Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Gregg Nominated for Commerce Job

Updated 4:57 p.m.
By Anne E. Kornblut
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 has named Bonnie Newman, Gregg's former chief of staff, as an interim caretaker in the role.

In a White House event introducing him as his Commerce nominee, Obama said Gregg, 61, is "famous or infamous, depending on your perspective, on Capitol Hill, for his strict fiscal discipline."

"It's not that he enjoys saying no, although if it's directed at your bill, you might feel that way. It's that he shares my deep-seated commitment to guaranteeing that our children inherit a future they can afford," Obama said.

"Now, clearly Judd and I don't agree on every issue, most notably who should have won the election. But we do agree on the urgent need to get American businesses and families back on their feet," he said. "We see eye to eye on conducting the nation's business in a responsible, transparent and accountable manner. And we know the only way to solve the great challenges of our time is to put aside stale ideology and petty partisanship and embrace what works."

Gregg, in his acceptance remarks, praised Obama for having "outlined an extraordinarily bold and aggressive, effective and comprehensive plan for how we can get this country moving."

The nomination is the last for Obama's Cabinet. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D) was nominated Dec. 3 to head the Commerce Department, but he withdrew his name from consideration a month later because of a federal investigation involving state government contracts.

Also on Tuesday, Obama formally announced that Tammy Duckworth will be an assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Duckworth, an Iraq war veteran who opposed the war, is currently Illinois director of Veterans Affairs.

By Web Politics Editor  |  February 3, 2009; 11:35 AM ET
Categories:  B_Blog , Barack Obama , Cabinet  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Plouffe's List and Selling the Stimulus
Next: Activist Group Calls for Deportation of Obama's Aunt

Comments

My first impression of this appointment was that President Obama was trying to take out a GOP senator. But his plans were thwarted because New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg was savvy enough to come up with a deal. Had an egomaniac like former Senator Chuck Hagel(R-NE) been in the same situation, he would have just been led along by Obama without any regard to the loss of a senate seat. This is, at best, a token effort at bi-partisanship. But as Obama likes to point out: he won the election.

Posted by: danielhancock | February 3, 2009 11:37 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry, but does anyone here even really know what the Commerce Secretary does? It's not like he is being appointed to State or Treasury. Carlos Guitierrez was our last Commerce Secretary and we all know what a household name he was.

I am a Republican and I would have preferred that he be left in his Senate seat. Obama took a seasoned Senator out of play by neutralizing him in the cabinet where the President has absolute authority and replaced him with what will undoubtedly be a novice. This was win Obama all the way.

It is ridiculous to compare Blogo's demanding tribute in exchange for appointing a Senate seat to a man refusing to vacate his seat without guarantee's that the entire balance of power will not be tipped.

When the Founding Father's authored the Constitution, they did not envision political parties. However, in light of their development, I highly doubt that they would want one of the two parties ram-rodding important decisions down the other's throat.

Chillbear Latrigue

Posted by: clatrigue | February 3, 2009 9:54 PM | Report abuse

Obama is carrying this "Team of Rivals" thing too far.

Now if only Gregg could turn out to have tax problems too . . .

Posted by: donnolo | February 3, 2009 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Like all conservative republicans Gregg is a top notch first class hypocrite, in stating that " we should not stand in our ideological corner" First and foremost the SOB with his conservative republican perverse ideology of inequality and rights only of his kind is a republican first and an American second. His demand that his that his replacement in the Senate, the most dysfunctional. inefficient and unrepresentative body should be a like minded conservative republican, is nothing more then not only standing in his obstructive party line ideological corner, but rather carry on the the same BS politics of division and polarization.

What these malignant narcissist republicans did in the last 8 years to destroy the country from within is solid proof of their chronic scape goating and uncorrectable grab bagging.

The SOB has been advocating to abolish the Department of Commerce. How can he serve as its head under such circumstance.

Is he going to commit suicide.

Posted by: winemaster2 | February 3, 2009 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Vegasgirl1:

You read way too much into my comment. It was kind of a joke, but to be honest, I just got your posts confused with a post I read by someone else that expressed a much stronger dislike towards Bush. Just an honest mistake. Your reaction was a bit over the top in my humble opinion. Your last two posts really made no point. You said you weren't buying my arguments and then got aggravated at my joke. I consider the matter settled that the Gregg's senate seat was a unique situation and can't be compared to Barrack's or Hillary's.

Chillbear Latrigue.

Posted by: clatrigue | February 3, 2009 8:13 PM | Report abuse

Well, that didn't last long (the honeymoon) did it?

First Obama (is he still a Democrat btw?) keeps on R, Gates (an insult to the Dem. party) then he keeps the rug Bush made jokes about looking under - for WMD- at a D.C. establishment dinner, to roars of laughter, while our troops were be killed in Iraq, Obama should give it to the Smithsonian.
Now he pulls strings and caves into Judd Gregg's demands and to add insult to injury, lets him get away with dictating the terms of employment, demanding a Republican replacement.
It's clear, Obama doesn't know who supported him and paid for his election.
It's also clear how weak the Democratic party is and how thin its ranks are for qualified people to serve in the Govt.
What a shocker !!
In four years this stunningly stupid president will be gone, hoisted on his own petard.


Posted by: marquesa1793 | February 3, 2009 7:35 PM | Report abuse

As one who donated, canvassed, placed calls and worked hard to help get Mr.Obama elected, I am disappointed and frustrated with the deal-making to get Sen. Gregg nominated. Why is there no one else in the entire nation who, without strings attached, could do the job? Back-room deal-making, quid pro quo, pay-to-play -- looks like Blago knew exactly what he was talking about--and to whom. Wasn't it a cabinet position he wanted in exchange for the senate nominee Mr. Obama wanted? How is that different? AND...Sen Gregg got to select his successor who was then required to promise not to run??? Unbelievable!!! I am now jaded once again -- and ready to give up hope for an administration with integrity. Shame on you Mr. President --shame on you.

Posted by: SilverJax | February 3, 2009 6:46 PM | Report abuse

His former chief of staff as a "placeholder"? How stupid is THAT?

I had high hopes that Democrats could start running the country, but if the DEMOCRATIC Governor could not find a MODERATE Republican in NEW HAMPSHIRE, I know the Donkeys are in deep doo doo.

Posted by: RealCalGal | February 3, 2009 6:45 PM | Report abuse

This whole thing makes me want to vomit.

Posted by: svreader | February 3, 2009 6:37 PM | Report abuse

This is horrible. I thought we elected aa Democrat!

Posted by: svreader | February 3, 2009 6:35 PM | Report abuse

“The selection of Sen. Gregg completely contradicts what domestic manufacturers understand to be the president’s stated views on U.S. trade policy,” said council President Kevin Kearns. “Sen. Gregg has voted nonstop for bad trade deals that have shipped overseas thousands of factories and large numbers of high-wage jobs, helping to create today’s economic crisis.

“The choice of Sen. Gregg makes sense only if the president wants a secretary of Outsourcing,” Kearns said.

Two weeks and Obama sold out to the Corporatists!
What makes this appointment different from The Blagoyavich incident other than the Senator Blagoyavich nominated was of extreme high charachter!

Posted by: Elvis1 | February 3, 2009 6:05 PM | Report abuse

No matter what flattering BS about "holy" bi-partisanship exudes from Obama's pick of Gregg (provided a rightist Republican replace him in the Senate) Obama's misguided choices from Rick Warren to Judd Gregg are beginning to send shakes and doubts about his judgment up and down my spine. I imagine it is also causing party faithful to wonder if Obama is going to be just another version of wimpy Jimmy Carter!

Posted by: GuinnessJ51 | February 3, 2009 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Vegasgirl1:

"Why wouldn't I want to win you over? If I succeeded, with whom would I argue? Of course, I'm being polite. You hate Bush, not me."


OK, Chilibear, that was out of line. This might come as a shock to you, but I don't hate Bush --I don't recall writing in my debate with you that I did, either. That's like me writing: "You hate Obama. Not me."

Thanks for your condescendion, but we're done arguing.

