Am I missing something? Why is President Obama naming New Hampshire's Republican Senator Judd Gregg to be Commerce Secretary? What in particular does he bring to the job? Why him and not someone else? Does he have some particular business experience that no one else has? If he has to appoint a Republican, why not Richard Parsons, for example?

Originally I thought it was a shrewd move to drop the GOP Senate caucus to 40 members and give the Democrats a procedural lift, because New Hampshire's governor is a Democrat, and the state doesn't require him to replace the departing Senator with someone from the same party, but from all the accounts I've seen, Gregg and the governor have agreed that a Republican will be appointed, meaning the GOP will keep 41 members and possible filibuster power.

What does Obama get out of this, then? What if the replacement senator is a right-wing Republican like some of New Hampshire's past Republican Senators (extreme right-wingers like Gordon Humphrey and Bob Smith)? There's simply no guarantee that someone like Warren Rudman will be appointed. How does this help him pass legislation? Also, given how large his victory was (the largest electorally since George H. W. Bush, the largest for a Democrat since Lyndon Johnson's in 1964) and how high his ratings are, why is he adding yet another Republican to his cabinet (he already has 2)?

It's political, pure and simple.

If Obama is thinking long-term, for one he's thinking about his legacy. And for that he must rise above partisan politics.

In terms of his number one crisis, i.e. the economy, he knows that he can't rely upon the tried solutions of his party's stalwarts or the defeated party's stalwarts. Take him for his word, he wants change, which means bringing the best ideas of both parties to the table. Believe me, no one ideology has the answer to this crisis. So get as much input from all sides.

And if he fails, he can say that he reached across the aisle and at least some Republicans joined with him.

And he may get his veto-proof Senate. And if that's what he is aiming for, Obama must have a big agenda that he wants to push through Congress.

Actually, I bet Obama would prefer that a Republican take Gregg's place. 60 Democrats is a big psychological hump that raises media expectations and invites attacks against a "filibuster-proof majority." Of course, such a majority would not actually exist because votes are almost never straight party-line in the Senate. Furthermore, one could argue that he already has a working filibuster-proof majority because of Republicans with tough 2010 elections and a small but solid group of moderates/"RINOs."

Yeah it was a big WTF moment when I heard about this nomination. I don't really know much about the guy so I'm not going to pre judge. I will just have to wait and see how this plays out. Rachel Maddow had an interesting commentary about Obama's failure to get Republican support for the stimulus package (which I personally would love to see ripped up and start over from scratch) and she was like "they're just not that into you"

Quite frankly the #1 priority (eg economy) for Obama should include a "co-#1" priority. That is, restoring govt regulations on Wall Street, which should include clearly spelling out serious criminal punishment(s) for future scumbag white-collar criminals!

Mdterp, have you seen the Republican Senate caucus's mantra today on the stimulus package? They're calling for ALL TAX CUTS! I hate to say, I really do, but these people are...INSANE. Really. Mitch McConnell, John McCain...are they for real? Didn't they learn ANYTHING from the failed presidencies of Herbert Hoover, George H. W. Bush (who did raise taxes but not enough), and George W. Bush? Are they operating on a parallel universe?

I understand that Obama wants to transcend partisan politics, which in any case can be a GOOD thing as they represent the real ideological and political differences among constituencies (that's Poli Sci/Gov't. 101, isn't it?), and surely Obama knows this. At the same time, he must realize that his avatars--Lincoln, FDR, JFK--also had at times to say to the opposition, enough is enough. We are going to do the CORRECT thing as opposed to the BAD bipartisan thing. I'm not saying the House stimulus package was perfect, but come on. ALL TAX CUTS? That is just horrific policy, and I doubt you could a leading economist, including the ones who worked for George W. Bush (Douglas Holtz-Eakin, etc.) who'd agree.

It's as if the GOP has decided they are going to turn their governmental role as the opposition into a clown show.

That said, I still don't get the Gregg appointment. And as Senator Russ Feingold said today, all the maneuvering behind the scenes to ensure Gregg's successor's selection is undemocratic. It's one reason why we have the 17th Amendment to the Constitution. I agree with Feingold that we should automatically have an election--and I'd say no more than one month after a death, retirement, impeachment, etc.--paid for by the US government, to fill a US Senate seat. Obviously state legislatures (Illinois) and governors (Illinois, New York, New Hampshire, etc.) cannot be trusted to do what best serves the people, which was the case before 1913.

UPDATE: Is this a joke??? JOE THE UNLICENSED/UNEMPLOYED PLUMBER is advising the GOP on the "stimulus" package? It's not April 1, 2009, so what's going on?

I would be for fierce, undying PARTISANSHIP if only I believed the Democrats stood for anything.

Well the profile does list "Joe" as Brazilian & bisexual.

BIG surprise! No pun intended.

Hahahha!

Well you got your wish: here & here.



Gosh fantomas, I have to admit, I LOVE seeing you tickled!!!

Well, Gregg proved he's just the sort of Republican Obama should never have nominated, even if Gregg did originally approach him.

Now perhaps Obama will nominate: A PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT!

First he's got to find one who doesn't pay his/her taxes.

Then he may have to find an Independent, socialist, communist or some left-wing third-party candidate. Neither Repubs or Dems can get past the no new taxes mantra since the Bush tax cuts were implemented.

The inevitable result is that everyone tries to cheat their neighbor in a faux-Darwinian struggle for survival of the best tax-cheat scenario.

Remember if "paying your taxes is patriotic" can be derided and laughed at - Dems in their behavior and by Repubs out of "principle" - then obviously avoiding taxes is all-American behavior.

So he has to find someone who is... anti-American.

Maybe Osama bin Laden should apply. At least he has a good excuse for not paying US taxes.