Senate won't change if Gregg leave: McConnell

[janet118]

Source: Reuters/Yahoo News

According to Mitch McConnell on Face the Nation:

Democrats would not increase their margin of control in the Senate if New Hampshire Republican Sen. Judd Gregg leaves to serve as commerce secretary, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said on Sunday.

"Senator Gregg has told me that if he were to take this appointment, it would not alter the makeup of the Senate in terms of the majority and the minority," McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

Yahoo News/Reuters


Read more: http//news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090201/pl_nm/us_obama_gregg

---

Who promised Gregg this? Or is McConnell making it up?

[IndianaGreen]

1. According to CNN Headline News, Obama has promised another Republican will replace Gregg

There is a whiff of appeasement in the air!

[Redwraithvienna]

6. I don't know ...

1) Assume that Gregg takes the appointment, he has to bow to Obamas plans more or less.

Then cant be that hard to find a very very moderate if not even liberal Republican in New Hampshire.

2) Saves face for the Repubs (so it doesn't piss them off more then necessary ... kicking someone on the floor in the gut isn't classy)

3) Keeps the Gov. free of accusation of partisanship which could be used against him in the next election.

4) And it gives the Dems one more vote in Senate which would at least vote with them to end filibusters even if he doesn't vote for the law in the end.

So all in all its a 3 : 1 win for the Dems. (the 1 being the possibility to save face)


Doesn't sound so bad imho.

[IndianaGreen]

8. I would appoint Dennis Kucinich to Commerce Secretary

Dennis will fight for the working class, instead of defending those that frak the working class.

[Redwraithvienna]

11. But you are not the President ...

and so you have to live with Gregg ...

Maybe the next one will change things ...

Look i am not saying its perfect. But its a lot better then before, so lets see what will happen

[MasonJar]

16. I do not care if Pugs are pissed off; how does it stop filibusters; why

will it help the guv? If I were a democrat in New Hampshire and he appointed a Pug for the Senate, he'd never get my vote. And for number one above, who needs Gregg? There are plenty of people who can fill this position; if we are not to benefit by his acceptance of the position with a Dem in the Senate then let him run in 2010 and beat him then. This just lines up a new and possibly stronger GOPer to fight against.

[PhilosopherKing]

2. Don't make him Commerce Secretary then

Enough giving into the powerless Republicans. Their intent is clear - obstruct, obstruct, obstruct.

[glowing]

3. Another Blago moment.. Pay to Play.. Oh, Fitzgerald, calling Fitzgerald...

New Hampshire PUGs are up to no good. They seem to have convinced a Democratic Gov. to replace the Senate pug seat with another pug.. when it is in no interest to the dems for a pug to hold that seat. who's in charge here, dems or pugs.. the voters decided the dems are in charge of working for the most of us and making the lives of all USA citezens better.. not just the rich assholes.

[BrklynLiberal]

14. That is the way it looked to me too.

[Kittycat]

18. To be accurate - replaceing a rep with a rep is what the voters wanted

They're only putting someone in to complete Gregg's term, not start a new term. So they put a weak, but moderate republican in the seat - then a strong dem comes out and wins overwhelmingly. In the meantime, Obama earns some more bipartisan cred, so that it blows another hole in he opposition. Also, if it's a need to pick a moderate - I'd rather have a republican that will vote on democratic issues, than another blue dog.

[Still Sensible]

4. Well, that's easy

if this is true then there should be no reason to nominate Gregg... period.

[FrenchieCat]

5. From 538 on this issue.....

Of the Republican that may be chosen.....is one who endorsed Barack Obama during the election.

For Democrats, Best Choice May be a Republican
There doesn't seem to be much of a consensus about just whom New Hampshire John Governor, a moderate Democrat, might appoint to replace Judd Gregg in the Senate if Gregg, as now appears somewhat likely, is chosen to be Barack Obama's Commerce Secretary. The Hill is reporting, however, that sources to Gregg claim that he would not vacate his Senate seat unless a Republican were to be named in his place.

If Gregg's replacement must be a Republican, there is one name that would allow Lynch to come as close as possible to splitting the difference between the parties. That name is that of former State Representative Liz Hager, who has admitted to her interest in the position.

Gregg's replacement must be a Republican, there is one name that would allow Lynch to come as close as possible to splitting the difference between the parties. That name is that of former State Representative Liz Hager, who has admitted to her interest in the position.

