Home › Blogs › Patrick Ruffini's blog ›

Republicans Should Drive a Hard Bargain on Gregg

Submitted by Patrick Ruffini on Mon, 02/02/2009 - 07:09
in

It is very clear what President Obama is trying to do with Judd Gregg: get a filibuster proof majority not through an election but through the President's virtually uncontested power of appointment. And if not with a Democrat, get it de facto through a Lincoln Chafee-style Republican hand-picked by the Democratic Governor. This is not about bipartisanship, but an audacious, and I would say impressive, game of political hardball.

Republicans should be prepared to play hardball in return.

First, we must frame this as an astonishing partisan power grab. President Bush had the opportunity to nominate Louisiana Democrat John Breaux as Energy Secretary in 2001, thus flipping the seat, but didn't -- leaving the Senate at 50-50 and vulnerable to a Democratic takeover, which as we all know, actually happened.

Second, we need to insist not only that Gov. Lynch appoint a Republican, but that he appoint a Republican from a list of three candidates prepared by Republican leaders in the legislature and the New Hampshire Republican Party -- preferably a strong Republican who would run in 2010. Gregg was about as conservative as you get for New England, and any replacement selected by a Democrat is almost guaranteed to be worse.

This is not unprecedented. Wyoming law required the Democratic governor pick from a Republican-prepared list of Senate candidates in 2007. Given the extraordinary nature of this appointment, Democrats should have no problem agreeing to the simple request that Republicans have a voice in choosing New Hampshire's Republican Senator.

As I've implied in this YouTube question to the RNC candidates, the ideological composition of our conferences on the Hill should matter to party leaders. It's not that we shouldn't be running candidates well-suited to their states and districts, including moderates -- I would be happy with another Susan Collins from New Hampshire, as that's probably the best-case scenario. It's that we should recognize that Lincoln Chafees are not simply another vote for organizing the Senate the right way, but that they are 60-80% of a Democrat on key policy issues.

We are going down the Lincoln Chafee route in New Hampshire by agreeing to any appointment of a Republican by a Democrat, instead of insisting on Republican participation in the process. If so, this shows we have learned very little as a party these last 3 years.

 

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Can we get Sununu back?

Submitted by Ironman on Mon, 02/02/2009 - 07:26.

After all, he almost won the 2008 election

There is nothing to agree to.

Submitted by artigiano on Mon, 02/02/2009 - 08:31.

The governor has absolute power to act without any consult in this appointment. There is nothing for Republicans to "agree to."

There is almost no way he will appoint a Democrat. That would ruin the theme for the 2010 midterms, which is sure to be a nationwide push to make "your Senator" the magic number 60.

But you are correct that he could appoint the squishiest RINO in the history of the Senate. I think it will depend on how the stimulus debate plays out. If Republicans play nice they get a solid appointment. If not, enjoy Chaffee redux.

if obama needs the votes

Submitted by RisingTide on Mon, 02/02/2009 - 11:18.

and Lynch can pull it off, he'll put a dem there.

Appointing a Republican

Submitted by GWMustGo on Mon, 02/02/2009 - 09:18.

When I first read of President Obama seeking the Republican Senator Gregg for his administration, my first thought was that there would be no way Senator Gregg would take such a position without the arrangement that the Democratic Governor replace him with another Republican.  I mean, it seems like the fair and right thing to do.

As to which Republican to replace Senator Gregg with, that's up to Senator Gregg and the Governor.  Your comment of "it MUST be one of OUR three choices!" is as useful as "it MUST be Ronald Reagan!"   The Governor will appoint from a list based on an agreement, and I am sure that it will be a centrist.

As to how it is done in Wyoming, I am also sure that the fine folks in New Hampshire will read your comment and say "I don't give two rats' patooties how it is done in Wyoming."  (That might also be followed by some righteous indignation about some blogger is telling them how to run their business...)

Remember - Senator Gregg has the option to decline any appointment.  It is on his head - not Governor Lynch or President Obama.

What's the big deal?

Submitted by Mead50 on Mon, 02/02/2009 - 09:31.

There is already a deal in place whereby if he goes he'll be replaced by a Republican.

If it's a Lincoln Chafee Republican...

Submitted by Patrick Ruffini on Mon, 02/02/2009 - 09:55.

... it might as well be a Democrat.

My guess is Lynch plays nice.

Submitted by A.J.Nolte on Mon, 02/02/2009 - 11:00.

He's not beholdened to Obama in any way (his state went for Clinton in the primaries), he's from a notoriously prickly and independent-minded state, and, most importantly, he's already announced he doesn't want the seat himself. I believe he and Greg are friends. My question is, what Republicans are left for him to appoint? Any rock-stars in the NH state house or senate? As I doubt we'll get anyone as socially conservative as Greg, I'm pulling for a good solid Libertarian.

Oh, and while Lynch has unlimited power, do you really think he wants to be targeted in his next election race as a tool of the Washington Democrat establishment? I think not.

The replacement is not as important.

Submitted by artigiano on Mon, 02/02/2009 - 11:46.

