• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP's Gregg Appears To Be Commerce Pick

RightinNYC

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
washingtonpost.com

President Obama appears set to nominate Republican Sen. Judd Gregg as commerce secretary, a move that could happen in the next day or two, Democratic officials said yesterday.

Gregg (N.H.) acknowledged Friday that he was under consideration. But administration officials took it a step further yesterday, saying he is atop the list to fill the job, and other officials said they thought he was all but certain to be tapped. His nomination and confirmation would give a leading economic role in the Obama Cabinet to a fiscal conservative, while bolstering the president's argument that he has built a truly bipartisan administration.
Click to expand...

...

Republican officials said they are resigned to Gregg's departure from a critical Senate seat that Democrats had already intended to challenge.
Click to expand...

...

Gregg's nomination would also offer the White House the chance that New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch (D) would appoint a Democrat to serve the two remaining years of the senator's term. That, combined with the seating of Al Franken if he prevails in the disputed Minnesota election, would give Obama the 60-vote majority he needs for a filibuster-proof Senate.
Click to expand...

...

Gregg is a Republican Party stalwart who has firmly opposed abortion rights even as his state has grown increasingly moderate in recent years. His strong support of the business community and his standing among fiscal conservatives in Congress could help Obama persuade Republicans to join him on initiatives regarding government entitlements and the federal budget.
Click to expand...

Pretty interesting move on Obama's part. Lot of risk for a lot of reward. It will also be interesting to see the arm-twisting that the Governor of NH is subjected to.
 
RightinNYC said:
washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

Pretty interesting move on Obama's part. Lot of risk for a lot of reward. It will also be interesting to see the arm-twisting that the Governor of NH is subjected to.
Click to expand...

Wow, just wow. I mean thats a real screwed up way to get complete control of the government.

This honestly shouldn't be legal at all. It removes any ability to challenge anything one party wants period.

I don't care if it's democrats or republicans. This is wrong imo.
 
He doesn't need to take the job in the administration. So obviously if he does it's because he secretly hates his party and loves democrats, right?
 
Joby said:
He doesn't need to take the job in the administration. So obviously if he does it's because he secretly hates his party and loves democrats, right?
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are reasons one would want to take an appointed position over an elected position.

He could have job security for 4 years instead of 2. It could also lead to more lucrative lobbying positions and another appointed position because he will have experience.
 
Joby said:
He doesn't need to take the job in the administration. So obviously if he does it's because he secretly hates his party and loves democrats, right?
Click to expand...

There are plenty of reasons to take it. I think it's a pretty much foregone conclusion, though I'd be interested to see if he conditions his acceptance on the appointment of a Rep to replace him.
 
I have been thinking about this and had never considered this a possibility.

This seems to be in the least very unethical and at worst criminal.
Senators were meant to represent states as part of the separation of powers.
They should not have the ability to move between any branch of government.
As that makes the balance highly questionable.

Obama is very Machiavellian.
In government that is not a good thing.
 
I don't doubt that Gregg would do a good job, but I see politics as the primary consideration, and the ability of a Democratic-controlled Senate being able to block most filibuster attempts. Granted, Gregg would be toast in 2010, but you never know what could happen in other races. Bunning will be primaried out in 2010, and I think Republicans can keep that seat. I believe Lingle will win in Hawaii, which would counter the Republican loss of the other Ohio seat, and I think Burr can hang on in North Carolina. Crist running in Florida eliminates the Democratic threat to take that seat. There is a fair chance, although not great, that Republicans can hold the Democrats at 59 seats.

By Gregg taking the administration position, the Democratic agenda will be pretty much unchallenged. If you think Bush and that Republcian majority was bad, and he was, then imagine the Democrats controlling everything without the Republicans keeping them honest.

I strongly believe that the Republican party should talk to Gregg, and do everything they can to keep him in the Senate. The GOP needs to hold the line as best they can until 2012, when it will be Democrats who have more Senate seats up for grabs, for a change.

Finally, I strongly believe that, when one party controls everything, all hell breaks loose. We saw that with Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, and we saw that with what many people thought would be the permanent Republican majority, until their arrogance tore them to shreds. We just simply cannot afford another round of one party rule, whether it be by Republicans, or by Democrats.
 
In my opinion, this appointment indicates a bipartisanship without substance on the part of Obama. Or, at the very least a bipartisanship that is unwilling to share power.

Sure, the Republicans gain a seat in the executive administration, but they lose a far more powerful ability the legislature: The prerogative to block legislation they find egregious. Overall, this is a net loss for Republican power. If the guy takes the appointment, he is looking out for himself, and not the interests of the Republican party.

I have said many times before, I am opposed to a government that is too liberal. While I would be perfectly happy about any Judicial appointments that would sail through, now, I deem the cost too much to bear. I do not think this appointment should happen and I hope the Republicans are able to prevent it somehow.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I have been thinking about this and had never considered this a possibility.

