makes “Ole Joe” jokes. But there’s no SNL skit about the bumbling idiots in charge. When this group falls and they will fall, the MSM will eventually come around and have some fun mocking them with the rest of us. We can start the process by listing all the pork and earmarks in the porkulus bill that Obama lied and said weren’t in there.
Did it ever occur to you, MM, that Obama (or his team) *didn’t know* that Gregg would wisely insist on that particular condition, when they first opened discussions with Gregg? Good job rationalizing for Obama, though.
Having said that: I do think Obama’s true ‘ploy’ was for a veneer of bipartisanship. Even after Obama knew that Gregg would only come on board if the Senate balance were unchanged, Obama still pursued Gregg. But Obama cut back on what he was willing to offer Gregg. “Gregg is still worth something to me for the ‘bipartisan’ veneer, but way less than when I thought I could replace him with a Democrat. I’ll still offer Gregg the job, but cut back on its power, like letting my aides take the Census.” Gregg realized he was getting a shrinking deal (or a fake one) and pulled out.
“the first affirmative-action-elected president?”
right, because a black man couldn’t get in any other way. shh, is that Cindi Lauper I hear?
Correction, adDave; a black man with Obama’s lack of qualifications, inexperience, and questionable background littered with examples of incompetence could not get in any other way than by affirmative action.
The fact that you and your fellow liberals support him is a demonstration that your definition of “qualified” is based solely on skin color, and not on performance. You simply are not capable of acknowledging that Obama is unqualified because admitting that a black person is a poor performer is racist among the liberal thought police that you endorse and support.
A white politician with Obama’s (lack of) qualifications, experience and accomplishments could have been taken seriously by some primary voters, but not elected President in the end. Proof: the career of John Edwards.
Obama also took a shot at Gregg’s withdrawal at the Lincoln banquet. He insinuated Gregg called him up to get the job at Commerce. This looks like his many shots at others, flipping the bird to Clinton and McCain while scratching his face, talking about lipstick on a pig. It doesn’t look Presidential, only snide.
The Gregg incident worked well for the GOP. Gregg publicly withdrew, shedding light on the stimulus and census issues in a way that would not have been had a nominated/appointed Democrat been found evading taxes. It gave airtime and a face to the rejection of the stimulus and made Obama’s cabinet appointment process once again appear as incompetent as it is. I was first disappointed in Gregg for acquiescing to provide GOP cover for Obama, allowing RahmObama and the MSM to sully the Republicans with their mistakes. This, however, couldn’t have been better scripted.
ILC pines: “Good job rationalizing for Obama, though.” Umm, ILC, in basketball we’d call you “all elbows, no lay up” player because you’re more interested in getting physical with people here than in actually playing the game.
I follow the facts, ILC… you can play “all elbows, all day” and it still won’t get you to the paint. It’s a lesson you painfully fail to learn.
Here are the facts on Gregg and his effort to assure the NH Senate seat remained GOP: by the admission of the NH Gov and his chief of staff, the first THEY heard of Gregg possibly being nominated for Commerce Secy was when Gregg called on Jan 27th to inquire if the Democrat NH Gov would honor the NH Senate seat’s party affiliation and appoint another GOPer if Gregg was confirmed. Gregg told Lynch’s folks that the Obama people were on board with it and willing to call Lynch, if needed, to convince him of the wisdom in the move. Gregg was invited to suggest some names in that call. That’s when RollCall got wind of the Gregg nomination and reported it -out of Lynch’s Office. Gregg supposedly held that until Gov Lynch named his likely replacement, Gregg’s nomination wouldn’t go forward. Lynch did as Gregg asked -and as he thought the WH was asking.
By Gregg’s admission, neither Obama’s people nor NH Gov’s folks wanted another botched job like with the Illinois seat, Blago and Burris.
Those are the facts, ILC. You can call it “rationalizing” Obama. I think it’s more about “elbows” on your part and less about playing a game of hoops… if you know what I mean.
And to seal out the wiggle room you are so fond of claiming and searching for, ILC, Gregg brought up his interest in Commerce Secy at the famous Jan 27th meeting between Obama & Sen GOP Caucus members… Gregg called Lynch’s COS at 4PM on the 27th, Lynch later that night. Obama’s people knew all about Gregg’s interest in keeping the NH Senate seat in the GOP column at least til 2010.
Wanna check the ball?
Yup. Fits what I said 100%. To review, MM, since apparently you didn’t or couldn’t bring yourself to read or understand what I said the first time, this is what I said:
Your recitation contradicts that not in the slightest. As for the rest of your standard personal nastiness, MM, let’s just leave it it’s reassuring you never change 🙂
Like I wrote, “all elbows and no lay up” ILC. You never disappoint.