Word is circulating around the MSM that Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) is on top of the list of Obama’s choices for Commerce Secretary. The Washington Post is reporting it as is Yahoo News via an AP story.
What is not absolutely clear is whether Gregg would take the position although early indications are he would. This is important for any number of reasons but the following come to mind:
1) Gregg gives Obama cover by making his Cabinet bi-partisan in content and assists the promotion of Obama’s agenda, despite the “R” after his name. Gregg was the Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and “… helped devise the $700 billion bank bailout package that passed last year.”
2) Peeling away a Republican weakens the GOP’s minority position, possibly rendering them irrelevant. If Gregg accepts the position, New Hampshire’s Governor, John Lynch (D), appoints his replacement. While it is not guaranteed Lynch will appoint a Democrat to Gregg’s Republican seat, should he do so that would give the Democrats a filibuster proof majority in the Senate to go along with their huge House majority margin. It would effectively mean the GOP could do nothing to stop anything Obama and the Democrats put their mind to doing.
There would seem to be little downside for Obama in the move, assuming Gregg accepts the offer. The GOP loses a Senator to the Cabinet where he would generally be expected to toe the Obama line and not the reality line regarding the value, impact and consequence of Obama policy. If he refuses to play, well, Cabinet members change all the time and any other damage is already done.
If Lynch appoints a Democrat, which he will be incredibly pressured to do by the Obama administration, the GOP loses its ability to stop Obama and Democrats from doing whatever they like. If Lynch appoints a Republican there is still the Coleman/Franken race to fall back on along with any number of other squishy GOP Senators. Obama loses nothing and simply reverts to exactly where he is right now and still holds options. It’s a savvy political move that allows him to behave as if he believed in bi-partisanship and yet, if successful, means there need be no attention paid to bi-partisanhip at all. One need not be politically astute at all to see how Dems, the Left and the MSM will be spinning this.
The only downside for Obama here is if Gregg flatly refuses the offer and goes on to consistently oppose Obama’s ruinous agenda. Even then, Obama gets to say he tried to be bi-partisan.
As those of us here in Tennessee have learned the hard way in recent weeks, the national GOP is learning now. Not being able to count on your troops when you need them is costly. When GOP pols put personal advancement ahead of party, principle and the People, the Democrats win.
Being far more willing to subvert the will of the people any way possible if they cannot triumph at the ballot box, Democrats have an advantage. As Ayn Rand’s classic, “Atlas Shrugged” notes, and Saul Alinsky trumpets in “Rules for Radicals”, those who have no principles should defeat those who do by using their principles against them.
Democrats and Republicans alike should take note. This is a victory for the Democrat’s political elite by any means necessary strategy, not a strategy designed to do what is best for the country or even for their side. It is also an argument the GOP needs to finally go ahead and lose to its less powerful factions. Working to elect and preserve Moderate and Liberal Republicans will only ever provide you a benefit when the stakes are small. When the stakes are big, the Squishies will find the nearest bus and proceed to toss with wild abandon, confident they are doing the right thing.
Perhaps it’s time to take a long look at what the GOP’s ultimate goal is. Do we want a toothless majority which does little to advance GOP principles? Or are we willing to be realistic and say we have more work to do and allow the Squishies to fall by the wayside and work to achieve majorities which can be relied on?
Blue

Judd Gregg: Not Without My Elephant
izoneguy Sunday, February 1st at 12:41PM EST (link)http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/01/judd-gregg-not-without-my-elephant/
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) won’t accept a position as President Obama’s secretary of Commerce unless he is guaranteed his Senate seat remains in GOP hands, said two Republicans who know Gregg well.
Departing the Senate without one could give Democrats 60 members and a filibuster-proof majority.
“Gregg would never allow his seat to go to a Democrat, the only way he would allow it is if he died,” said a Republican close to Gregg. “He would consider it to be a breach of trust to people who elected it.” …
Republicans who know Gregg well say that Lynch must agree to select a Republican because Gregg, one of the most revered leaders in New Hampshire Republican politics, would not allow his seat to give Democrats filibuster-proof control of the Senate.
“He will not take Commerce secretary unless Lynch says he will appoint a Republican,” said the Republican close to Gregg.
“When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”
Thomas Jefferson
It's already being reported ...
Blue_Collar_Muse Sunday, February 1st at 12:46PM EST (link)that Gregg has accepted under those terms.
It is, thus, not the disaster it could have been but it fails to be any sort of victory for the GOP and the people of our country. Obama and the Left are marginalizing GOP principles and the ability the party has to push for them.
