Obama's coup d'etat

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
For a political novice, Obama is showing his skills. He shows his bi-partisanship by adding a third Republican to his cabinet. He gets rid of the Republicans' filibuster by making the Senate a Democratic supermajority parliament. Republicans will be relegated to the sidelines and hope that the Democrats trip up (eventually).

link

GOP fights to keep Gregg in the Senate

Republicans in Washington and New Hampshire are mounting a full-court press to keep Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) in the Senate and out of the Obama administration, aides and senators said Friday.

But if he does take the commerce secretary job, they want a commitment that New Hampshire?s Democratic governor will appoint a Republican senator so the party holds at least 41 seats, the minimum needed to sustain filibusters. No such commitments have been made, even as Granite State Republican sources tell Politico they are worried Gregg will take the Cabinet job if offered it by Obama.

?I think it would be a loss to the Senate of a great mind and somebody who I think we need a lot as we chart our way through economic challenge,? Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, told Politico on Friday.

Asked what could be offered to keep Gregg in the Senate, Cornyn said: ?I would say whatever it is, name it.?

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said luring Gregg with a Cabinet job was ?sneaky? because it would put the GOP in a bind and take away a valuable member.

Friends tell Politico they expect Gregg to accept the seat if it?s offered, even though Gregg has only confirmed he is under consideration and would not comment further. Gregg has to run for reelection next year and could lose in his increasingly Democratic state.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Friday that Obama told him ?a final decision had not been made. . .until the president asks me to make a personnel announcement from this podium, I?ll refrain from getting into any names.?

The Cabinet job would provide Gregg with a cushy bridge to retirement, but it would be a headache for Senate Republicans. The White House was already making phone calls to senators Friday to gauge support for his potential nomination, aides said. What remains unclear, however, is how high up he is on the list of potential candidates. The White House had also approached Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), a moderate, about an administration job, but she declined, sources close to Snowe told Politico.
?If we were to reduce the number of Republicans by one, that would make a big difference,? Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), the third-ranking Senate Republican, said Friday. ?Perhaps if he went into the administration, the Democratic governor of New Hampshire would appoint a Republican senator so that wouldn?t change. I have no idea what the discussions are.

?I?m not sure what the different steps would be,? Alexander added. ?But I like the idea of 41 Republican senators a lot better than 40. And I like the idea of Judd Gregg being in the United States Senate rather than him not being.?

Obama and Gregg may need to convince New Hampshire?s Gov. John Lynch to appoint a Republican. Assuming Al Franken defeats Norm Coleman in Minnesota, a new Democratic senator from New Hampshire would give Democrats a 60-seat majority ? enough to overcome filibusters, the remaining GOP tool to block Democrats? ambitious agenda in Washington.

Lynch spokesman Colin Manning stayed out of it: ?This is between the White House and Sen. Gregg and I am going to have to refer questions to them.?

But New Hampshire Republicans are already fretting about their senator, regardless of the outcome.

?If he doesn't do it and stays, he has unhappy folks waiting here,? warned one veteran Granite State Republican. ?Republicans would hate him forever ? even up here,? said another about the prospect about Gregg accepting the position.

To hear such language aimed at Gregg, a former governor and son of another with deep Yankee Republican roots, is astounding.

Republican names being floated for the Gregg seat include former Gov. Walter Peterson, former Sen. Warren Rudman, former Rep. Charlie Bass, former state House Speaker Doug Scamman (a friend of Lynch) or a political outsider businessman. Democrats on the short list include Reps. Paul Hodes and Carol Shea-Porter, who are already thought to be interested in running for the Senate seat next year ? regardless of whether Gregg is still holding the seat.

In a statement Friday morning, Gregg said he was ?honored? to be considered but declined to elaborate on the process.

?I am aware that my name is one of those being considered by the White House for Secretary of Commerce, and am honored to be considered, along with others, for the position," said Gregg, who serves as the ranking Republican on the Budget Committee. "Beyond that there is nothing more I can say at this time.?


The job offers some obvious attractions. Gregg, 61, would have to spend heavily in 2010 to keep his seat and would be a top GOP target. And instead of being a part of a slimmer GOP minority, he would command a major department that would have a big role in responding to the deepening economic recession.

