In a stunning move that no one saw coming, Judd Gregg has withdrawn his Cabinet nomination. In a conference call he held shortly after with journalists and that was televised live on WMUR, Gregg announced that he “does not expect” to run for re-election in 2010.
This double shocker is the best of all possible worlds for Democrats, and a huge relief for all progressives who were worried that such a conservative Republican was being entrusted with a Cabinet position. Not only can liberals now hope to get someone closer to their preoccupations (is there anyone more conservative Obama could nominate?), but Democrats also still have their shot at an open seat in 2010.
Gregg becomes Obama’s second pick for Commerce Secretary to drop out, after Bill Richardson. In a lengthy statement, Gregg explained that he realized that he had too many irreconcilable differences with the Administration for his nomination to work:
It has become apparent during this process that this will not work for me as I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the Census there are irresolvable conflicts for me. Prior to accepting this post, we had discussed these and other potential differences, but unfortunately we did not adequately focus on these concerns. We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy. Obviously the President requires a team that is fully supportive of all his initiatives.
Needless to say, Gregg already knew that he had profound ideological differences with the Obama Administration when he accepted the nomination. After all, he is a a reliable advocate of free-market policies and a conservative Republican who spent most of 2008 denouncing Obama’s economic proposals. What must have changed over the past ten days, then, is news that the White House would pull the Census Bureau from the Commerce Department and make the Census Director report directly to Rahm Emmanuel, Obama’s Chief of Staff. Republicans were infuriated at the move, and it must have made Gregg realize that he would be a powerless figure in the Cabinet.
The White House Press Secretary has already issued a statement putting the blame on the New Hampshire Senator:
Senator Gregg reached out to the President and offered his name for Secretary of Commerce. He was very clear throughout the interviewing process that despite past disagreements about policies, he would support, embrace, and move forward with the President’s agenda. Once it became clear after his nomination that Senator Gregg was not going to be supporting some of President Obama’s key economic priorities, it became necessary for Senator Gregg and the Obama administration to part ways. We regret that he has had a change of heart.
As someone who was critical of the Gregg pick, I am skeptical of this statement. Could the White House really not have expected some major policy disagreements with its appointee? As I said above, Gregg never had the reputation of a moderate, unlike Transportation Secretary and fellow Republican Ray LaHood. It seems a bit hypocritical for the Administration to now proclaim that policy positions should matter.
But Obama is now in a great position: He can appoint a Democrat to the Commerce Department while still pointing out that he went through the trouble of appointing a conservative Republican, getting whatever benefit he expected to get out of a show of bipartisanship without having to worry about naming a GOPer to the Cabinet.
Gregg had yet to resign his Senate seat, which means that he will continue serving in the chamber. You have to feel a little bit bad for Bonnie Newman, who was preparing herself to become New Hampshire’s new Senator. (This is the second time someone’s hopes are raised to be crushed soon after: New Mexico’s Lieutenant Governor Diane Denish was preparing to become Governor until Richardson withdrew his own Cabinet nomination.) This is the only bad news out of this move: Democrats will not be able to count on the more moderate vote of Bonnie Newman.
As for 2010, it first looked like Gregg’s withdrawal would change everything by denying Democrats a shot at an open seat; if anything, Gregg could have been strengthened by the episode if he argued that Obama’s interest in tapping him showed that he is bipartisan and centrist. But Gregg quickly announced that he “does not expect” to run for re-election in 2010. (His formulation leaves the door open for him to change his mind, but he will have to do so soon, before other Republicans plan a Senate run of their own.)
In other words, nothing has changed insofar as the midterms are concerned. New Hampshire’s Senate seat will still be open for the taking - and Democrats start with the upper-hand (as we had already discussed this morning).
Update: Gregg’s withdrawal is destined to inject even more partisanship in Obama’s opening month. And I cannot say I am too upset about that. As I have argued many times before on this blog, a clear partisan contrast between the governing coalition and a neatly defined opposition is vital for democracy to function - and that is something that has always been lacking in American politics (despite protests that Washington is consumed by bickering, partisan lines are much muddier than in other Western democracies).
So to recap: Gregg himself seems to have suddenly realized that yes, policy differences do matter when one is trying to govern a country (why else hold elections?); Mitch McConnell congratulated Gregg’s “principled stance,” echoiing statements from other prominent Republicans; Claire McCaskill took a partisan shot at Gregg via Twitter while encouraging Obama not to “give up on changing the unproductive partisan habits,” and TPM reports that Democratic staffers are furious that Gregg decided not just to politely decline, but rather to blow shit up and burn the bridge behind him.”