Posted by: vegasgirl1 | February 3, 2009 5:34 PM | Report abuse

This poster brings out an interesting point.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gregg will take the position if he is guaranteed that a republican be named to his seat? Isn't that BRIBERY? Isn't it the same thing the ex-governer of Ill. was impeached for? Come on, enough with the double standards!The American people are sick of the childish behavior of these so called law makers. Put the most qualified person who will do right by the American people, not a clone of the republican party.

Posted by: janeantonazzo | February 3, 2009 5:05 PM

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Posted by: DrCha | February 3, 2009 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Gregg will take the position if he is guaranteed that a republican be named to his seat? Isn't that BRIBERY? Isn't it the same thing the ex-governer of Ill. was impeached for? Come on, enough with the double standards!The American people are sick of the childish behavior of these so called law makers. Put the most qualified person who will do right by the American people, not a clone of the republican party.

Posted by: janeantonazzo | February 3, 2009 5:05 PM | Report abuse

WHY ARE WE ELEVATING REPUBLICANS! I am livid over this deal, Lynch should appoint a Democrat, screw working with the Republicans, they are obstructing the stimulus and continue to do damage to this country. We could eliminate their influence on government for another year in just one day! Just imagine no more obstructing in the Congress, by them. Instead they're going to put one of those fiends into the Cabinet, and add another to the Senate, truly unbelievable! If Lynch goes along with their back room deal should resign!

Posted by: jmr862003 | February 3, 2009 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Vegasgirl1:

Why wouldn't I want to win you over? If I succeeded, with whom would I argue? Of course, I'm being polite. You hate Bush, not me. However, I think that with the exception of yours, a lot of these posts are being written by people who are being deliberately obtuse, without recognizing the fact that this is not just a Senate seat.

Honestly, if the Democrats in power told Gregg to go pound sand, I wouldn't blame them, but I think they know that this works out well for them in the long run, even without a Democrat replacement. Keep in mind that the governor gets to handpick his Republican. How often does that happen for the opposition?

I'm polite, because you're polite and intelligent. You deserve nothing less.

Chillbear Latrigue

Posted by: clatrigue | February 3, 2009 4:59 PM | Report abuse

What makes this Republican fix legal while Blagojevich's wasn't? A fix is a fix is a fix!

Posted by: infuse | February 3, 2009 2:47 PM


The Key difference here is that the NH Governor didnt request any money for their arrangement. If the people should be mad at anyone, they should be mad at Obama and the governor for allowing this to happen. I do not think you can blame Gregg for merely suggesting who his replacement should be. I am sure Biden, Clinton and a host of others have provided their thoughts..or are you just mad that because of the deal you will not be able push through your useless, pork laden proposals.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gregg got absolute assurance. He made a deal. The fact is that a deal was made in order for Republicans to maintain some minimum leverage in the senate. A deal for raw power is just as corrupt as a deal for money.

Gregg was part of the deal. NH governor was part of the deal. Obama was not a direct party to the deal.

Posted by: infuse | February 3, 2009 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Chillbear Latrigue

Nice try, but you didn't win me over. You're simply excusing the dreadful decisions made by Bush and the spineless Congress (and yes, that includes some cowardly Democrats.)
Thanks again, however, for being polite.

Posted by: vegasgirl1 | February 3, 2009 4:47 PM | Report abuse

"That is the kind of gesture that is going to heal the rift between the two parties."
---
What in god's name makes you think there is any evidence that the Repubs have any desire to "heal the rift", they hate Obama more than they hated Clinton.

Posted by: JRM2 | February 3, 2009 4:19 PM | Report abuse

There is a distinction between Gregg's agreement with the Governor and the Blagoyavich impeachment and that is this:
Blagoyavich never actually made a deal, he just tried to, Gregg actually made a deal to fix the appointment.

Posted by: JRM2 | February 3, 2009 4:16 PM | Report abuse

Newtc:

There's no point in us trying to make a bunch of apples to oranges comparisons with every senator that has accepted a cabinet position.

This is a unique situation in that it was a Democrat President offering a Republican Senator a post, while leaving a Democrat governor to decide who is going to fill it. Let's also throw in the filibuster that lies in the balance. Now if you can come up with a scenario where ALL of those things were reversed, then I'll accept your double-standard claims.

I know a lot of Democrats are disappointed that the President can't just dangle a post in front of someone and gain a Senate seat, but I think it's pretty clear that Gregg was just going to stay a Senator unless he got some sort of assurance. Consequently, Democrats didn't lose anything from this. In fact, Gregg's replacement will probably be a lot more beatable next election.

Instead of villifying Gregg, you should be happy that we are going to have a Commerce Secretary that has enough integrity not to turn his back on his colleagues for personal gain.

This is the kind of change in government that we were promised by President Obama as a candidate. He got the man that he wanted from the opposition without damaging the opposition. That is the kind of gesture that is going to heal the rift between the two parties.

I'll have to admit, and you can see from my earlier posts, that I was very skeptical of the choice. I now feel that Our President was not just trying to find a quick and easy route around people with values similar to mine. That should count for something to his supporters.

Now, if I could just meet with him on this "stimulus" package...

Clatrigue@live.com

Posted by: clatrigue | February 3, 2009 4:12 PM | Report abuse

"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"
----
And how is this different from what happened in Illinois?

The rebubs already "jobbed" Obama on the stimulus, now I say job 'em back and appoint a Democrat.

Posted by: JRM2 | February 3, 2009 4:02 PM | Report abuse

@ pressF1 - that is THE BEST Jonathan Richman and the Modern Lovers song EVER.

Posted by: VeloStrummer | February 3, 2009 3:51 PM | Report abuse

What makes this Republican fix legal while Blagojevich's wasn't? A fix is a fix is a fix!

Posted by: infuse | February 3, 2009 2:47 PM


The Key difference here is that the NH Governor didnt request any money for their arrangement. If the people should be mad at anyone, they should be mad at Obama and the governor for allowing this to happen. I do not think you can blame Gregg for merely suggesting who his replacement should be. I am sure Biden, Clinton and a host of others have provided their thoughts..or are you just mad that because of the deal you will not be able push through your useless, pork laden proposals.

Posted by: sanmateo1850 | February 3, 2009 3:39 PM | Report abuse

A briliant power grab by BHO to remove one of the true Conservatives (and with experience) left in the Senate.

Posted by: BenLaGuer | February 3, 2009 3:28 PM | Report abuse

I swear to Science, it seems like the Bush Era NeoCon Republicans just make the rules up as they go along. Obama should go tell Senator Gregg to go pound sand and keep his seat.

Posted by: mikeyeah | February 3, 2009 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Cutting a deal with the Governor so you can select your own replacement is an abuse of office. Imagine the stink if Hillary had tried that. The good people of New Hampshire should tell Gov. John Lynch to select the person who can best represent them in the Senate. Since that’s not likely to happen, so the next best thing would be for NH to elect a Democrat in 2010. That’s very likely to happen, since Gregg’s replacement won’t be a 3 term incumbent. Of course, if the stimulus bill is abused as badly as the bank bailout bill has been, Dems aren’t going to do well in 2010 at all. A lot depends not just on the stimulus bill working, but whether or not it works for the middle class. If it has no mortgage and credit relief for the American taxpayers who are footing the bill, if it simply makes the rich richer once again, the public will be fed up with Democrats who show they can cheat as well as the Republicans can.

Posted by: newtc | February 3, 2009 2:49 PM | Report abuse

What makes this Republican fix legal while Blagojevich's wasn't? A fix is a fix is a fix!

Posted by: infuse | February 3, 2009 2:47 PM | Report abuse

TheBabeNemo you missed my ironic point. Most Democrats oppose NCLB because it was a Bush baby. If Democrats were true to party ideals they would know that NCLB has done wonders for Special and Early Childhood Education. Had you followed the link, read it, then read my last sentence you would have realized I support "No Child Left Behind" and I hope we give it more teeth and funding.

