Gregg pulls out of nomination - NOT ENOUGH TAX CUTS

[Iosif]

McConnell just stated "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,"

Yes, the democrats will remain the majority and the republicans will remain the minority.

[© tweed]

McConnell just stated "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,"

oh i was worried the republicans would gain ten seats from this thanks mitch im gonna go burn a flag now

[Holmes]

That was almost as bad as something Harry Reid would say.

[Bacon King]

So what happens if Obama doesn't push for a Republican (or even an Independent) to replace Gregg? Curious how Obama's first choice (Snowe) was another Republican from a New England state with a Democratic Governor.

Hmmmm...think he'll admit that he might not actually really care if Gregg gets the spot and admit that this was just some hack move to get 60 Democrats?

That's almost certainly a part of it, yeah. But also note that assuming he's going to be picking a Republican Senator he will almost certainly pick a moderate one, and pretty much every moderate Republican Senator is from a state with a Dem governor anyway.

[Keystone Phil]

So what happens if Obama doesn't push for a Republican (or even an Independent) to replace Gregg? Curious how Obama's first choice (Snowe) was another Republican from a New England state with a Democratic Governor.

Hmmmm...think he'll admit that he might not actually really care if Gregg gets the spot and admit that this was just some hack move to get 60 Democrats?

That's almost certainly a part of it, yeah. But also note that assuming he's going to be picking a Republican Senator he will almost certainly pick a moderate one, and pretty much every moderate Republican Senator is from a state with a Dem governor anyway.

The point remains that if this isn't just a total hack move that he ought to pick up the phone and ask whatever Democratic Governor he's dealing with that a Republican or even an Independent ought to be appointed. If he doesn't do that, that's all the proof we need that this was little more than a silly trick.

[Smash255]

So what happens if Obama doesn't push for a Republican (or even an Independent) to replace Gregg? Curious how Obama's first choice (Snowe) was another Republican from a New England state with a Democratic Governor.

Hmmmm...think he'll admit that he might not actually really care if Gregg gets the spot and admit that this was just some hack move to get 60 Democrats?

That's almost certainly a part of it, yeah. But also note that assuming he's going to be picking a Republican Senator he will almost certainly pick a moderate one, and pretty much every moderate Republican Senator is from a state with a Dem governor anyway.

The point remains that if this isn't just a total hack move that he ought to pick up the phone and ask whatever Democratic Governor he's dealing with that a Republican or even an Independent ought to be appointed. If he doesn't do that, that's all the proof we need that this was little more than a silly trick.

Would you be saying the same thing, that it was a hack move if the GOP had 59 Senators & the Republican President picked a Democrat for his cabinet in a state which had a GOP Gov & didn't insist that the replacement was a Democrat or Independent??

Fact of the matter is if Obama is going to pick a Republican its generally going to be a moderate one, just like a Republican President would be unlikely to appoint a liberal Democrat to their cabinet.  Perhaps if the Republicans didn't chase moderates away then Obama might have more choices here, but the choices are limited due to lack of moderate Republicans.

[Keystone Phil]

So what happens if Obama doesn't push for a Republican (or even an Independent) to replace Gregg? Curious how Obama's first choice (Snowe) was another Republican from a New England state with a Democratic Governor.

Hmmmm...think he'll admit that he might not actually really care if Gregg gets the spot and admit that this was just some hack move to get 60 Democrats?

That's almost certainly a part of it, yeah. But also note that assuming he's going to be picking a Republican Senator he will almost certainly pick a moderate one, and pretty much every moderate Republican Senator is from a state with a Dem governor anyway.

The point remains that if this isn't just a total hack move that he ought to pick up the phone and ask whatever Democratic Governor he's dealing with that a Republican or even an Independent ought to be appointed. If he doesn't do that, that's all the proof we need that this was little more than a silly trick.

Would you be saying the same thing, that it was a hack move if the GOP had 59 Senators & the Republican President picked a Democrat for his cabinet in a state which had a GOP Gov & didn't insist that the replacement was a Democrat or Independent??

I'm a strong believer in passing laws that mandate the appointment (if we keep this process) be of the same political party of the Senator leaving office so that ought to give you a clue as to how I feel. I also don't support Senators changing parties during their term that could effect the balance of power (or, in this case, provide a significant advantage for a party in terms of procedure).

A little bit of the partisan inside of us gets excited by this stuff. I was the same way in late 2004 when Bush was thinking about appointing Ben Nelson to serve as Agriculture Secretary. It would have meant 56 Republican Senators. However, ever since the Jeffords situation, my position about keeping the party composition the same has been consistent.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok, I know that's what you want this debate to be about but it's not.

[Smash255]

So what happens if Obama doesn't push for a Republican (or even an Independent) to replace Gregg? Curious how Obama's first choice (Snowe) was another Republican from a New England state with a Democratic Governor.

Hmmmm...think he'll admit that he might not actually really care if Gregg gets the spot and admit that this was just some hack move to get 60 Democrats?