From what I gather, GOP Senators are way more concerned about losing Gregg than they are about who will replace him. The guy is supposed to be one of the best in the entire chamber. A true workhorse, and not a show pony. I even heard one intimate that McConnell loses some of his mojo if he doesn't have Gregg to work with him to get things done.

Oh, I doubt that.

Submitted by A.J.Nolte on Mon, 02/02/2009 - 14:41.

Yes, Greg is a work-horse and very very solid. That said, I think they've got some other fairly solid senators who can step up to the plate. If the GOP doesn't hold the seat in 10 it hurts. By the same token, the left may want to hold their crowing in check; should Obama try to get Greg to move left onfiscal issues he's going to end up breaking his teeth on that New Hampshire granet. And, if the working relationship turns out not to be too good, Greg could always resign and run for his old seat in 10. The one thing you've got to keep in mind about Greg is that he's a 100 percent fis-con. If he gets too much guff from Obama he's fully capable of rerunning in 10. And the fact that one of his own cabinet members has gone onto oppose him in the senate makes Obama look all kinds of bad. Of course, the other possibility is that Obama wants to move to the center on economic issues, in which case you might want to start crying into your beer.

it's granite.

Submitted by RisingTide on Mon, 02/02/2009 - 14:46.

and he's running for Commerce? Seriously, half the budget of Commerce goes to NOAA.

So what the hell has Gregg done to deserve that particular post? win the lottery???

Maybe cause of this?

Submitted by Ironman on Mon, 02/02/2009 - 21:01.

http://www.mountwashington.org/

how exactly has Gregg contributed to that effort?

Submitted by RisingTide on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 09:05.

pardon my ignorance. ;-)

Hmmm, paranoia?

Submitted by GWMustGo on Mon, 02/02/2009 - 16:16.

I just reread the opening statement of this entry ("It is very clear what President Obama is trying to do with Judd Gregg: get a filibuster proof majority not through an election but through the President's virtually uncontested power of appointment."), and it struck me as the statement of a person who is extremely paranoid.....

It is "clear" that this is a political trick to gain that super majority?  I don't know... I thought of it as being clear that President Obama felt that Senator Gregg was the right person for the job.  But then, maybe I hold Senator Gregg at a certail level of esteem.  Maybe, just maybe, I believe he may actually be competent.  Of course, somebody who believes Senator Gregg is completely incompetent would HAVE to believe that this appointment was bald-faced political hackery.  I think otherwise.

Am I the only one...

Submitted by Cahnman on Mon, 02/02/2009 - 19:35.

...who thinks this might lead to a backlash against the Democrat party in New Hampshire?

What, if the Gov appoints a Dem? Doubt it.

Submitted by chemjeff on Mon, 02/02/2009 - 20:21.

n/t

How about this bargain?

Submitted by Ironman on Mon, 02/02/2009 - 21:04.

Gregg replaces the ethically challenged Daschle  @HHS. Of course,  that would assume Obama really wanted: a) an ethical administration; and b) a bipartisan adminstration.

Naw, he just wants some Republicans around to deflect attention from the liberal Hackarama he and Rahn Emanuel have assembled. 

That makes no sense

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 08:27.

Obama wants Gregg for his econmic acumen, most likely. Remember, it's more than just a numbers game on how many R's and D's are in there. He probably is looking at the actual skills of the candidate.

And what's with the "bipartisan" administration schtick? So it would be more bipartisan if he moved a Republican from one cabinet position to another?

Another awkward problem for Gregg

Submitted by ebohnet on Mon, 02/02/2009 - 22:55.

Here's another awkward angle to this appointment: it usually takes the Senate at least a few weeks to process a Cabinet appointment, which means that Gregg almost certainly won't be confirmed until after the vote on the pork stimulant bill. Assuming that he's still in the Senate, does Gregg vote against the bill? Does he join a filibuster if there is one? Doesn't he look like he's been bought if he votes for it, and terribly disloyal to his new boss if he doesn't? And what would it suggest about Obama if his own appointee for Commerce Secretary votes against his big plan to supposedly save the economy? Or do they bypass this problem by having Gregg resign before the vote, even if he hasn't been confirmed?

either way, if it's his chief of staff that is the new senator

Submitted by RisingTide on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 09:07.

Gregg doesn't dodge any responsibility.

Gregg'd do best to cast this as "What Newhampshire Wants" whichever way he votes.

Of course

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 08:24.

It says today that he will be replaced by Gregg's former chief of staff, Bonnie Newman. I don't think you can say that is some sort of stealth move to take over the Senate. She was his chief of staff, after all.

It's a stealth move for a free 2010 Senator

Submitted by chemjeff on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 12:47.

Appointed senators have a very poor track record at election.  This is especially true when the appointed senator has never held elected office before.

Maybe but...

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 14:36.

Who, in that case, could he select to fulfill the spot? I mean, short of making up new law and requiring some sort of election?

Let's face it, with New England trending blue, the chances of Gregg holding his seat were 50/50 at best.

Nobody. And that's the point.