Fantastic news! If he had had his way on the Census, it would have probably meant dramatic undercounting of minorities (especially illegals) in the big cities, which would have meant inappropriate distribution of federal population-based grants.
Unlike Ray LaHood, who at least understands that being part of the administration means sharing its positions, Gregg wasn’t even able to vote for the stimulus package! The guy’s a creep.
Let’s hope we’ll get a Democratic candidate for the post ASAP.
Well, it seems to me that Gregg understood what was obvious from the beginning: that he would be a powerless figurehead at Commerce. Apparently the decision to put the census under Emanuel’s jurisdiction was the last straw, altough hardly unexpected considering Gregg’s stance back in 2000.
I grew up two minutes from the NH border. The state’s changing a bit, and was always quite liberal on social issues to begin with. No love for today’s bible thumping GOP there. Gregg’s going down in ‘10.
This is quite a shocker, however seeing that Gregg was quite conservative it’s probably in the end not a suprise. It was always interesting that Obama would pick someone who was generally considered a conservative on social issues and espcially ecnomic issues and of the conflicts that would certainly arise. This is certainly a blow to Obama, who wants to have bipartisan cabinet, and again he has to search for a new nominee.
In terms of the politcal ramifiacation for the NH Senate seat in 2010, we don’t know if Gregg will run reelection, indeed he could still retire. However I’m inclined that he will be under heavy pressure by McConnell and the rest of the Senate GOP now that he decided to say in the Senate. I don’t think that this development will cause Hodes to reconsider his plans to run for the NH seat, as he had already been contemplating challanging Gregg before the commerence secreatry. However if Gregg does run for reelection, then there will be very heavy pressure for Shea Porter to not challange Hodes in a primary, as it would force him to spend money against her while Gregg is accumlating cash. She would probably be just as strong as Hodes as a challanger, but it would be much more difficult for the Democrats to hold her district than it would to hold Hodes more Democratic leaning district.
I would say that this decision probably moves New Hampshire down back to the lean retention category. However it would probably be the most competive of the lean GOP seats, with only the PA race with Specter coming close. This would assume that Hodes doesn’t drop his bid to run for the NH seat, because if he did drop out and Shea-Porter decided against replacing him, then the seat would fall down to the likely category. Gregg will be much tougher to defeat than any other Republican who would have ran in a open election.
The stimulus bill lays the foundation for much of Obama’s domestic agenda - education, healthcare, energy, infrastructure, taxes. By picking Gregg they sidelined a vote and a voice against the stimulus long enough for the bill to pass. Gregg’s reputation is now trashed and he won’t run in 2010. Obama looks like he’s just trying so hard to be bipartisan while the Republicans seem like raving partisans.
Well if Gregg doesn’t run for reelection then that is good news for Democrats (especially Hodes), and nearly half of my previous post should be disregarded (although he could still change his mind and run for reelection). The only bad news for Dems is that Newman probably would have been much more liberal and willing to vote for Obama’s proposals than Gregg apparently would have.
Oh and Strategery, even if Gregg had voted against the Stimulus it would have still passed the Senate, seeing as how it had more than 60 votes to pass. The concern would be if one of the 3 GOP senators who did vote for it were to change their mind and vote against it.
Since you all posted, Gregg was asked if he’ll run for reelection–and he said “Will I run? Probably not.” So I’m going to take his word for it and assume that his seat will be open in 2010.
So all things considered, this didn’t really affect anything regarding 2010. Paul Hodes will still run. Carol Shea-Porter might still make a go for it but it is still unlikely. Republicans still need to start their recruitment process in New Hampshire, which wouldn’t have been any different had Gregg gone on to be Commerce Secretary–so they still need a Sununu or a Bass to make this race competitive.
This clearly has a large effect on the Obama administration–it is strike two for them for filling this position (strike one being Bill Richardson). I’m curious to see how this all plays out: will there be more back-and-forth negative comments between Gregg and the White House? Will Obama replace Gregg in his cabinet with another Republican?
This is not a good day for anyone, especially Bonnie Newman. Poor Bonnie.
Indeed, poor Bonnie! As I pointed out in my post, she joins Diane Denish as someone whose hopes were crushed by the Commerce Secretary’s withdrawal’s. I also would certainly hope that Obama does not make another effort to find a Republican to fill this post, especially not a conservative Republican like Gregg. What kind of message would that send about the importance of one’s policy preferences?
Bonnie is in even worsh shape than Dian Denish. At least she is the Lt. Governor and the heavy favorite for the Democratic nomination to be the new Governor. Bonnie wouldn’t had a chance in a primary
In terms of who he would replace Commerence with, if Obama did pick a Republican it would have to be a a pretty liberal one or else he would get into trouble yet again.
I agree with Taniel that this is really good news for Obama. He gets credit for bipartisanship for appointing Gregg while not actually having to deal with his fiscal conservative outlook.
Gregg loses because he has burned his bridges with his Republican cohorts. It will be interesting to see if he faces any repercussions from the Senate Republican leadership for his leap into the Obama administration. Because of that and also that he will not be re-offering in 2010 they must consider him a loose cannon who will support any position on any issue.
I agree this is great news for the Dems. Obama and the Democrats look bipartisanship whilst the Republicans look like obstructionists and partisan. As this image gets engrained (Obama needs to continue looking like he is being bipartisan) then the GOP will decisively fall behind with Independents. Then Obama is highly likely to get re-elected in 2012 especially since the GOP will pick a conservative like Palin, Jindal or Romney. The GOP base will be pleased but 35-40% of the vote gets you wiped out.
Yes Gregg is still in the senate but he would have been if Obama hadn`t picked him. So no loss.
Mike, it is perhaps foolhardy to assume that Obama will easily win reelection in 2012. If the stimulas package fails to stimulate the ecnomny, then he will be blamed for it and will vulernable to a challange. Yes, Palin is probably damaged goods and probalby can’t beat Obama, but Rommney, Jindal or something else is a different story…
Jaxx - I know it is early and stuff happens. But if Obama continues to be pragmatic, reasonable and bipartisan then he is in a strong position. Remember all the Republican charges against him in 2008 were a) he is inexperienced and b) he is a radical liberal with dangerous associations. Come 2012 neither will be true so what do the GOP have? The economy was inherited and everyone thinks it is very bad so it will take years to solve - therefore he has time. The GOP brand is not improving - they are throwing bipartisan gestures in Obama’s face and they are obstructing. How does that help them in 2012?
Mike I will say that a large factor in the GOP challanging Obama will deal with state of the economy. If it seems to be on the way back, then it will be extremly difficult for the GOP to take back the White House no matter who they nominate. However, if it’s judged to have little effect, then Obama’s reelection chances would be imperiled and many of the speculated GOP candidates (with the exception of Sarah Palin, who in my opinion, who has probably forever destroyed her image among independents and Democrats nationwide) would have a good chance of taking him out. If spending alot of moeny doesn’t work, don’t be suprised if the public thinks massive tax cuts instead would work better.
Certainly the people expect the ecnomny to take years to come back up to full speed, but between now and 2012 (and even at 2010) there is enough time to see if the stimulus is at least slowing down the job losses and bail out easing the credit crunch if not halting it or doing a complete reversal.
Honestly, I find the circus regarding the Commerce Secretary appointment rather hysterical. We’ve now had two withdrawals, three if you count Penny Pritzker. Two nominees pulled out due to corruption charges and one because I suspect he realized he was just going to be a token figurehead. At this point, the office appears so devalued I wonder who would want it. Maybe Obama should appoint Roland Burris, lol. It would solve the problem of what to do with him for 2010, which the party is already worrying about.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18759.html
I also hear Pay-Rod is looking for work.
Jaxx - I agree that the public will expect something to happen in the next four years and all the betting now (for what that is worth) is that by the end of next year at the latest the recession will be over and then unemployment will start to fall (a lagging indicator).
What I found ammusing yesterday was Karl Rove’s article in the Wall Street Journal when he said Obama paid a large price for this stimulus packagae. I think the GOP have painted themselves in a corner. They have found comfort in complaining and being obstructionist at all turns (why hold up the Labor secretary confirmation - still not confirmed etc etc) even on relatively trivial stuff (Dems never did it when they had 44 senators back in 2002). This pleases the GOP base but is turning off Independents and moderate Democrats and tarnishing the GOP brand even further.
Karl Rove is assumed to be such a political guru but he is wrong more than he is right. His predictions - Bush would win by 6% in 2000, GOP would win mid terms in 2006 and Obama would win narrowly in 2008. Umm not that succesful. Yes he led the GOP to victories in 2002 and 2004 but not hard in 2002 as Sept 11th was still recent and Kerry was not the best candidate in 2004.