In Mark Bailey’s post below he pointed out the net loss of Obama’s soon-to-be-confirmed pick of Republican Senator Judd Gregg as Commerce Secretary and asks the question: did Obama get played?
Well, I hope he got played, because the alternative -that he genuinely thinks Judd Gregg is a good pick – is pretty unsavoury . But I don’t think he did. I find it hard to believe that Obama and his advisors, when considering whether this was a sneaky chance to get a 60th seat in the Senate, didn’t take into account the possibility that Judd Gregg would demand his replacement be a Republican and that New Hampshire governor Jon Lynch would in fact appoint a Republican to replace him (which is, as Mark points out, now the likely outcome). Obama’s team aren’t idiots, nor are they risk takers. There must have been more going on than pure numbers politics, indeed it’s more likely that any positive in terms of an extra senate seat was thought of as merely a possible bonus.
Therefore, I think Obama’s decision was down to one of three reasons, or perhaps a combination of the three:
1) Obama wants to repair the olive branch to Republicans damaged by arguments over the Stimulus Package
2) Obama thinks that Gregg will be a moderate at Commerce and likes the idea of having plenty of moderates around
3) Obama thinks that his administration’s faith in government spending needs to be somewhat balanced out by a fiscal conservative
If any of these three reasons were really an operating factor in the decision, then this means that we are faced yet again with the same flawed bipartisanship logic that I decried in my post “Bipartisanship for Dummies: Stupid Compromise on the Stimulus Package”. As far as this situation goes, it does not make sense to support a stimulus package that has, as its main principle, faith in Government spending … and then appoint a doctrinaire fiscal conservative like Judd Gregg to Commerce. In short, this does not bode well for those who hoped that Obama’s “post-partisanship” would actually lead to common sense progressive solutions as opposed to the same old Bipartisanship Baloney.
February 3rd, 2009 at 16:12
Strikes me that you’re right, although, once again, I’m particularly alarmed if your ‘olive branch’ idea is correct. If Obama feels he has to give major concessions after his very first legislative battle (with oodles of political capital to boot), where is this going to leave the big points on his agenda further down the line?
February 3rd, 2009 at 17:05
Assuming that they didn’t get played (and I think that’s a pretty safe assumption for the same reasons you suggest Ed):
Could it not just be a ploy to make people believe he really is post-partisan, so that he can then portray policies like expanded healthcare as radically centrist/bipartisan?
If NH-Sen is coming up for election in 2010, is Newman much more likely to win that than Gregg?
How much room will Gregg really have to play in Commerce, surely Obama will be able to keep him on a fairly tight leash?
And finally, if the stimulus package messes up, doesn’t a Republican Commerce Secy. present an easier (and better) fall guy than a Democrat?
February 3rd, 2009 at 17:18
Hmm, what I’m about to say might sound a bit paradoxical, but:
1) I don’t think you see many Cabinet Secretaries falling on their swords in the US – not the same notion of Collective Responsibility, and given that Gregg is still in the Senate and has had no role in creating the stimulus as it stands, it might be difficult to pin any failure on him.
2) While this suggests he’s irrelevant, we shouldn’t forget that he’s effectively running a massive bureaucracy, many of whom are already inclined to ‘go native’ towards business. I think Chris Bowers’ snarky post this morning gets this across
Bonnie Newman looks likely to be a placeholder, opening up the seat for 2010, and given that both Congresspersons (what DO you say for mixed gender delegations?!) are Democrats, the odds probably start with them (Hodes is, in fact, declaring this week) … but I guess the political climate will largely revolve around the stimulus…
I think I’m mainly just worried about an Air Force One scenario in which someone is trying to find a majority of the Cabinet to sign onto invoking the 25th Amendment!
February 3rd, 2009 at 17:27
This, however, is just pure gold: http://bluehampshire.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6401