Once they gain enough ground outside the electoral process, they will abandon any pretense to bi-partisanship for autocracy. If Obama truly wanted bi-partisanship there are any number of others he could appoint to Commerce or offer the job. Walter Williams comes to mind. The reasons why WW wasn’t offered the job are immediately apparent.
This was a fork move against the GOP that was successful at only the lowest level now. Who knows how it may play out eventually? In any event, this will not be Obama’s only attempt at subversion.
Blue Collar Muse
Smaller Government! Lower Taxes! Stronger Defense! More Liberty! Complete Transparency!
A Couple of Things Here
IJB Sunday, February 1st at 2:00PM EST (link)First, the Dems could renege.
If I were the Dems that’s exactly what I would do - tell Gregg whatever he wants to hear, get him to officially resign from the Senate, swear him in, and then force Lynch to appoint Shea-Porter (a very, very reliable liberal vote) to Gregg’s Senate seat.
I mean, what would happen if the Dems did this? Would Gregg immediately resign to a position he was just sworn into? Not likely!
And there’s virtually nothing Senate Republicans could do either.
(If Obama were really smart, he follow up such a move by putting the full court press on Olympia Snowe to switch parties. Then the Dems could go ahead and force a seating of Franken before the court cases go to trial.)
Second, if the Democrats were really smart, they would forgo all of the above, have Lynch voluntarily yield his appointment power, and have the NH State Legislature call for an immediate Special Election to replace Gregg.
This second strategy is particularly brilliant because in now deep Blue-NH, the odds are extremely good that a Democrat would win any Special Election.
And this scenario achieves the same result as the first scenario, with the added benefit of looking ‘clean’ to the public. (Then they can *really* go after Olympia Snowe to switch!)
Bottom line: Gregg is a fool and a traitor if he takes this position, and the Senate GOP will be in even more trouble with the base if they let him.
This is very smart politics on Obama’s part, and once again shows the shallow vanity of (most) Senate Republicans.
I agree.
Rod_Patrick Sunday, February 1st at 3:01PM EST (link)It’s now really a test of resolve on the part of Gregg whether to accept the position or not.
I don’t envy Gregg’s situation in this case.
Come on folks, get a life.
mbecker908 Sunday, February 1st at 12:48PM EST (link)Obama’s got a filibuster proof majority NOW. Name me one issue, including a bill that would require summary execution of Republican Senators (which I personally would not oppose), that we count on all 41 - assuming Coleman prevails - Republicans to support cloture?
Won’t happen.
Tax cheats to cabinet level positions? Nope.
Perjurers for AG? Nope.
SCOTUS Justices of any liberal stripe? Nope.
A trillion dollar “stimulus” bill that doesn’t stimulate? Nope.
There’s lots of reasons to say Gregg shouldn’t accept a cabinet position in this administration. 60 votes ain’t one of ‘em.
And BO’s already got “bipartisan” covered with Gates and whats-his-name the faux Republican retired congresscritter.
MBecker - far be it from me to disagree with ...
Blue_Collar_Muse Sunday, February 1st at 2:50PM EST (link)such an esteemed Red Stater. But I don’t think it’s quite as in the bag as one might think.
Only Obama knows what he has up his sleeve for later. The one thing that is clear is that if history is any indicator, there will come a time when Buyer’s Remorse of major magnitude will set in. Obama is trying to set up the machinery so that even when it does, he has control and the votes to do what he wants.
Just because he is not likely to dissolve Congress and the Constitution and have himself granted emergency powers ala Hitler and Chavez doesn’t mean his goal is any less similar.
He’s taking nothing for granted. It’s a smart move and one that will probably work. The GOP, far from doing their job from 80-06 merely played and the playground bullies are back and able to pick up pretty much where they left off.
I agree that Obama has the votes he needs today. But he’s thinking about the votes he’ll need this time next year after even the Squishies can no longer stomach his plans.
My $.02
Blue Collar Muse
Smaller Government! Lower Taxes! Stronger Defense! More Liberty! Complete Transparency!
Feel free to disagree with me.
mbecker908 Sunday, February 1st at 2:58PM EST (link)Heck, even “I” realize I’m only right MOST of the time.
My bottom line is that “next year” won’t matter. He’ll have his agenda in concrete by June 1. Health care might take till Nov 1, but he’ll get that too.
By the time the squishies and the blue dogs wake up the rose garden will have been long plowed under.