This seems to be in the least very unethical and at worst criminal.
Senators were meant to represent states as part of the separation of powers.
They should not have the ability to move between any branch of government.
As that makes the balance highly questionable.

Obama is very Machiavellian.
In government that is not a good thing.
Click to expand...

The 17th amendment democratized the election of congressional senators, allowing the citizens, not the state legislature, to elect senators. So i am not nearly as appalled when democrat leaning states elect democrats to fill vacancy of a republican.

Obama's tactic seems to be brewed from the overwhelming republican opposition in terms of the republican base. If i am correct, not one republican voted for the stimulus package. Quite the crafty politician he is:lol:
 
Well being from NH this is the big story going on up here. From what Ive heard he is trying to have a independent or repuplican hold his seat for two years, and then not run for relection in 2010. I'm pretty sure that would be the only way he would take to seat in the cabinet.
 
partier9 said:
Well being from NH this is the big story going on up here. From what Ive heard he is trying to have a independent or repuplican hold his seat for two years, and then not run for relection in 2010. I'm pretty sure that would be the only way he would take to seat in the cabinet.
Click to expand...

He gets to choose who replaces him? :confused:
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I'm sure there are reasons one would want to take an appointed position over an elected position.

He could have job security for 4 years instead of 2. It could also lead to more lucrative lobbying positions and another appointed position because he will have experience.
Click to expand...
Cabinet members serve at the pleasure of the President. It could be that, once they have one of the Rep leaders out of the Senate, they could easily come up with a reason to force him to resign or fire him.
 
partier9 said:
If Obama really wants him, which it appears he does, Gregg can play hardball by saying he will accept the seat if a repuplican replaces him. The question is if he plays hardball.
Click to expand...

So he's got this thing and it's golden?

Imagine the cries for impeachment if Obama tried to manipulate the Governor into picking who Obama wanted to replace him.
 
partier9 said:
If Obama really wants him, which it appears he does, Gregg can play hardball by saying he will accept the seat if a repuplican replaces him. The question is if he plays hardball.
Click to expand...
Your local in NH, right?

Tell me, who would seem ideal to replace Gregg in the senate? Not necessarily likely, but ideal?
 
A majority in the senate does not equal control of the senate.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
The 17th amendment democratized the election of congressional senators, allowing the citizens, not the state legislature, to elect senators. So i am not nearly as appalled when democrat leaning states elect democrats to fill vacancy of a republican.

Obama's tactic seems to be brewed from the overwhelming republican opposition in terms of the republican base. If i am correct, not one republican voted for the stimulus package. Quite the crafty politician he is:lol:
Click to expand...

That is true, however, it defeats the purpose of the separation of powers.

If anyone from the two elected branches can move between them with no oversight it smacks of corruption. It shouldn't be allowed.

If this move plays out how I think it will, the only delays will come from individuals tossing more pork and regulation on an original bill.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
Your local in NH, right?

Tell me, who would seem ideal to replace Gregg in the senate? Not necessarily likely, but ideal?
Click to expand...

Charlie Bass (R) was congressman for ever, he lost four years ago though. But I doubt he will get it, but there is a chance.

The Guy who beat him Paul Hodes (D), is an exhippie very left, though he is better than our congresswoman, she is retarded. Hodes is most likley to get the senate seat.

Someone from the state senate might get it but I doubt it.
 
Last edited:
independent_thinker2002 said:
So he's got this thing and it's golden?

Imagine the cries for impeachment if Obama tried to manipulate the Governor into picking who Obama wanted to replace him.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure Obama wouldn't force him to choose a canidate, but if Obama told Lynch that he wants a certain person to replace Gregg, Lynch would most likely listen to him and pick that person. Obama is the most powerful man in America what he wants will happen.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
That is true, however, it defeats the purpose of the separation of powers.

If anyone from the two elected branches can move between them with no oversight it smacks of corruption. It shouldn't be allowed.

If this move plays out how I think it will, the only delays will come from individuals tossing more pork and regulation on an original bill.
Click to expand...

Why not? Nobody is forcing him to take the job.

If he were to resign tomorrow because he didn't want to be in politics anymore, the same thing would happen. Should people not be allowed to resign?
 
partier9 said:
Charlie Bass (R) was congressman for ever, he lost four years ago though. But I doubt he will get it, but there is a chance.

The Guy who beat him Paul Hodes (D), is an exhippie very left, though he is better than our congresswoman, she is retarded.

Someone from the state senate might get it but I doubt it.
Click to expand...
If your governor is smart(which he/she should be since it is NH), then the governor will appoint a republican to replace Gregg. Whether or not he'll be an actual conservative is another story. I can forsee a Chafee clone in the senate, if Gregg takes the job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom