Bipartisanship all around
An unusual three-way agreement made possible President Obama's selection of New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg as commerce secretary.
The third key figure was N.H. Gov. John Lynch.
Gregg is a Republican. Give credit to Obama for again reaching across party lines to fill out his Cabinet.
But Gregg made clear he wouldn't take the job if it would cost his party a seat in the Senate. Their number could have fallen to 40, assuming Norm Coleman eventually loses the still-unsettled recount in Minnesota. With 60 senators in their caucus, Democrats could break GOP filibusters.
This is where Lynch comes in. As governor, he appoints the person to serve out the rest of Gregg's term. Lynch is a Democrat. In normal circumstances, he'd name someone of his own party.
This time, however, he agreed he'd choose a Republican.
That's a generous concession, but it makes sense for two reasons.
First, New Hampshire voters elected a Republican to that seat, and they ought to have one for the full term.
Second, Obama wants Gregg in his Cabinet, and Lynch should do what he can to make it possible for the president to get him.
Obama and Democratic leaders in the Senate apparently gave their approval to the deal as well.
What about Gregg's position in this matter? Should he have held out for a a partisan political concession before agreeing to join Obama's administration? He's actually the one guy who seems to have put party loyalty first. Shouldn't he have accepted a call to greater service without hesitation?
Probably. But I'll give Gregg the benefit of the doubt and assume he would have accepted Obama's offer anyway. He simply pursued an opportunity to do so without putting his party in a bind.
Frankly, it would have been unfair of Obama to make Gregg choose between service to country and disservice to party. No other senator who resigned to accept an administration appointment was put in that position.
And neither was Gregg. It is indeed encouraging that partisanship was laid aside. If Gregg, in the president's estimation, is the right man for the commerce job, then all involved deserve credit for removing any political obstacles.
Much more of that is needed in Washington.
Comments (10)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Although it was not a Senate seat, I believe Janet Napolitano's replacement is a Republican. Apparently, that's a significant shift for her state (Arizona?), where she has served as a counterbalance to a Republican legislature.
It would be nice to see the bipartisanship work both ways. Maybe your benefit of the doubt is deserved, and maybe not, but overall there seems to be much room for Republicans to be more responsive to what appear to be genuine efforts at bipartisanship.
Posted on February 3, 2009 10:53 AM
You're right. Jan Brewer is a Republican.
She was secretary of state in Arizona before succeeding Janet Napolitano as governor. (No lt. gov. in Arizona?)
Her bio at the governor's web site still refers to her as Secretary Brewer:
http://azgovernor.gov/BioJB.asp
Republicans in Washington can be more responsive, but there are quite a few Democrats in the Senate who have concerns and suggested improvements to the stimulus package, so maybe it's fair to ask whether House Democrats were too compliant.
I can understand Gregg's concern about yielding his seat to the Democrats, what with the millions of dollars parties invest in winning these seats, but I'd still like to think he would not have turned down the Cabinet post for a partisan reason. Maybe only he knows.
Posted on February 3, 2009 11:11 AM
The new Senator is far more liberal (RINO) than the existing. And replacing a 3 term Senator with a rookie who will not have nearly the name recognition, moola, backing, etc when election time comes back around in 2 years is not exactly a losing deal for the Dems.
It is still a nice gesture by all involved. And many seem to be happy with the choices being made.
Good for them and good for us.
Posted on February 3, 2009 11:18 AM
Good points.
Republican Bonnie Newman, the expected choice, supported Democrat John Lynch's gubernatorial campaign. She also says she won't run for election in 2010, so New Hampshire loses Gregg and gets a mere caretaker.
Meanwhile, the Manchester Union-Leader reports that Democratic Congressman Paul Hodes will announce his candidacy for the Senate seat.
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=In+2010%2c+Rep.+Hodes+will+run+for+U.S.+Senate&articleId=ed6a5d59-6865-40f6-8763-85a73233e519
This could turn into a Democratic gainer. However, including Gregg in the Obama cabinet is potentially a plus for bipartisanship and, if he's as capable as Obama thinks, for the country.
Posted on February 3, 2009 11:27 AM
Another brilliant move by Obama, once again out foxing the Republicrats. Gregg was the only true Republican in the senate from the Soviet Union (New England).
His strategy is to make the Demo-Rats the permanent majority party is working. I hope the citizens of "New" America won't be disappointed in their "new" country."
Posted on February 3, 2009 11:43 AM
Much more of that is needed in Washington.*Doug
lol.......what more unconsitutional votes!
The last great Senator from NH was Bob Smith and he had the guts to leave the Republican Party in the late 90's for just the opposite feel good warm and fuzzy Obama reasons.
It appears that Obama change means more old establishment politics as usual.....
Posted on February 3, 2009 1:32 PM
See the democrats are raising hell about this!
Was a great idea in Illinois a few weeks ago.
They want a special election.
Connie , no lobbyist in my kingdom, (really)
Seems to love tax cheats.
Now that change we should embrace.
This place may equal Raleigh, before Obama leaves.
Posted on February 3, 2009 3:34 PM
For all you folks (Conservatives/Republicans) who vociferously criticize Obama for his appointments and the lack of integrity that some of them have, I hope you criticized Bush as well. Otherwise, you have no credibility and should remain silent. Although I support Obama, I do not consider myself a Dem or a Repub. I would much rather be an American that is alligned to the rule, law, and justice. Those of you that supported the misdeeds of Scooter Libby/Cheney and said, "show me proof that they did something wrong." And now you're talking about ethics or lack there of with the current appointments...you are the problem with America. You (if that description fits you) are extremely hypocritical. I, on the other hand, feel liberated because I can unequivically support the Clinton impeachment and plus feel incredulous about the Rose law firm records mysteriously showing up on Clinton's secretary's desk...just as I feel incredulous about Bush and Cheney destroying years of emails, politicizing the justice dept, as well as their other misdeeds. The long and short is....if you voiced your opinion loudly when Bush engaged in his shenanigans, then feel free to do it now. Otherwise, please remain muted and go back to your cave.
Posted on February 5, 2009 7:10 AM
I love it how the conservatives call such respected Republicans as C. Powell a "RINO." It shows their lack of intellect and sense of history. It implies that if you're not a conservative created from the myopic mold of the far right (those who want to oppress science, tolerance, and the advancement of the human race - the antithesis of enlightenment), then they are not a "true" Republican.
I hate to educate you on the Repub. party however, it is necessary since your party has been hi-jacked by narrow thinkers. Essentially, the Republican party was considered progressive as far back as the civil war period...taking on the slave issue (Lincoln), being pro-environment (Teddy), and cautious of the military establishment (Dwight). It really has not been very long that the Repub. party has been so narrow in their thinking...only for roughly 40 or so years since the religious right and militia-advocating wakos from the south and west took over the party. Oh, I forgot to mention groups who were anti-minority - very narrow thinkers. Therefore, it is incorrect and shallow thinking to believe that thoughtful thinkers like C. Powell and others are not true Republicans - it's disrespectful and it comes from (in my opinion) an unenlightened frame of reference.
On the other hand, I hope the Repubs continue to claim the Rush L. mantle. It will result in the Conservatives being marginalized for many years to come. They are becoming a fringe group: albeit, one with a LOUD voice.
Posted on February 5, 2009 7:30 AM
To my knowledge no one mentioned Powell. I do not see RINO as an insult (I know many do) but I see it more as a moniker for liberal Rs. Of course, if we were true open minded thinkers we would treat RINOs with more respect. You know like the Ds did Lieberman.
Do folks like Rush and Hannity have some sway in the R party? Unfortunately yes. But not as much as open minded thinkers like Dave would like to believe. Personally I dont listen or watch much of either any more and I dont see myself as a trend setter (if you get my drift).
"We" have Rush and Hannity ... "they" have Olberman... same/same. Haters all. Kinda like Dave.
Posted on February 5, 2009 8:44 AM