Posted by: MissRed | February 3, 2009 2:37 PM | Report abuse


if background checks would be done on everyone President Obama is considering, we wouldn't have this mix up and withdrawing all over the place. Plus, we would probably find that no one is qualified for the jobs offered!!!!!!

And what is wrong with No Child Left Behind? That the states did NOT mess up. It is a great law. Have you read it or just listening to banter from politicos that didn't like it because districts, schools and states had to STEP UP TO THE PLATE and get monitored closely???? No m ore free money under the awful IASA.

And I agree with the postings.....who the heck is an outgoing elected official to DEMAND --whom will take their place.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | February 3, 2009 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Guess this kind of sale is legal. Blogs sale was not... So what is going on here....

Posted by: robinhood2 | February 3, 2009 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Vegasgirl1:

The Republicans never had a filibuster proof majority during any of the years of the Bush Administration and no majority at all during the last two. What they had was a simple majority for most of his presidency.

The other distinction is that your analogy had nothing to do with the Bush administration. It was a hypothetical question that "Had McCain won..."

I believe that if McCain had won, the Republicans still would have lost both houses. I would go as far as to say that the only reason McCain had any chance in this election at all is because he has been percieved as a moderate.

I don't agree with everything the Bush Administration did over the past eight years, but most of his unpopular decisions from the left had some Democratic support.

The War in Iraq and the troop surge both garnered bi-partisan support so a Republican super majority wasn't even necessary. 29 Democratic Senators including Biden voted for the war resolution. I couldn't find the vote count on the surge, but it obviously passed.

The Patriot Act had one dissenting vote in the Senate passing 98-1 with one no show.

While the $700 billion TARP bill of a few months ago didn't enjoy bi-partisan support, Bush's support came largely from the Democrats.

I don't want to belabor the point, but President Bush never had the party votes to force anything down the throats of Democrats. If I'm not mistaken, you would have to go back as far as Reagan to see that kind of super-majority in the hands of either party.

The bottom is that whether we voted for Obama or Biden, it was with the understanding that we were electing a President and not a regent.

Chillbear Latrigue

Posted by: clatrigue | February 3, 2009 2:13 PM | Report abuse

Ok, so I'm pretty sure most of us voted for Obama that comment on here. So I think I'm safe in saying that we voted for Obama because we agree with most of what he says and believes.

The American political parties are corrupt and very similar to each other. I would be very suspicious if President Obama didn't round out his cabinet with opposing view points. Disagreement leads to discussing, debate, and better ideas. Political parties are like clicks for adults. Grow up and start finding more intelligent ways to vocalize why you disagree with someone. Rather then saying, I don't agree with Judd Gregg because he is a Republican. Try saying, I don't agree with the appointment of Judd Gregg because he helped author the "No Child Left Behind Act."

Check out his bio at http://gregg.senate.gov/sitepages/bio.htm

If you care about adequate funding of education, he may actually be a Republican worth supporting.

Posted by: MissRed | February 3, 2009 2:09 PM | Report abuse

The coolest thing is, he won't have a tax problem. He's from New Hampshire, where they don't have taxes.

Hopefully the liquor store thing will be cool. I mean, should be ideal, eh? Go to church, drive up to Manchester, get a case of malt liquor, drive back to Beantown, patty hatty -- perfect! Everybody wins. That's interstate commerce at its most fundamental.

I'm in love with the modern world.
And I'm in love with a modern girl.
Massachusetts when it's late at night
I got the radio on
Radio On!


Posted by: pressF1 | February 3, 2009 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Chillbear Latrigue: With all due respect, I disagree with you that my analogy isn't fair.
While it's admirable you say you are a citizen first, and a Republican second, and that you don't want one party having full control of government, I just have one question -- did you feel the same way when the GOP controlled all three houses for nearly 8 years?
I think that's a fair question.
Look, Gregg's probably going to be appointed to this position, and will get his wish about the GOP replacement. While it's a bit unusual, if the Obama admin. OK with it, so be it.
Hopefully, Gregg will do his job competently, without undue influence and ethically. At the end of the day, that's what matters most.

Posted by: vegasgirl1 | February 3, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abuse

I wouldn't trust a republican to mow my lawn. Obama is making a big mistake in letting these SOBs into the innner circle.

Posted by: adrienne_najjar | February 3, 2009 1:30 PM | Report abuse

From Maurice Stans to Ron Brown, Secretary of Commerce has typically been chief corporate fundraiser for the "party in power." Since Obama doesn't need nor expects little corporate support--"why not turn it over to Republican?"--as a twisted joke. Now, Gregg wants to lead a department he wanted to kill--and probably gives the Dems a filibuster proof majority--and shows himself to be nothing more than an "empty suit." Republicans need to "call him out" in Jim Jeffords fashion.

Posted by: glenlivet | February 3, 2009 1:17 PM | Report abuse

So will Gregg be Vetted and release all of his Tax information before he's voted on?

Posted by: sfilutze | February 3, 2009 1:09 PM | Report abuse

I have to disagree with most of you that Obama did anything wrong by appointing a republican. He has better judgement than any of us & knows things we do not. Our country is in such a bad shape that we have to trust someone to help us. In my opinion President Obama is doing his very best and I trust his decisions in whatever he does. The way I see it no democratic person nor a republican person always have the right answers but combine them & I think we will be much better off. Go President Obama...I trust your decisions completely.

Posted by: Mauzieblue | February 3, 2009 1:05 PM | Report abuse

It's a win-win-win arrangement. Obama gets Gregg, who is smart. Gregg doesn't have to run for reelection in increasingly Democratic New Hampshire. Senate Republicans keep a Republican in that seat. The Governor gets to play kingpin. Bonnie Newman gets to be a Senator. She agrees not to run for reelection, so NH Democrats all have a chance at that seat ... without just one of them being the incumbent. And, a plus for Obama: Newman is likely to be a moderate vote, like fellow New Englanders Snowe and Collins. So, who loses? Democrats because Sessions replaces Gregg? Please! That Ranking Member Commitee role is way, way overrated.

Posted by: maxinaz | February 3, 2009 1:04 PM | Report abuse

VegasGirl1 wrote: "OK, let's just say, to be fair, that Gregg is justified in his request. However, I wonder if the GOP will be so sanguine if it were a Demo. senator requesting from a President John McCain that he/she would only serve if the replacement is a Democrat.
Somehow, I'm guessing the GOP and its prostitutes on talk radio would be screaming."

It's not a fair analogy since even had McCain won, both houses of Congress would be firmly Democratic.

As a citizen first and a Republican second, I am not looking to wrest full control of the government from the victorious Democrats. I simply don't want them to have an absolute unchecked reign.

Additionally, Senator Gregg is a free individual to decide whether he wants to continue to serve as a Senator or accept President Obama's offer. I am assuming that if he didn't have a guarantee that a Republican would replace him, his answer would be "no."

Lastly, on you post, "prostitutes on talk radio." Lol. Good stuff.

To some of the less intelligent posters on here:

Blago tried to sell a Senate seat for money. Gregg is not trying to seek personal gain. He is merely trying to remain true to his ideals by not leaving their representatives without a weapon.

Gregg will serve at the will of the President, once he accepts the nomination and is confirmed. He currently serves at the will of the people of the great state of New Hampshire. While he has no de facto power in determining his successor, he is afforded the opportunity to influence that decision by any legal means that he feels are appropriate. Stating that you will only vacate the post if a Republican successor is appointed is not illegal or unconstitutional.

Chillbear Latrigue

Clatrigue@live.com

Posted by: clatrigue | February 3, 2009 12:52 PM | Report abuse

I never thought the GOP posters here can go so low. That's one reason they lost so bad in 2008 elections.

Posted by: ExpressReader | February 3, 2009 12:30 PM | Report abuse

Not much substance here. Gregg was once a proponent of abolishing Commerce--a fact not worth a mention? Also, he fought rationalizing statistical procedures for the 2000 Census and has been a force in underfunding the 2010 Census. But, hey, it sure is interesting that he's the third GOPer in Obama's cabinet.