But while he has been an architect of the Treasury Department?s bailout of the financial system and his position on immigration lines up with Obama?s, he splits with Democrats on taxes, labor issues and fiscal policy. He would have to implement an agenda of a Democratic administration with far more liberal views.

?I was going to organize a friendly Republican filibuster? to block the nomination, Alexander said he jokingly told Gregg on Thursday night, adding that the loss of the senator would be a big loss to the institution because of his deep knowledge of fiscal and economic matters.

?It would be like the Steelers recruiting Larry Fitzgerald right before the Super Bowl,? Alexander said, referring to the Arizona Cardinals? star wide receiver.

Cornyn tried to assuage any of Gregg?s concerns about his 2010 bid, predicting that the upcoming election cycle will be easier for the GOP than the last two.

?I think 2010 will not be 2008. President Bush and his low approval ratings won?t be on the ballot. And neither will President Obama be on the ballot,? Cornyn said. ?So my hope would be that New Hampshire would sort of return to its roots, so I think would make it very conducive to his reelection.?

A White House spokesman said Thursday only that Obama ?has not made a decision? about the Commerce job.

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), chairman of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, said Thursday night he had not been told by the Obama administration that Gregg was under consideration, calling the episode ?strange.?

Rockefeller said he and Gregg are ?good personal friends,? and he downplayed the conflicts that might arise if Obama tapped Gregg for the post.

?He would be representing what the president wanted, or else he won?t take the job,? Rockefeller said. ?Judd Gregg is the type of person who would not take a job that he could not do on terms that are satisfactory to himself.?

Democrats ? eager to get to 60 ? were enthusiastic about the idea of a Commerce Secretary Gregg.

?He's one of my best friends in the Senate, and he's competent in doing anything he wants to do,? Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Thursday. ?Everybody knows he's one of my friends around here.?

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), chairman of the Budget Committee, said he had ?very, very high regard? for Gregg ? and that his departure would be a ?very significant? loss to the Senate.

Earlier Thursday, several well-connected New Hampshire Republicans said they were skeptical that Gregg would accept.

These sources noted that Gregg has fundraisers lined up as far into the calendar as April. But they also acknowledged that Gregg has spoken positively about Obama.

?Judd Gregg not running for reelection makes it extremely interesting,? Kathy Sullivan, a former New Hampshire Democratic chairwoman, said with evident glee in her voice.

Senate Republicans are, to state the obvious, far less joyful.

?The conference would be considerably weakened without Judd Gregg,? said one Senate GOP leadership aide.

 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,017
62
91
Blech, his bi-partisanship moves only seem to create more separation from the parties. I'm definitely not blaming Obama on this, but the parties act like children.
 

Arkaign

Lifer
Oct 27, 2006
20,736
1,379
126
Originally posted by: TallBill
Blech, his bi-partisanship moves only seem to create more separation from the parties. I'm definitely not blaming Obama on this, but the parties act like children.

^ This.
 

miketheidiot

Lifer
Sep 3, 2004
11,060
1
0
Originally posted by: TallBill
Blech, his bi-partisanship moves only seem to create more separation from the parties. I'm definitely not blaming Obama on this, but the parties act like children.

baically all the moderate republicans were voted out or are getting into the administration, leaving conservative republicans vs moderate and liberal democrats.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
I hope Gregg takes him up on the offer. First, getting their 60 will remove any possible excuse the Democrats will have come next election, and they can be held accountable for the inevitable screwups that happen regardless of who is in power. Second, I believe that Democratic policies actually hurt the blue states (and vice versa for the Republicans) and will enjoy watching them eat their own.
 

smokeyjoe

Senior member
Dec 13, 1999
265
1
81
sly.. a "bi-partisan" move to win the majority.. doesn't seem fair if the NH gov appoints a Dem.. maybe the FBI should be listening in on those conversations :p
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: TallBill
Blech, his bi-partisanship moves only seem to create more separation from the parties. I'm definitely not blaming Obama on this, but the parties act like children.

^ This.

How are they like children? This is the nature of party politics. You can play or you can not have power. Not having power is not 'childish'?

Or is it more childish to try to insist on a grade school civics book about idealism where the politicians are all about waving the flag and 'above this sort of thing', naively?