I think the "prime directive" is to foreclose a counter-revolution
Achance Sunday, February 1st at 3:21PM EST (link)such as overtook them in ‘94. They will attack any conservative/Republican mercilessly if he or she dares to speak out effectively in opposition. They will do something about Rush and conservative talk radio. They will attack Red State governors with an army of auditors, inspectors, investigators, and the now well-rehearsed Public Integrity Section and its FBI agents and US Attornies.
They had the dreams they’d had smoking dope in college dorm rooms in the ’60s dashed by Gingrich’s counter-revolution. It won’t happen again if they can help it and so far, it’s all going according to the book.
In Vino Veritas
How about?
David123 Sunday, February 1st at 3:05PM EST (link)Enactment of the “Fairness doctrine” and purging the airwaves of “right-wing extremists” like Rush.
or
Gun confiscation
====
Also, if there is a 41+ vote fillibuster, there will be less pressure brought to bear on any Democrat who happens to vote his conscience and go along with the Republicans - even if he changed his vote the Republicans could still fillibuster. If a fillibuster can’t succeed without at least one Dem voting in favor of it, there will be tremendous pressure brought to bear on all Dems not to break ranks.
David123
Unlike Republicans, Democrats WILL hold the line
mbecker908 Sunday, February 1st at 3:15PM EST (link)when necessary. Their reps and senators will vote as they are told on issues that are crucial to them.
I’m quite confident they’d have no problem finding a handful of Senators to vote in favor of either of your posits. They would water down the Fairness Doctrine stuff and let the FCC ratchet it up and as far as guns go, it come in as the ability for local governments to act appropriately as “their” constituents saw fit.
I agree mbecker908 - if this porkulus bill does not
Elizabeth Christian Sunday, February 1st at 4:29PM EST (link)meet the criteria for a filibuster then what will?
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
~Benjamin Franklin
I need to quit reading - you guys are depressing me.
Praying Sunday, February 1st at 11:42PM EST (link)I did email Gregg yesterday and asked him NOT to accept the position on principle. Not that he’d listen to lil’ ol’ me from Tennessee, but it made me feel better.
Join the RedState Strike Force
traitor
Bill@cityonahillpolitics Sunday, February 1st at 8:39PM EST (link)I don’t see how any “conservative” could serve in Obama’s cabinet. I know it is an honor to be asked and that generally one doesn’t tell the President no, but this guy is such a rabid anti-American flat-out socialist that I can’t see what a token conservative in his administration would be able to do that would actually be in line with his principles.
Any real conservative would have to say a polite “thanks, but no thanks” simply on the core of their convictions alone. To say yes shows that you are a pawn and a power hungry sycophant. Especially when your nomination weakens the already decimated GOP members of the senate.
This would be a disgusting display of power before convictions if Senator Gregg says yes.
Bill
Visit my other sites:
http://www.cityonahillpolitics.blogspot.com
http://www.govpalin2012.blogspot.com
http://www.examiner.com/x-19697-Camden-County-Conservative-Examiner
Follow me on Twitter:
http://twitter.com/Bill_C_Hughes
This has been
Terilyn Donaldson Monday, February 2nd at 3:40PM EST (link)on my mind for a week now. Would the Dems really agree to appoint a Republican then not do it? I mean, I realize they would not have any moral or ethical issues with that! However, politically it would likely be a disaster. Right?
SURVIVING IN WYOMING…
Join the RedState Strike Force
One would hope not. However,
Blue_Collar_Muse Monday, February 2nd at 3:53PM EST (link)here in Tennessee we have a new Republican Speaker of the House after taking over control of both sides of the Legislature for the first time since Reconstruction.
All the GOP Reps signed a pledge to vote for a GOP Speaker. This was important because, while in the minority, several had voted for a Democrat for Speaker.
While not specified in the pledge, the unspoken promise was to vote for the GOP Caucus’s nominee for Speaker. That was Jason Mumpower. Our new Speaker, Kent Williams, despite having signed the pledge and verbally committing on the radio to vote for Jason, got a sweet offer from the Dems and took it.
All 49 Dems voted for Williams and so did Williams. He became Speaker and kept his promise to “vote for a Republican.”
If a squishy Republican would do this, I have no doubts a Dem would do it in a heartbeat. Will Lynch? I’m not predicting either way. We’ll see when it happens. But in cases like this it’s often political disaster be damned! Full Liberal speed ahead.
Blue Collar Muse
Smaller Government! Lower Taxes! Stronger Defense! More Liberty! Complete Transparency!
Yes, for the Republicans!
civil_truth Monday, February 2nd at 3:53PM EST (link)I’d just be a modern revision of the old mocking question “how many divisions does the Pope have?”
And Rightly So!