Posted by: seller11 | February 3, 2009 12:27 PM | Report abuse

"Excellent point, rickedelson. Since when does someone of the opposing party DEMAND that the governor of their state appoint another person in their own party? The Constitution provides that the governor of a state (with some rare exceptions in certain states) has absolute descretion to choose whom he or she wants."

Which they can exercise however they want. Gregg said he wouldn't take the job if it was detrimental to his party in the 111th Congress, and Lynch and Obama agreed. It's a gentleman's agreement, from which nobody profits financially, and is all out in the open; nothing like Blagojevich.

It's called cooperation, so everyone can stop being so hysterical.

Posted by: SeanC1 | February 3, 2009 12:27 PM | Report abuse

No, No, No Obama. No Republicans in the Cabinet. You don't seem to understand. Republicans hate government, and will only work to destroy it. That's their ideology, and you can bet that Judd Gregg will get his marching orders from the Republican National Committee, not from a Democratic President.

We are watching the last days of the republic. Positions and power are bought and sold. Deals are made to ensure power is kept in the hands of the wealthy corporate elite. There is no justice left.

Posted by: Chagasman | February 3, 2009 12:26 PM | Report abuse

I'm very dissappointed the president did this. Republicans won't appreciate it but will view it as a sign of weakness.

Posted by: svreader | February 3, 2009 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Its embarrassing for our President to have to keep appointing Republicans. Senator Gregg is the third one.

Gregg will likely get his condition - a Republican replacement - if only because Obama can't find any scandal-free Democrats to appoint : (

And Obama still has the scandal-plagued Rangel in the House and Chris Dodd in the Senate to deal with. Thank God the voters of Louisiana finally threw-out the "I-keep-cash-in-my-freezer" Jefferson.

Very sad to see so much corruption amongest the Democrats : (

Posted by: pvilso24 | February 3, 2009 12:17 PM | Report abuse

I thought we voted Democratic is the last Election.

Posted by: rkz1964 | February 3, 2009 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Is anyone concerned with Gregg's interests in offshore aquaculture? If the Secretary of Commerce oversees agencies such as NOAA and the National Marine Fisheries Service that implement ocean and fisheries policies, I'm very concerned that Gregg's support of commercial-scale fish farming will undermine protecting the marine environment and coastal communities.
Offshore aquaculture is associated with serious problems including water pollution, habitat damage and disruption of natural ecosystems. And, it can have serious economic consequences on commercial and charter fishing. I'm disappointed that Obama, who is all about change and reversing Bush's dismal environment legacy, would even think about nominating Gregg for this position.

Posted by: egreenfield | February 3, 2009 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Did this guy pay his taxes. Obama is a joke and so is his staff.

Posted by: realredhead24 | February 3, 2009 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Sen.
I've been shot in the head with radiation weaponry several times over the past few days. This morning it was a single hard shot hitting me and my cat while we were sleeping. She's been shaking her head (stunned), not the first time I've seen such a response from her. The attacks yesterday ranged over several hours--I couldn't feel the initial attack though the effects were evident over the course of a few hours, and I could at various times feel a tingling in my head, accompanied by near nausea. There are a few possible causes here; I've heard individuals from both parties blamed. I specifically heard an admission the other day, that one or both parties 'forgot' to place exculpatory evidence in front of the judiciary--the federal government nevertheless proceeded to make the false accusations and commit battery against me while holding the evidence. There have now been dozens of incidents in which I've been falsely accused and assaulted under a pretextual claim of right, by individuals in the federal government. I'd like criminal charges pressed here against the assailants, and will resort to the only remedy I have when the government disregards its own laws so cavalierly--widespread publication of the harm in various newspapers. I've provided a number of government officials with access to documents demonstrating my innocence.

Glen Broemer

Posted by: e9999999 | February 3, 2009 11:57 AM | Report abuse

I'm sorry, but how is Sen. Gregg's condition NOT a variation on "pay to play"?

Posted by: rbullock | February 3, 2009 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Republicans in the cabinet make me want to throw up. It isn't what I worked for or donated funds to make happen. The next email I get from the Dems asking me for money will get a go ask your Republicans for help response.

Posted by: SarahBB | February 3, 2009 11:40 AM | Report abuse

funny how we all automatically assume that all the "things" we are finding out about the potential nominees and appointed positions (after they have been chosen or nominated) is negative.
We assume "they are cheaters" because the press broke a story.
No innocence until proven guilty. No nothin'. Welcome to the USA.

They found something in your past, your record, your taxes...and by george, you INTENTIONALLY cheated. You crook.

We, as a collective society, are seeing the glass half empty all the time now. Consistently, we are falling into "guilty until proven innocent".
It bothers me. The press reports it-so damn it to hell, it is true.

For i.e: Tom Daschle has 30 years experience behind him. He has been a public servant all his adult life. He gets the work done. If he put his finances in the hands of a "third party administrator"....that OH BTW-----
WE ALL DO IT !
And gets taken--He realizes it. Pays it back, apologizes up the fricking ying yang. And we still want to hang this good public servant.

We all better take a line from the Rolling Stones "rock and a hard place"..
PUT ON A KIND FACE.
Or maybe John Lennon's Give Peace a Chance.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | February 3, 2009 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Obama ran out of Democrats who had paid their taxes so he had to name a Republican to Commerce. Now this morning I see Nancy Killefer Obama's "performance czar" has had to withdraw her name apparently because of tax problems. She obviously wasn't a part of Daschale and Geithner's old boy network. Apparently on Republicans and so-called little people pay their taxes. This is too rich!

Posted by: fenoy | February 3, 2009 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Finally a responisble adult...

Posted by: seawolfR | February 3, 2009 11:09 AM | Report abuse

GOSH, FINALLY FINALLY OBAMA SUPPORTS A CABINET PICK WHO IS NOT A TAX CHEAT AND A LIAR! WOW-AND HE HAPPENS TO BE REPUBLICAN-HOW IRONIC IS THAT, I SAY? I A DEMOCRAT-WHO WANTS THAT NON-CREDIBLE GEITHNER OUT-AND DASCHLE NEVER IN-BRING BACK HENRY PAULSON!

Posted by: schmetterlingtoo | February 3, 2009 10:59 AM | Report abuse

WILL GREGG HELP AMERICA EXPORT? Export promotion activities were gutted by the Bush administration. U.S. Commercial Service is in bad shape as a result and can't help SME companies export as well as it could with adequate resources. As the National Association of Manufacturers has pointed out, Export Promotion needs to be part of the stimulus package as there is true bang for each buck spent. See an article on this at: http://www.shippingdigest.com/news/article.asp?ltype=feature

Posted by: NHvoter1 | February 3, 2009 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Well i would rather have a tax cheat than members who out undercover CIA agents for political revenge. Or who give the go ahead for torture but dont have the guts to admit it.

Posted by: rharring | February 3, 2009 10:16 AM | Report abuse

"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt."
--Thomas Jefferson, letter to Samuel Kercheval, 12 July 1816

Posted by: springco1 | February 3, 2009 10:14 AM | Report abuse

REDSOX8-WHY ARE THE REPUBLICANS LEAVING THE PARTY. THE DEMOCRATES ALREADY OWN THE HOUSE AND SENATE AND WILL PASS ANY LEGISLATION THEY WANT.REPUBLICANS GET USED TO IT NOW ITS OUR TURN.
------------------------------------------
The republicians are leaving the party to go help the democrats who apparently cannot find anyone in their own party who is not a tax cheat.

Posted by: 12oreo | February 3, 2009 10:06 AM | Report abuse

How is this not the same as Blagojovich? I mean seriously, this is beyond quid pro quo. The governer has the right to appoint whomever they want. And since when did cabinet nominees start making demands and stipulations of the POTUS!?

Posted by: DinahS | February 3, 2009 10:04 AM | Report abuse

Especially to blogwould from new hampshire, and all the other libs who think that this is blackmail. Were you "appalled" and did you feel "hubris" (my what nice scholarly words that indicate total stupidity) when the Dem Guv of Taxachusetts appointed Mrs. Tsongas (no political experience whatsoever) to fill the post vacated by her husband when he left for a job with more pork? He didn't have to make that demand because MA is a one party state and it was a foregone conclusion. All she is doing is sitting on her butt and working up a nice fat pension.