Hager is a Republican and says she would caucus with the Senate Republicans. Beyond that, however, there is a lot for Democrats to like. Hager, after being primaried out by more conservative opponents for her State House seat, endorsed Barack Obama, citing his pro-choice position. She is also a proud moderate, as the Concord Monitor reports:

Hager said she sees the loss as a victory by the more conservative wing of the Republican Party over moderates. But, she said, she does not envision the primary winners prevailing in the general election. "Clearly, the people who are now in control of the Republican Party don't want people like me in it," Hager said. <...>

Hager describes herself as a moderate who is "proudly pro-choice, proudly pro-government." She sponsored a bill in 1999 that would have established an income tax to pay for education. She says her major interest was in "good government and efficient, well-run state government."

More.... http://www.fivethirtyeight.com /

[Redwraithvienna]

7. Thats exactly what i was thinking

Everybody is happy, but Democrats are more happy then others.

[Hope And Change]

9. Interesting article FrenchieCat.Thanks for posting!

[bread_and_roses]

12. And will she vote to end filibuster on the Employee Free Choice Act?

Somehow...I doubt it.

Refresh my memory, what Ds did Commander Codpiece name? I didn't vote for Obama to see those miserable, failed, profiteering, rapacious, union-busting, greedy thugs named to positions in the administration. If we got a filibuster-proof majority out of it I could see it, but if not, then why? They will do everything they can to oppose and undermine any change in their theocratic, oligarchic, fascistic construct. Bad enough to see all the free-trading, de-regulating, welfare-"reforming" Clinton crew back.

edit to add "deregulating" -couldn't resist it

[Tarheel_Dem]

21. Uh...when did Obama become the governor of New Hampshire?

This is not Obama's appointment to make. Your beef (if any) should be with the Governor.

[Exen Trik]

17. An actual moderate republican, eh?

I would prefer another dem, but this looks good to me. It's not the republican party itself that is the real danger here, but the rabid right wing mentality. Currently those two are one in the same, so throwing in a moderate helps break up that coalition.

It all strikes me as very politically and practically shrewd. In other words, it's totally Obama

[janet118]

19. The anti-Lieberman?

Maybe.

The only problem is that even moderate Republicans from states that voted for Obama, like Collins and Snowe from Maine, have voted along party lines whenever it counted. I don't know what the Republicans threaten them with, but they fall in line nearly every time.

If this woman, Liz Hager, will caucus with the Republicans and vote with the Dems - the opposite of Joe Lieberman - then she might be a good choice, but so far that has not happened very often. The few Republicans who did cross to the other side - e.g. Lincoln Chaffee, R-RI - are gone.

In the House vote, 9 Democrats voted with the Republicans against the Stimulus Bill. Yet, the Republicans, despite all the wooing by Obama, voted as a herd - not one "maverick." Now they are claiming that they have "bi-partisan" support because of those Democratic votes. It's enough to make you scream.

[iandhr]

10. Maybe its a trick

Remember in the West wing when Hafley make Barlet pick "Bingo Bob" Russell as his VP when Hoynes left after a sex scandal becasue the GOP would not confirm a strong Democrat. Maybe this is the opposite President Obama gets Lynch to appoint a week Republican who could not possibly win a state wide election and the Democrats can run Paul Hodes and pick up the seat in 2010

[LiberalLovinLug]

13. Net gain for Repukes

Its like a Superbowl game where one team, in the spirit of cooperation, drops one of their own off the field, and lets one player from the other team play on the field on their side (and play along until his cohorts on the other side give him the secret signal) and still allow that other team one more player of theirs to run out onto the field to make up the loss.

WTF??

Hey I hope that this is the final act that makes Republicans in Washington stop their rabid partisan childish behavior and as a tear gathers in the corners of their eyes, they ask forgiveness and promise to work with the President from now on.

But that ain't gonna happen folks. Can you imagine in your wildest dreams of Dubya and the Dick doing anything like this in their eight miserable years?

[MasonJar]

15. Then what is the point? Is Gregg that good? Isn't there some fabulous

Democrat Obama can choose. Gregg is reportedly in for a tough re-election in 2010. Let him stay in the Senate; we might oust him. If he wants the job, then why should a GOPer replace him? I can guarantee no GOPer president would be so fair. We need 60 in the Senate to avoid filibuster. Obama needs that. It has only been 2 weeks and I am already disgusted with the bipartisanship-ness. The GOPers do not know what that word means and they do not intend to find out.

[dnbmathguy]

20. Removing Gregg would be a positive for our 2010 chances

Gregg vs. Hodes would be a close matchup but I'm not sure Hodes would win. Hodes vs. some other random Republican and Hodes has a much better shot of picking up the seat.

[unkachuck]

22. "...it would not alter the makeup of the Senate..."

....then progressive senate Dems should threaten and filibuster greggs' nomination....Dems are in charge and we're still losing ground....