That's almost certainly a part of it, yeah. But also note that assuming he's going to be picking a Republican Senator he will almost certainly pick a moderate one, and pretty much every moderate Republican Senator is from a state with a Dem governor anyway.

The point remains that if this isn't just a total hack move that he ought to pick up the phone and ask whatever Democratic Governor he's dealing with that a Republican or even an Independent ought to be appointed. If he doesn't do that, that's all the proof we need that this was little more than a silly trick.

Would you be saying the same thing, that it was a hack move if the GOP had 59 Senators & the Republican President picked a Democrat for his cabinet in a state which had a GOP Gov & didn't insist that the replacement was a Democrat or Independent??

I'm a strong believer in passing laws that mandate the appointment (if we keep this process) be of the same political party of the Senator leaving office so that ought to give you a clue as to how I feel. I also don't support Senators changing parties during their term that could effect the balance of power (or, in this case, provide a significant advantage for a party in terms of procedure).

A little bit of the partisan inside of us gets excited by this stuff. I was the same way in late 2004 when Bush was thinking about appointing Ben Nelson to serve as Agriculture Secretary. It would have meant 56 Republican Senators. However, ever since the Jeffords situation, my position about keeping the party composition the same has been consistent.

Well I can respect that argument, may not particularly agree, but can respect it.  With that being said as far as a Senator switching parties during their term it really wouldn't impact things such as procedure in a case like this because someone could always still vote with the other Party even if they don't officially change.   60 is the magic number, but means little unless everyone from your side votes one way (or well one from each side could vote the other,  etc, but you get the point)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Still has some relevance however, if the GOP had more moderates than perhaps Obama would not have to go into a state with a Democratic Governor in order to pick up a Republican for his cabinet

[Democratic Hawk]

Gregg won't leave without a GOP sub

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18304.html

Dave

[jamestroll]

I have the audacity of hope that Gregg gets the position, and that a Republican replaces him.

And phil, stop chasing moderates out of your party. You are a right wing lunatic lately.

[Lunar]

Get ready for more of it because I doubt Republicans will like the Lynch appointment -  hell, the Republican will probably be more liberal than Lynch

[BM]

They will be.  I posted this is in another thread:



Rumor has it that it will likely be J. Bonnie Newman if it's a Republican, which seems likely at this point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From what I gather, she'll caucus with the Republicans but her stances are more liberal than Gregg's and she'd likely vote with the Democrats on most issues. She might even give Olympia Snowe a run for her money as the RINO Queen.

Not sure if she'd run for reelection, but I highly doubt it.

[Keystone Phil]

Lynch needs to appoint Sununu. End of story. 

[Franzl]

I really like how Newman sounds, and I think Gregg would be good as commerce secretary.

Excellent!

[jamestroll]

Lynch needs to appoint Sununu. End of story. 

You know, I would support that... I love drama.

[Holmes]

Lynch needs to appoint Sununu. End of story. 

His loss 2 months ago only confirms the fact that he's a popular guy.

[Keystone Phil]

Lynch needs to appoint Sununu. End of story. 

His loss 2 months ago only confirms the fact that he's a popular guy.

Losing and how long ago it occured doesn't mean he's terribly unpopular. He only lost by seven points when he was expected to get blown out.

[perdedor]

Lynch needs to appoint Sununu. End of story. 

I would support it. It was be an easy win for my party in 2010.

[Keystone Phil]

Lynch needs to appoint Sununu. End of story. 

I would support it. It was be an easy win for my party in 2010.

LOL

He only loses by seven in a horrible year and you think it would be an easy win in a midterm year? Ok.

[BM]

I hope he picks Richard Burr so Liddy Dole can get her Senate seat back. She DESERVES it.

[Lunar]

I agree that Sununu would be the most ethical replacement.  Hell no on it actually happening though.
 

Lynch needs to appoint Sununu. End of story. 

I would support it. It was be an easy win for my party in 2010.

I think Sununu would be slightly favored, although you can't discount the psychological issues with people only two years ago voting him down.  Phil comes from Pennsylvania where you have to run and be rejected twenty to twenty-five times before voters accept you - but then they love you.

[Keystone Phil]

Phil comes from Pennsylvania where you have to run and be rejected twenty to twenty-five times before voters accept you - but then they love you.

That only happens in the primaries. 

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I don't understand why Gregg, anyways. If for some crazy hair-brained reason Obama wants to appoint a Senate Republican to Commerce, Grassley would be better, anyways.

That actually might be better since he's safer than Gregg.

[Mr. Morden]

I'm amused by people's ability to predict whether New Hampshire will be safe for one party or the other in 2010.  Remind me, how accurate were 2006 senate predictions made in February 2005?

[Lief 🗽]

How in the hell is Sununu the "most ethical replacement"? New Hampshirites (or whatever you call them) just overwhelmingly made it clear that they don't want the guy representing them. To appoint him to Gregg's seat would be an insult to the democratic process.