Posted by: tlar1000a | February 3, 2009 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Get ready for the doublecross: the Democratic governor's promise to replace the Republican Senator with another Republican? BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: tjhall1 | February 3, 2009 9:43 AM | Report abuse

another back room deal. if gregg had strings attached to his acceptance to the commerce post, then obama should cut the strings and find someone else. no spine. if the positions were reversed, republicans would never do it. this is just a deal plain and simple. no difference than the one in illinois.

Posted by: mj9501 | February 3, 2009 9:33 AM | Report abuse


The reason Obama is appointing so many senators, is because that is who he knows--Senators and Chicagoans. Bush picked Texans and business-types. Clinton had lots of help from Arkansas.

One can only assume that he saw how Gregg operated in the Senate, and decided he was a stand-up guy.

As the last Republican standing in NH, Gregg has reason to fear for his job in 2010, so a gig in the Cabinet may be looking good right now. If he is replaced with a Democrat, the backlash from the GOP will more than erase any spirit of bipartisanship engendered by his appointment.

Win-win, or no deal.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | February 3, 2009 9:21 AM | Report abuse

My goodness, is there no one here in the middle at all?

We live in a democracy. The president is not all-powerful. Gregg is perfectly within his rights to express his reservations about accepting a nomination. In my view, he is being loyal to the Constitution, his party, AND his constituents by asking to be replaced by a Republican.

If he is nominated, the Gov will replace him with a Republican. The Gov would have to publically state otherwise, right NOW, in order not to be seen as a real weasel.

This is not a deal between Obama and Gregg. It is an understanding between Gregg and the Gov, with the media and the public serving as witnesses.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | February 3, 2009 9:10 AM | Report abuse

I live in NH, and I'm appalled that Senator Gregg places the interests of the Republican party ahead of the nation.

That he will not accept this high honor unless Governor Lynch appoints a successor that passes a Republican sniff test is beyond hubris. It says that he will deny the President and the nation the best person for the job because his provincial, partisan concerns are more important than the country's needs in this time of war and financial crisis.

Governor Lynch, and all Americans, should stand up publicly and forcefully ask Senator Gregg where his priorities lie. The choice is simple: Senator Gregg can accept the job or embrace the Republican party and reject his country that has called him to duty.

(And, please, hold the palaver about opposing single-party rule being Senator Gregg's true, patriotic motive behind all this. He, by his silence and obsequiousness to Rovian fantasies of a permanent Republican majority, was perfectly content when the presidency and both houses of Congress were controlled by Republicans from 2000 to 2006.)

Senator Gregg has no right demanding anything of anybody when the president calls him to to serve his country. Have you no sense of duty to your country left?

Posted by: blogwould | February 3, 2009 9:02 AM | Report abuse

OKAY, SO WHY IS MY PARTY SIGNAL IT WILL DO FAVORS FOR THE REPUBLICANS? We don't need Republicans in the House, Senate, Cabinet, and definitely not in the White House. LYNCH SHOULD CHOOSE A DEMOCRATIC POLITICIAN TO REPLACE WHATS HIS NAME!

Posted by: jmr862003 | February 3, 2009 9:01 AM | Report abuse

WHY ARE THE REPUBLICANS LEAVING THE PARTY. THE DEMOCRATES ALREADY OWN THE HOUSE AND SENATE AND WILL PASS ANY LEGISLATION THEY WANT.REPUBLICANS GET USED TO IT NOW ITS OUR TURN.

Posted by: REDSOX08 | February 3, 2009 7:24 AM | Report abuse

Man these right-winged nuts are so pissed. Please, someone on my side of the ailse please tell me why I am loving it!! You guys need to go over to the RNC and see whaz up with Duke and Steele. Who do you have to run for president in 2012? Elmer Fudd? oh no that's right "Miss I can see Russia from my house". How many seats you think you will earn in 2010? all that is left of your party is bitter old southen white men....Ooops my bad! that is what you had from the get-go...By the way how's things with that African American man that heads your party? now that's a guy who I hear has a credibility problem. You guys just can't get it right....So sad

Posted by: danson1 | February 3, 2009 2:27 AM | Report abuse

Obama is picking a republican senator,so he can get his bill thru,the republicans will be out voted,out numbered,Gregg should refuse.If he refuses,i'll bet Obama selects another republican senator,he wants to get this pork bill passed quick.
He is in too much of a hurry,he wants to get things done before the American people wise up to him.
Leading financial people and economists think this bill is a big giveaway and not to the American people,they just have to pay the tab.With the possible exception of hollywood celebrities.

Posted by: Deadman18 | February 3, 2009 1:00 AM | Report abuse

So,Welcome to the Wonderful New World Order
Obama La La Land,Comrades! And you said you
wanted "Change We Can Believe In",didn't
you Comrades?...Well here it is! Seig Heil!
Heil Hitler! Heil Obama,Der Leader of the
New 10000 year 4th Reich!

Posted by: Jan1977 | February 3, 2009 12:56 AM | Report abuse

Obama is just a Globalist shill and puppet, PERIOD..And where's the Post's coverage of Obama's continuing CIA renditions???? LIES,LIES,LIES,FAKE CORPORATE LIES

http://www.infowars.com/obama-orders-continuation-of-illegal-cia-renditions/

Posted by: frak | February 2, 2009 11:32 PM | Report abuse

Two words: Super Majority

Gregg leaves his seat. The Democratic Governor Lynch keeps his word and replaces him with a Republican. Of course he's either a Republican so weak that he'll never be re-elected, or a "RINO" that is so far left he can see California from his NH home.

Bottom line: Republicans lose another Senate seat.

I like it.

Posted by: jwoods3 | February 2, 2009 10:48 PM | Report abuse

60 votes are needed to railroad immigration reform. The GOP should give it up.

Posted by: blasmaic | February 2, 2009 10:42 PM | Report abuse

what is obama NOT thinking?

he is disappointing a lot of people with these cabinet duds.

give us a break. choose a democrat or better, not worse.

Posted by: forestbloggod | February 2, 2009 8:42 PM | Report abuse

It doesn't matter. THE REPUBLICANS LOST OVERALL. THEY LOST THE BIG GAME. WHY IS OBAMA EVEN TRYING TO NEGOTIATE WITH THESE IDIOTS??!! DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS HAVE FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES IN HOW TO DO THINGS. The only way the republicans are going to vote for a bill is if it's the same bill that would have been put forth had they won the presidency and congress. Their arguments and philosophy lost not just 3 months ago. Let them play OBSTRUCTIONIST if they want to so we can continue to vote their asses out next cycle.

Posted by: eastlander | February 2, 2009 8:37 PM | Report abuse

"Next".

Posted by: bfjackjernigan | February 2, 2009 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Heard a great quote on this,

"Picking Gregg for commerce is like picking one of the other team's quarterbacks."

Aside from P.T. Boehner's big Elephant Roundup last week everyone knows the party is in the weeds.

The House guys may be from solid districts. But what about GOP Governors and Senators from states Obama won? They're telling their own leaders to get with the program.

The President will get what he wants and he'll thin the GOP herd as he does.

Posted by: JohnQuimby | February 2, 2009 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Now we will see if Obama, really wanted him or his senate seat.

I think its the latter.

Obama is a sneaky, slimy, Chi-town hustling rat.

Who appoints tax cheats.

Posted by: dashriprock | February 2, 2009 8:06 PM | Report abuse

CuriousJhum - Really spirited monologue dude. Now why don't you go back to doing what you're best at, ummm, you know, being a fake Christian.

Lot's a luck finding that section in the bible where it describes what a great sycophant JC was.

Posted by: htruman | February 2, 2009 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Gregg should be flattered with the nomination. Instead, he wants to set pre-conditions, as though he is doing everyone a favor. Obama should just move on,
and pick someone who really appreciates serving the country with no strings attached. This Gregg is just "too high maintenance"...NEXT PLEASE.