Submitted by chemjeff on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 14:38.

That's why Obama picked Gregg.

If that's your point

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 14:47.

Then yes, I agree it was a shrewd move. But it seemingly goes against the point of the OP, that there is some magical person he could place there that would satisfy the majority of Republicans.

I agree that Obama picked Gregg for a reason... it was his way of being 'bipartisan', but also a way of helping to ensure a Red seat goes Blue. (To be fair, I'm pretty sure it would have flipped anyways, but I'm sure he's thinking that an incumbent will only help that process.)

Nate's pick for Gregg seat.

Submitted by artigiano on Tue, 02/03/2009 - 17:25.

Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com seems to think the Gregg seat will go to State Rep Liz Hager. She is a moderate pro-choice Republican who endorsed Barack Obama over John McCain. Although she would caucus with Republicans, she would probably be a pretty secure vote for any filibuster busting that needed to occur.

But I don't think anyone, D or R is seriously considering filibuster politics. More than likely Obama knows Hager will surely be primary challenged from the right of her own party and go into the general election much weaker than an incumbent like Gregg.

 

Has Nate Silver become God while I wasn't looking?

Submitted by chemjeff on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 00:38.

I don't understand this liberal fascination with Nate Silver.  Yes yes he's very good with statistics and numbers.  But does Nate even live in New Hampshire or know anything about New Hampshire politics?  I suppose everyone is entitled to have an opinion about anything regardless of how ignorant it may be, but why is it that so many liberals have taken to Nate Silver's opinions as Holy Writ, even his opinions that stray far beyond statistics?  I honestly don't get it.

Nate blew the call.

Submitted by artigiano on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 08:05.

The seat was already promised to Gregg's former chief of staff before I even posted Nate's prediction. My fault for not checking CNN that afternoon.

So even the great liberal oracle blows it every now and then.

don't trust the numbers guy with the personalities

Submitted by Ironman on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 08:07.

different disciplines. Very few (Michael Barone) have both covered.

"great liberal oracle"

Submitted by chemjeff on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 12:42.

But WHY has Nate risen to the level of "Great Liberal Oracle"?  Because he's good at math?  Trust me, I can solve differential equations faster than you can say "Fourier", does that mean you'll now trust my advice on gun control?

he's better with the numbers than you are.

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 13:00.

free market and all that, you ain't hired as a prognosticator....

I think its because liberals like facts and numbers. unlike romantics, who insist that by shouting enough, they can unmake Global Warming. While conservatives are busy plotting how many nuclear weapons it would take to balance out Global Warming (no joke.)

math and stereotypes.

Submitted by chemjeff on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 13:09.

Oh I fully acknowledge that Nate may be much better at math than me.  But please spare us the offensive stereotypes.

 

 

how is it offensive?

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 14:31.

and are you classifying yourself as a romantic or a conservative?

Ain't nothing wrong with someone checkin' soemone else's math (which is what that nuclear winter shit is, anyhow)

He's not only good at math...

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 13:08.

He's good at predicting numbers with that math.

He actually got fame from his PECOTA method of evaluating baseball players. Politics was just something he did on the side. (For the record, PECOTA predicted that Tampa Bay would be a good team this year... not many people saw that one coming.)

Anyways, he was very accurate when it came to aggregating polling data. He did not poll himself, per se, but he could take the polls, calculate the 'bias' and then work out a prediction.

Anything apart from math-based information is just him guessing, like most pundits do. But at the least, he speaks from his own level and doesn't brag about insider knowledge. He just makes a best guess with the knowledge he has, like most of us.

punditry

Submitted by chemjeff on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 13:12.

Anything apart from math-based information is just him guessing, like most pundits do.

You're exactly right.  Which is why I don't understand why liberals extol Nate's punditry above all others.  It's not like you need a slide rule to have an opinion on who's going to be the next Senator from New Hampshire.

*shrug*

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 13:17.

You got me. I mean, he's an interesting pundit, and easy to read. But I don't think he has any special insight in that area.

It's Nate's Posse.

Submitted by artigiano on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 16:15.

Give Nate data, and there is nobody better. But yeah, on current events he's just giving his best guess. I think most people love fivethirtyeight.com because the dry nature of number crunching bores the hell out of almost all the rabid, wing nut, tin foil hat crowd that you find on most political board comments sections. (This one being another rare exception)

So the name calling and ad hominem attacks are kept to a very minimum. You get to read a bunch of well thought out opinions. Also, Nate exposes when people are cooking, shading, cherry-picking, or selectively reporting their poorly collected data. So you know to ignore FOX News a bit more than you usually do for that day.

then you'll like this one.

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 16:24.

http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2009/02/budget_surplus.html

nate's a good guy.

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 02/04/2009 - 10:04.

and he does good research, both on personalities and numbers.

It's a real coup that the liberals have him on our side (and how that happened, well, that's an interesting story...)

He ain't god.

I think appointing chief of staffs is rather silly -- you aren't getting someone with the skillset I think they should have. OTOH, at least it isn't Lisa Murkowski