That sounds the more childish.
 

fallout man

Golden Member
Nov 20, 2007
1,787
1
0
Originally posted by: smokeyjoe
sly.. a "bi-partisan" move to win the majority.. doesn't seem fair if the NH gov appoints a Dem.. maybe the FBI should be listening in on those conversations :p

The governor gets to appoint a senator "at his pleasure."

It's the same argument that carried the repuglicans through the federal prosecutor firing fiasco with the claim that federal prosecutors work "at the pleasure of the president."

Boo Hoo. Hoo.
 

smokeyjoe

Senior member
Dec 13, 1999
265
1
81
Originally posted by: fallout man
Originally posted by: smokeyjoe
sly.. a "bi-partisan" move to win the majority.. doesn't seem fair if the NH gov appoints a Dem.. maybe the FBI should be listening in on those conversations :p

The governor gets to appoint a senator "at his pleasure."

It's the same argument that carried the repuglicans through the federal prosecutor firing fiasco with the claim that federal prosecutors work "at the pleasure of the president."

Boo Hoo. Hoo.

No ones crying.. there is a difference though in that the Republicans cannot block legislation through filibuster if the gov appoints a Dem Senator; whereas the Democrats were able to under Bush.

Also, I am not a Republican.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,817
31,282
146
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: TallBill
Blech, his bi-partisanship moves only seem to create more separation from the parties. I'm definitely not blaming Obama on this, but the parties act like children.

^ This.

tits
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: smokeyjoe
Originally posted by: fallout man
Originally posted by: smokeyjoe
sly.. a "bi-partisan" move to win the majority.. doesn't seem fair if the NH gov appoints a Dem.. maybe the FBI should be listening in on those conversations :p

The governor gets to appoint a senator "at his pleasure."

It's the same argument that carried the repuglicans through the federal prosecutor firing fiasco with the claim that federal prosecutors work "at the pleasure of the president."

Boo Hoo. Hoo.

No ones crying.. there is a difference though in that the Republicans cannot block legislation through filibuster if the gov appoints a Dem Senator; whereas the Democrats were able to under Bush.

Also, I am not a Republican.

So? And not really anyway, since the dems had more who would switch sides (such as Lieberman before he left the party).
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,817
31,282
146
Originally posted by: smokeyjoe
sly.. a "bi-partisan" move to win the majority.. doesn't seem fair if the NH gov appoints a Dem.. maybe the FBI should be listening in on those conversations :p

well, it did say he's up for re-election next year. Doesn't this mean his seat is up for re-election?

The article implies that he will most likely lose with NH growing increasingly democratic. So by the article's own logic, even if a republican is chosen to replace him, it will likely only be for one year until the Dems gain the advantage.

Then again, I suppose with an election year it really throws any of this out the door, as several seats will be up for grabs.

All that matters then is this one year, and that is quite important. Obama has made clear his intention to act swiftly regarding the economy and he wants to push through whatever plans he deems necessary as quickly as possible. While I don't like the seeming partisanship, I can understand it. Things have gone so wrong during the previous administration, that something drastic, and perhaps even "illogical" by current understanding needs to happen. Hell, that's what people OVERWHELMINGLY voted for.

Even if his plans don't work, nothing his administration does could possibly be worse than Bush.
 

smokeyjoe

Senior member
Dec 13, 1999
265
1
81
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: smokeyjoe
sly.. a "bi-partisan" move to win the majority.. doesn't seem fair if the NH gov appoints a Dem.. maybe the FBI should be listening in on those conversations :p

well, it did say he's up for re-election next year. Doesn't this mean his seat is up for re-election?

The article implies that he will most likely lose with NH growing increasingly democratic. So by the article's own logic, even if a republican is chosen to replace him, it will likely only be for one year until the Dems gain the advantage.

true.. I guess we have to wait and see what happens
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,881
55,124
136
Originally posted by: smokeyjoe

No ones crying.. there is a difference though in that the Republicans cannot block legislation through filibuster if the gov appoints a Dem Senator; whereas the Democrats were able to under Bush.

Also, I am not a Republican.

I think the misconception here is that the Democrats would be able to muster enough party unity to collectively vote with all 60 of them together. Have you not noticed this is the DEMOCRATS we are talking about here?

Maybe if Obama appointed half the remaining GOP senators to various government positions, giving the Democrats about an 80-20 advantage... maybe then they could muster a filibuster proof majority.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: TallBill
Blech, his bi-partisanship moves only seem to create more separation from the parties. I'm definitely not blaming Obama on this, but the parties act like children.