Posted by: fridaolay | February 2, 2009 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Obama's plan to replace Gregg with a democrat failed and all the liberals are ticked off.
The attempted deceit, lies with Obama.

Posted by: xantiphi
-------

Only by your lie am I "ticked off", conservative Repub troll.

Posted by: SGall23241 | February 2, 2009 7:49 PM | Report abuse

"And I have to agree... exactly how is this case ANY different than what happened in Illionis? These buying trading and selling votes for influence has to stop...universally!"

Gregg isn't asking for anything that benefits him personally, directly or indirectly. He's looking after the interests of the people who elected him, just like any good senator or representative.

If you idiots can't see the difference between ordinary political deal-brokering on one hand and influence peddling for private gain on the other, I doubt anyone can explain it to you.

Posted by: TheyCallMeBruce
---------------
And if YOU can't see the difference, then I doubt anyone can explain it to you as well. I'll try anyway for the record. This guy's making a DEMAND that Gov. Lynch replace him with another Repub so the Dems can't theorectically have a fillerbuster-proof majority in the Senate. A blasted DEMAND. Anyone can simply say "Yes, Mr. President, I'll accept", or "No, Mr. President, I can't accept", not, "I'll accept Mr. President, but only if Governor Lynch, from your party, accepts that he must chose a Republican." As far as I'm concerned, that's not only too different from what Blago did. Sen. Gregg's trying to dictate not only to Gov. Lynch, but the President of the United States what he wants! In Blago's case, he wanted something for himself. And don't hand me that garbage that Gregg's thinking "of his people and his party first". No, he's thinking of himself, such as making sure he can stay in control of the situation without losing face with any of his fellow Repub Senators, who'll remember what he did if he faces them down the line, and I just don't mean for comfirmation. They'll give him hell about it, that's a guarantee. If he feels that strongly about it, then he shouldn't leave the Senate, not resort to making demands. It could also definitely set a dangerous precedent, and let's face it: If the situation were reversed, I'd KNOW you'd feel the same exact way I do, don't deny it. You know what? I hope Gregg turns it down, or Gov. Lynch and/or President Obama turns HIM down. I wouldn't want anyone like Gregg on the Cabinet if he's going to be like that.

Posted by: SGall23241 | February 2, 2009 7:46 PM | Report abuse

CuriousJhum: Your ignorant post shows just how sad your movement has become.
Grow up, man. You sound like a fool. Get a life and get over yourself.
And anyone describes the insult "messiah," it's your sainted little George W. Bush, whom I'm willing to bet you drooled all over for 8 years.

Posted by: vegasgirl1 | February 2, 2009 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Of all of the lame-brained, egotistical political rhetoric that I've seen in my life, this takes some cake. Not all of it, mind you. Pieces have to be doled out to Congress for sneaking and giving their friends the first $350 Billion, to John McCain for picking Sarah Palin as his running mate, to George Bush for conquering Iraq for oil and of course to the GOP for pretending that it wants to get in touch with minorities by appointing a black chairman. I would be laughing myself silly at all of this, except these are the people we elected to govern our country. I'm also very dissappointed for the first time with one of President Obama's picks. I hope that he changes his mind about this one. America doesn't need anyone in any office who sees their party before they see our country.

Posted by: MET9 | February 2, 2009 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Didn't someone just get impeached for trying to make a deal to fill a Senate seat?

Posted by: spidey103 | February 2, 2009 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Some things for the Republicans to come to terms with: 1) W was NOT Teddy Roosevelt. 2)McCain was NOT Teddy Roosevelt. 3)Sarah Palin is NOT Hillary Clinton. 4)Micheal Steele is NOT Barack Obama.

Posted by: majorteddy | February 2, 2009 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Forget it!! I will be extremely disappointed if Obama caves into this silliness, started again by Rush "Jabba the Hut" Limbaugh. Seems like the Republicans take their guidance from this hate filled doper. Clearly, the GOP is in worse shape then most of us realize.
Anyhow, putting another Republican on the presidential cabinet is a waste of a good slot- the heck with them- treat them no better than they treated the dems the past 8 years-

Posted by: rsampson02 | February 2, 2009 7:40 PM | Report abuse

Say no to Gregg's demand. Then let the Republicans try to shoot down Obama's stimulus plan and block other proposed legislation. It will not go over well with the American public and the Republicans will be held to pay. As for Gregg, the New Hampshire voters will send him packing into political oblivion in the next election cycle.

Posted by: brwntrt | February 2, 2009 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Obama's plan to replace Gregg with a democrat failed and all the liberals are ticked off.
The attempted deceit, lies with Obama.

Posted by: xantiphi | February 2, 2009 7:30 PM | Report abuse

Quid pro quo. I take charge of the Department, you appoint a Republican to replace me in the Senate. Sounds fair? No. It doesn't. The Republican Party has done a fine job turning USA into a slush fund for the wealthy and Republican. They all should be severely caned and sent to bed without their supper. No fargin Cabinet post for this guy.

Posted by: BlueTwo1 | February 2, 2009 7:30 PM | Report abuse

If the allegation is true that Gregg is offering to surrender his Senate seat for a cabinet post under the condition that a Republican be appointed than that is bribery.

Gregg should be charged under Title 18 Article 8 Section 302.

Is Gregg the Republican version of Blagovich.

Posted by: brwntrt | February 2, 2009 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Why not nominate Bernie Maydoff, at least he paid his taxes, unlike many in the cabinet or Congress, I wonder if Charlie paid his yet, That's Charlie Rangle, he writes the tax laws.

Posted by: starryperdun | February 2, 2009 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Looks like all the liberals are ticked off...Obama's plan for a demacrat to replace Gregg has backfired. Obama the arrogant A--,
doesn't get to win this game he tried to play.

Posted by: xantiphi | February 2, 2009 7:18 PM | Report abuse

Can someone please explain the difference between Gregg trying to strike a deal for his Senate seat and Blago's attempt to strike a deal for Obama's seat?

How is this not bartering political favors for a Senate seat? If Lynch were to agree to this deal, will he get tossed out of office too?

I don't think Gregg thought this through.

Posted by: fitzroysq | February 2, 2009 7:15 PM | Report abuse

Since when do elected officials get to name their own successors when they leave office?

Posted by: pikaart | February 2, 2009 7:04 PM | Report abuse

"And I have to agree... exactly how is this case ANY different than what happened in Illionis? These buying trading and selling votes for influence has to stop...universally!"

Gregg isn't asking for anything that benefits him personally, directly or indirectly. He's looking after the interests of the people who elected him, just like any good senator or representative.

If you idiots can't see the difference between ordinary political deal-brokering on one hand and influence peddling for private gain on the other, I doubt anyone can explain it to you.

Posted by: TheyCallMeBruce | February 2, 2009 7:02 PM | Report abuse

I guess anything is negotiable, but I'd as soon see Gregg dismissed as a candidate if he's going to enter the post in such a clearly partisan way. It appears that he falls squarely into the "Party over Country" politics that have nearly ruined the Republican party - and our nation in the wake.

Posted by: martiniano | February 2, 2009 7:00 PM | Report abuse

Ha! This is ridiculous. Obama, after Daschle's taxes, are you sure you want to open up this can of worms, too? Say no to Gregg, and the Governor should have the cajones to say I will appoint whomever I want. God, why am I a democrat anyway! A bunch of wusses.

Posted by: sandnsmith | February 2, 2009 6:59 PM | Report abuse

This is NOT acceptable. Gregg takes the job or he doesn't. Dictating terms is laughable.

IF he or his Limbo colleagues make replacement demands, move onto another candidate.

Posted by: rbaldwin2 | February 2, 2009 6:56 PM | Report abuse

That's all I have to say you the democraps.

Posted by: CuriousJhum
-------

Funny. I thought for sure I read that you had nothing more to post on this. I guess GOPers can break their word like they accuse Dems of doing....

Posted by: SGall23241 | February 2, 2009 6:53 PM | Report abuse

How can you really complain about this when we've got other nominees who didn't timely pay their taxes!?!?!?! This surely seems like a reasonable request when compared to not paying ones taxes.

