• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Obama picks Judd Gregg (R) New Hampshire for Commerce Secretary.

Status
Not open for further replies.
techs

techs

Lifer
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/
(link at top)
On CNN tv now.

So, Judd Gregg is going to be the new Commerce Secretary.
While much talk has been about how this will effect the ability of Republicans to filibuster Obama's programs now, the real news is what it says about Republican chances in 2012.
In 2004 Gregg ran against a weak candidate and won 66 percent of the vote. This shows that even wildly popular Republicans are looking towards 2012 as another disaster.

In fact, with the length of campaigns these days, the traditional gains in the Congress by the out of power party may not occur, or occur later than they have in the past. New Hampshire news sources have reported polls indicating that over half the electorate will not vote for ANY Republican senatorial candidate in 2012. That's just striking.
Apparently the Republican party "brand" image is worse off than anyone thought.
And their dogged insistance on continuing their policies despite electoral disaster in 2008 may make 2012 an even a worse disaster.
 
Originally posted by: techs
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/
(link at top)
On CNN tv now.

So, Judd Gregg is going to be the new Commerce Secretary.
While much talk has been about how this will effect the ability of Republicans to filibuster Obama's programs now, the real news is what it says about Republican chances in 2012.
In 2004 Gregg ran against a weak candidate and won 66 percent of the vote. This shows that even wildly popular Republicans are looking towards 2012 as another disaster.

In fact, with the length of campaigns these days, the traditional gains in the Congress by the out of power party may not occur, or occur later than they have in the past. New Hampshire news sources have reported polls indicating that over half the electorate will not vote for ANY Republican senatorial candidate in 2012. That's just striking.
Apparently the Republican party "brand" image is worse off than anyone thought.
And their dogged insistance on continuing their policies despite electoral disaster in 2008 may make 2012 an even a worse disaster.
Click to expand...

Yes, it does seem unlikely that anyone in New Hampshire will vote for a republican for senate in 2012.

/waits for OP to figure it out
 
Any person that is selected will have 2 years to establish their credentials.

At present, the rose colored glasses are in place.

Look at what polls were saying two years ago about the presidential race.
Things change w/ respect to people's perceptions.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
Glad we live in a vacuum.

btw nice link. Anybody ifind this amusing? On the front page of techs link is this story.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28994296/

#4 with issues. This could start getting comical.
Click to expand...

Holy crap, do any dems pay their taxes or are they just too stupid to understand how to file? Maybe they need to post their questions in our OT tax time thread.
 
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: Genx87
Glad we live in a vacuum.

btw nice link. Anybody ifind this amusing? On the front page of techs link is this story.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28994296/

#4 with issues. This could start getting comical.
Click to expand...

Holy crap, do any dems pay their taxes or are they just too stupid to understand how to file? Maybe they need to post their questions in our OT tax time thread.
Click to expand...

The reason the average non-elitist pays taxes is so the Dems don't have to.

 
What point #4 has to do with this Gregg nomination thread escapes me, but with New Hampshire having a democratic governor, it means a republican Gregg could be replaced with a democrat, in theory, ending GOP filibuster ability, assuming that Franken prevails in Minnesota. As the number of R's in the Senate drops to the magic 40, one too small to sustain a filibuster.

Its my understanding that there may be a compromise promise in the works, with the New Hampshire Governor agreeing to appoint Gregg's GOP chief of Staff to fill the remaining two years of Gregg;s term, providing she in turn does not run for re-election in 2010.

But assuming Gregg now is confirmed by the Senate, Gregg's Senate resignation must follow, and the GOP has to hope they get an another R to replace Gregg. And then may also have to worry about such an R
that owes the GOP nothing, because her political senatorial future stops in 2010.
 
Originally posted by: Lemon law
What point #4 has to do with this Gregg nomination thread escapes me, but with New Hampshire having a democratic governor, it means a republican Gregg could be replaced with a democrat, in theory, ending GOP filibuster ability, assuming that Franken prevails in Minnesota. As the number of R's in the Senate drops to the magic 40, one too small to sustain a filibuster.

Its my understanding that there may be a compromise promise in the works, with the New Hampshire Governor agreeing to appoint Gregg's GOP chief of Staff to fill the remaining two years of Gregg;s term, providing she in turn does not run for re-election in 2010.

But assuming Gregg now is confirmed by the Senate, Gregg's Senate resignation must follow, and the GOP has to hope they get an another R to replace Gregg. And then may also have to worry about such an R
that owes the GOP nothing, because her political senatorial future stops in 2010.
Click to expand...

Well since techs was incapable of linking to the actual story I found it amusing his link which went to the msnbc homepage had a headline story about yet another dem admin pick not paying taxes.

But it funny you bring up Al Franken considering he also didnt pay his taxes until the states came after him.
 
C'mon NH governor, replace him with a Democrat...pretty please 😉
 
Originally posted by: Genx87

But it funny you bring up Al Franken considering he also didnt pay his taxes until the states came after him.
Click to expand...

I agree that it is funny that techs link referred to an additional nominee not paying taxes.

But stop the bull, I think you know full well that Franken did pay his taxes. Based on the advice of his accountant, he paid in the wrong states. Had he been trying to evade taxes, he certainly could have chosen better states in which to pay the taxes than New York and Minnesota.
http://static.cbslocal.com/sta...malfrankencampaign.pdf

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top