^ This.
+1.

Regarding bipartisanship, I think Obama's heart and mind are in the right place, and I believe him when he says that he wants to see DC change dramatically; but, the rest of his party is stuck on suck.

sad that...
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
GWB tried the same stunt with a democratic Senator in his first term, as I recall, the Senator said no.

It could be a moot point if Coleman prevails in MN, but not if Franken prevails.

But still, gotta agree with Eskimospy, the dems, unlike the GOP do not vote in lockstep.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,837
2,622
136
Funny that the right-wing religious nutjob wing of the GOP is now whining. For most of the nineties, and especially during the Bush administration moderate GOPer's (which is almost the entire GOP here in New England) were treated as dirt because they didn't adhere to the new party line of moral absolutism.

The GOP was essentially born in New England and was the predominant party here until not too long ago. But is has changed 180 degrees from the fiscally conservative, protector of individual freedoms that were formerly the bedrock principles of the party.

Today the GOP here is just about gone-the last GOP House member from New England lost his re-election campaign in November. New England has two remaining GOP senators-both of whom retain their seats because of their personal popularity and despite the GOP label.

The national GOP treated Gregg like crap until he became the 40th vote-very little money or support. I say he should make his own decision based on what he feels is best for him, the people of his state and the people of this country and the hell with the obstructionist concerns of the national GOP. What goes around, comes around.
 

foghorn67

Lifer
Jan 3, 2006
11,883
63
91
Originally posted by: Thump553
Funny that the right-wing religious nutjob wing of the GOP is now whining. For most of the nineties, and especially during the Bush administration moderate GOPer's (which is almost the entire GOP here in New England) were treated as dirt because they didn't adhere to the new party line of moral absolutism.

The GOP was essentially born in New England and was the predominant party here until not too long ago. But is has changed 180 degrees from the fiscally conservative, protector of individual freedoms that were formerly the bedrock principles of the party.

Today the GOP here is just about gone-the last GOP House member from New England lost his re-election campaign in November. New England has two remaining GOP senators-both of whom retain their seats because of their personal popularity and despite the GOP label.

The national GOP treated Gregg like crap until he became the 40th vote-very little money or support. I say he should make his own decision based on what he feels is best for him, the people of his state and the people of this country and the hell with the obstructionist concerns of the national GOP. What goes around, comes around.

Your attitude mimics what anybody should fear. Super majorities suck no matter what party has it. All anybody cares about is D vs R and vengeful politics.
Nice history lesson though. Republicans were at one time true conservatives. Not anymore.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Even if his plans don't work, nothing his administration does could possibly be worse than Bush.
These are famous last words. Torpedoes hitting the Titanic would have made it sink even faster.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,669
6,727
126
Originally posted by: foghorn67
Originally posted by: Thump553
Funny that the right-wing religious nutjob wing of the GOP is now whining. For most of the nineties, and especially during the Bush administration moderate GOPer's (which is almost the entire GOP here in New England) were treated as dirt because they didn't adhere to the new party line of moral absolutism.

The GOP was essentially born in New England and was the predominant party here until not too long ago. But is has changed 180 degrees from the fiscally conservative, protector of individual freedoms that were formerly the bedrock principles of the party.

Today the GOP here is just about gone-the last GOP House member from New England lost his re-election campaign in November. New England has two remaining GOP senators-both of whom retain their seats because of their personal popularity and despite the GOP label.

The national GOP treated Gregg like crap until he became the 40th vote-very little money or support. I say he should make his own decision based on what he feels is best for him, the people of his state and the people of this country and the hell with the obstructionist concerns of the national GOP. What goes around, comes around.

Your attitude mimics what anybody should fear. Super majorities suck no matter what party has it. All anybody cares about is D vs R and vengeful politics.
Nice history lesson though. Republicans were at one time true conservatives. Not anymore.

Super majorities only suck when they suck. When they don't suck they don't suck. Anybody who can think knows that. What you fail to comprehend is that your mumbo jumbo muttering of platitudes and and regurgitated hackneyed theory carried with it no evidence at all of its truth. You don't know anything. Live with that.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Republicans are a Southern Conservative party. They don't really belong in New England.