Posted by: Gooner
---------

That's a cute little point, there. Do you have any other gems you want to share?

Posted by: SGall23241 | February 2, 2009 6:50 PM | Report abuse

To Democraps and the Messiah,

You folks are exactly correct to say that the Messiah does not need to hire any Republican in his cabinet.

The problem is that he can not keep appointing the tax cheaters, labor-appeasers etc.

The Messiah needs to look at any CROOK or CRIMINAL to fill out his cabinet.

OR

Guess what???

The best solution for the democraps and the Messiah.................


OUTSOURCE the positions where you may get a decent person?????

That's all I have to say you the democraps.

Posted by: CuriousJhum | February 2, 2009 6:49 PM | Report abuse

There's nothing wrong with what Gregg is doing. Bush tried to lure Breaux into his Cabinet for the same reason but the Senator ended up turning him down to protect the Dem count in the Senate.

If Obama doesn't like Gregg's proposal, he's free to withdraw the name from consideration.

Posted by: Terps98
-----------

A demand is NOT a proposal, and even a proposal should not be under consideration. baseballguy's absolutely correct: Either "Yes" or "No" will suffice, not, "if", thank you very much.

Posted by: SGall23241 | February 2, 2009 6:47 PM | Report abuse

How can you really complain about this when we've got other nominees who didn't timely pay their taxes!?!?!?! This surely seems like a reasonable request when compared to not paying ones taxes.

Posted by: Gooner | February 2, 2009 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Hey, I'm just asking a question, not passing judgment. Is there a precedent? That would inform the discussion about if it is or is not a reasonable request. I just don't know the answer (and couldn't find it easily with Wikipedia or Google). Anyone who knows the answer, if any recent Governor of one party has appointed a Senator of another party, please chime in.

Posted by: rickedelson | February 2, 2009 6:45 PM | Report abuse

That's all I have to say.


Posted by: CuriousJhum
------------

Good. I guess we won't hear from you on this topic anymore, either.

Posted by: SGall23241 | February 2, 2009 6:43 PM | Report abuse

We need to go on a Republican-free diet.

They've caused enough trouble already.

Posted by: svreader | February 2, 2009 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Obama should tell Gregg to call Blagojevich to ask him just how well trying to trade favors over a Senate seat works. Then he should appoint someone else. Gregg will be defeated by a Democrat when he next runs for re-election anyway, so let him enjoy his last years in the Senate before fades away into obscurity.

Posted by: Bob22003 | February 2, 2009 6:37 PM | Report abuse

Excellent point, rickedelson. Since when does someone of the opposing party DEMAND that the governor of their state appoint another person in their own party? The Constitution provides that the governor of a state (with some rare exceptions in certain states) has absolute descretion to choose whom he or she wants. Are you kidding me? If I were Gov. Lynch, I'd tell Gregg he should stay right where he is, and President Obama should drop Gregg like a hot potato.

Posted by: SGall23241 | February 2, 2009 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Gregg hasn't got the job yet and he is already making demands! This is not a good sign of a team player.

Obama, WHY would you want this person in your administration? If he is trouble before he gets the job, it isn't going to get any better.

Posted by: keepwastingmoney | February 2, 2009 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Absolutely No Republicans (ANR). They've screwed up the last 8 years beyond belief. If one of these Limbaugh creatures ever replaces Gregg, I will do my best to see Obama defeated for re-election in every way possible, and he is my man.

Posted by: dudh | February 2, 2009 6:27 PM | Report abuse

Heck I'll do it and I won't demand you find someone to replace me on the unemployment rolls.

Posted by: notthatdum | February 2, 2009 6:23 PM | Report abuse

I've got a question: what is the historical precedent? That is, how many times in recent history has a Republican Governor agreed to appoint a Democratic Senator, or a Democratic Governor agreed to appoint a Republican Senator? Anyone know?

Posted by: rickedelson | February 2, 2009 6:22 PM | Report abuse

There's nothing wrong with what Gregg is doing. Bush tried to lure Breaux into his Cabinet for the same reason but the Senator ended up turning him down to protect the Dem count in the Senate.

If Obama doesn't like Gregg's proposal, he's free to withdraw the name from consideration.

Posted by: Terps98 | February 2, 2009 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Lynch who? I presume this is the governor of New Hampshire. There's no first name in the first reference in the story...

Posted by: timmomd | February 2, 2009 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Lynch who? I presume this is the governor of New Hampshire. There's no first name in the first reference in the story...

Posted by: timmomd | February 2, 2009 6:10 PM | Report abuse

You don't get to dictate terms to the President of the United States.

Posted by: svreader | February 2, 2009 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Senator Reid made the mistake of capitulating to Joe Lieberman for the sake of one vote. His reward for doing so has been zero benefits, lots of contention. One cannot find success in acquiescing to the demands of blackmailers and backstabbers.

Gregg is not that strong a candidate for the job of Secretary of Commerce. It would be a horrible mistake for President Obama and the leadership of the Democratic senate to commission a hostile Republican in the Executive Branch who has the awesome weapon of: This is what I want and if you don't accede to my wishes, this is what I will do.

Posted by: dikaslogos | February 2, 2009 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Dear Mr. Gregg, When your president asks you to serve your country you can either respond "yes" or you can respond "no". saying "yes, if . . ." is not acceptable behavior.

Next candidate please.

Posted by: baseballguy | February 2, 2009 6:06 PM | Report abuse

To Democraps and the Messiah,

As you all know that the Messiah is running out of any decent democraps for the remaining cabinet positions.

The Messiah realizes that he keeps adding a tax cheater, pardon-givers, labor-appeaser etc.

Guess what???

The best solution for the democraps and the Messiah.................


OUTSOURCE the positions where you may get a decent person?????

Remember, Clinton used to the Lincoln bedroom for fund-raising purposes.

If you do not find any more tax cheater, try to find some criminals to head the cabinet positions.

I do not think the mainstream media (propagandist for the Messiah) would report either because they are in-cahoot with the Messiah.

The Messian is too big to fail for the mainstream media.

As you have notices about the democraps defense for the nominee.


The best defense for the democraps and the Messiah is that this person is the best and the brightest person in the US to head the respective cabinet division.

You folks should be ashamed that the US can only offer these kinds of folks to the caibinet positions!!!!!!!!!!!111

That's why, I wonder why the democraps want to spend more money in the Public schools to produce tax cheater, law violaters etc.

That's all I have to say.

Posted by: CuriousJhum | February 2, 2009 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Frankly, I don't know how anybody can be proud of Republican activity during the last 30 years.
The GOP has supervised the systematic dismantling of all that is good and decent in our society, to the point where most young people today don't even remember what an honorable Republican is.

Posted by: wardropper | February 2, 2009 6:03 PM | Report abuse

"but with one condition . . . "

We know what that is:
Dick Cheney gets to be Vice President.
Nice try.

Posted by: wardropper | February 2, 2009 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Do not ask what CAN the Republicans & Democrats do for you, ask what CAN you (voters) do for your country to recover from the crises.

Posted by: Superbeing | February 2, 2009 6:00 PM | Report abuse

No Deal.

Posted by: svreader | February 2, 2009 5:58 PM | Report abuse

I guess we can see his loyalty to party is stronger than the loyalty to serve his country in a time of crisis.

Posted by: Juked | February 2, 2009 5:51 PM | Report abuse

Screw him then. He is likely to lose his seat anyway. It isn't like there aren't other qualified candidates. Obama doesn't need someone who is extorting him before he is even nominated.

The hubris displayed by the Republicans after their massive failures is amazing.

Posted by: Juked | February 2, 2009 5:48 PM | Report abuse

LOL - the democrats couldn't win 60 seats in the Senate and are now trying to steal a senate seat from the Republicans and almost everyone that has posted a message is screaming it's unfair that he demand it go to a Republican. Why on earth would the GOP voluntarily give up a seat in the Senate that voters put a Republican into? They won't and they shouldn't.

Democrats can't win fair so they try and pull a fast one. But the Replicans have already seen enough of Slick Willy (i.e. Bill Clinton) and aren't that stupid.

Posted by: stoneway | February 2, 2009 5:48 PM | Report abuse

And I have to agree... exactly how is this case ANY different than what happened in Illionis? These buying trading and selling votes for influence has to stop...universally!

Posted by: Elvis1 | February 2, 2009 5:48 PM | Report abuse

That's what the Commerce of America needs... More Bushies running the Commerce Department... after all they did such a HECKOVA job! What are you thinking Obama!!!!!

Posted by: Elvis1 | February 2, 2009 5:46 PM | Report abuse

did he pay his taxes?

cause IF he did he's obviously NOT qualified

Posted by: newagent99 | February 2, 2009 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Gregg doesn't get to set preconditions. Tell him to kiss your arse, Mr. President. Now go get a Democrat and be done with this naive liberal notion of human nature. The Republicans are not your friends. They are your opposition and they would just as soon see you sink as to see you swim.

Posted by: medogsbstfrnd | February 2, 2009 5:44 PM | Report abuse

All the partisan comments and hateful rhetoric really doesn't add anything to this discussion.

Statements like "...we won this election..." and "Do these Republicans realize they lost..." make it sound as if some people view the 2008 election as a permanent overthrow of our government.

The truth is power in Washington ebbs and flows like the tides. Any control the Democrats may have gained in '08 will most likely be ceded back to the Republicans in the future. This isn't a permanent shift and the Republicans rightfully should weigh the consequences of Judd accepting the appointment with the party's long-term goals. Judd has every right to refuse the appointment if it means his party loses a Senate seat and he has every right to make his acceptance conditional.

Just a few short years ago, people were painting the Democratic Party as down for the count. They questioned whether they could ever come back. Republicans had seized control of both the Senate and the House and had control of the Executive branch too.

Now, the tide has turned and the Dems have total control again and many seemingly want to tell the Republicans to get out of town because their time is up. But the American people are quite fickle. As soon as they become unhappy with Obama and the Democrats (and the unhappiness is already beginning), we'll again vote for "change" and the so-called Retardicans will be back.

Anyone who doesn't understand that simply needs to study American political history. Perhaps then they will see how short-sighted their comments are.

Posted by: Ci2Eye | February 2, 2009 5:40 PM | Report abuse

There are some great Democrats up in NH. If Judd Gregg, a conservative, gets a job with the governemnt, and is replaced by a Republican of any stripe, that'e the end of my support for Obama. In this world.

Posted by: dudh | February 2, 2009 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Thanks but no thanks. It is the Governors call to make the appointment not the outgoing senators call. Judd Gregg should withdraw from consideration if he can't accept that. Who is Gregg being loyal to? His party or the constitution?

Posted by: philly76 | February 2, 2009 5:38 PM | Report abuse

How arrogant! How is this any different than what Gov. Blago did in Illinois?

To those of you who think this type of political blackmail is okay, IT'S NOT.

You think it's ok as long as Gregg doesn't profit from it? Of course he'd profit from it if the replacement is a Republican! IT'S CALLED A VOTE! AND IT'S ILLEGAL TO BUY A VOTE, WHICH IS WHAT GREGG IS TRYING TO DO!

This guy isn't fit to be Commerce Secretary. I hope President Obama has the good sense to send him packing.

Posted by: kentuckywoman | February 2, 2009 5:34 PM | Report abuse

I think what Gregg is doing is legal as long as he, Judd Gregg, does not personally profit from it in any way.

Sounds reasonable to me. It's unlikely New Hampshire will retain a Republican in that seat after the next election either way. It's even less likely with a different Republican.

Posted by: Heerman532 | February 2, 2009 5:29 PM | Report abuse

A RepubliCAN was voted in;

a RepubliCAN should be in the Seat!

Where is the Confusion? :-/

Posted by: SAINT---The | February 2, 2009 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Republican Partiotism.

Your country asks you to serve...only under these conditions.

Get Bonior to serve as Commerce Secretary. Gregg can go Manchester himself.

Posted by: AngryLiberal | February 2, 2009 5:27 PM | Report abuse

clio1's comments are telling. last time i checked putin, and not kasparov, was leading russia. your party's chess/competitive mentality got us into an illegal war in iraq, led to machiavellian idiocy in ignoring international law, and is the driving force behind the economic crash. to hell with you.

Posted by: e9999999 | February 2, 2009 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Is Gregg publicly demanding a quid pro quo from Governor Lynch?

Is that ethical? Is that legal? Are cabinet appointees entitled to say they'll only accept the appointment if my replacement meets these preconditions?

I don't recall any other appointee from the Senate, in history, ever making such demands.

And if Governor Lynch does appoint a Republican, does that essentially make him complicit in this apparent quid pro quo?

Posted by: snesich | February 2, 2009 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Wow, you commenters are doctrinaire one-trick ponies. Gregg has a condition? Off with his head!

Are you upset because, unlike his Dem counterparts, he appears to pay his taxes in full and on time? That is nervy.

Maybe it's unusual for a nominee to make "demands" but this is pretty above board and is not for personal gain, so what's the big deal?

More to the point, I question what Obama's game is (maybe, Bambi-like, he has none) when the half-witted Sessions would be in point position and is unlikely to cut any deals at all. Is he trying to set up the Republicans to look like radicals who won't play bipartisan ball with him? Or can he not look a move of two ahead in chess?

Time will tell.

Posted by: Clio1 | February 2, 2009 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Or replace Gregg with a RINO (Republican In Name Only). Get some Democrat with a long history in the party to suddenly change his affiliation and voila! There's your new Senator!

Posted by: gce1356 | February 2, 2009 5:13 PM | Report abuse

OK, let's just say, to be fair, that Gregg is justified in his request. However, I wonder if the GOP will be so sanguine if it were a Demo. senator requesting from a President John McCain that he/she would only serve if the replacement is a Democrat.
Somehow, I'm guessing the GOP and its prostitutes on talk radio would be screaming.
I'm sure Sen. Gregg is a good, competent leader, but I really think he's just a little too demanding and unrealistic here.

Posted by: vegasgirl1 | February 2, 2009 5:13 PM | Report abuse

msmithnv,

What do you call the billions wasted to Halliburton and KBR? And the 800 billion Bush gave out. Is that called standard GOP op or pork?

Posted by: rharring | February 2, 2009 5:10 PM | Report abuse

sounds fair to me (and I am a Democrat)

Posted by: YUTZ | February 2, 2009 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Can someone explain how Gregg's demands are any different that Blago? Okay, I know he didn't use bad words or say the appointment is golden...but other than that?

Posted by: LeRiverend | February 2, 2009 5:10 PM | Report abuse

So tell Gregg what he wants to hear, pat him on the back, shake his hand, and then let NH's governor appoint a DEMOCRAT to the Senate!

Stupid Republicans...

Posted by: gce1356 | February 2, 2009 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Well..that is the joke of the year.. He is asked to serve at the request of the President BUT he has stipulations.. Do these Republicans realize that they LOST.... in Novemeber.... NEXT

Posted by: sabrina2 | February 2, 2009 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Senator Gregg do not fall for Obama's let's-appoint a-popular-Republican-in-a-state-we-can't-get-while-he-is-Senator trick.

Don't let your ego throw open the last gate to the invading Obama mongol hordes seeking to flood America with pork.

Posted by: msmithnv | February 2, 2009 5:09 PM | Report abuse

Shut up Judd!!!! The GOP is worthless.

Posted by: vasprtsfn | February 2, 2009 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Next nominee please...

Posted by: fluxgirl | February 2, 2009 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Screw Gregg. That's not the way it works. The governor can choose whoever he wants, and being a democrat, that means no GOP (Grumpy Old Politicians). We have enough trouble with the a-holes already in the senate without adding another one. We won this election so you repugnicans had better learn to live with it.

Posted by: adrienne_najjar | February 2, 2009 5:00 PM | Report abuse

With one condition? Dump Him!

Posted by: sfilutze | February 2, 2009 4:56 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company