Flashback: Judd Gregg voted to abolish Commerce Dept.
By on Feb 3rd, 2009 at 11:05 am
Flashback: Judd Gregg voted to abolish Commerce Dept.
Moments ago, President Obama nominated Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) to head the Department of Commerce. CQ notes that Gregg has worked in the Senate “to trim the department’s budget as head of the Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations Subcommittee.” In fact, in 1995, Gregg “voted in favor of abolishing the agency”:
Gregg’s 1995 votes were cast for the fiscal 1996 budget resolution, a nonbinding blueprint that outlined the GOP’s fiscal priorities after Republicans won full control of Congress for the first time in 40 years.
See the roll call vote here. Gregg also opposed President Clinton’s efforts to increase funding for the Department to run the 2000 census.
Update Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) praises the nomination but adds:
"[T]he apparent behind-the-scenes deal-making that went on to determine who will fill Senator Gregg's vacancy is alarmingly undemocratic. Once again, Americans will be represented in the Senate for nearly two years by someone they had no hand in electing. As the number of Senators appointed to their seats continues to rise, it’s increasingly clear that we need to fix this constitutional anachronism. It is time to pass a constitutional amendment to end appointments by governors and the political gamesmanship they encourage.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Hannity
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Call me dense, but I just don’t get this appointment. If the NH Gov, a Dem, has somehow promised to appoint another GOPer to take Gregg’s place, and Gregg, by all appearances, is anti-Commerce Dept. what is the point?
PEACE
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:17 amSo what? Politically, the Dems now have a great chance of picking up the seat in 2010.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:18 amIf his acceptance had a prerequisite of a repug being put in his place — how is that NOT a bribe or “pay to play”? Just HOW?
The repugs have made it clear, they will be just as bi-partizan as they were over the last 8 years. I suppose there may be a couple who act like they are being paid by the taxpayers to be public servants interested in what is best for the AMERICAN PEOPLE, but there won’t be many. Are all the rotten apples getting in choice positions REALLY worth trying to find those one or two gems in the rough who might be out there?
Time will tell.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:20 amWell, then he’s perfect for the job!
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:23 amThat’s it,
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:23 amI shall seek a dentist who wishes to do away with Medical Dentistry.
That makes sense, huh?
mk3872 Says:
So what? Politically, the Dems now have a great chance of picking up the seat in 2010.
Precisely right. I heard the other day that by the time the 2010 midterm rolls around, the main issues on the table will be Health Care and Entitlement programs which will most likely require a 60 seat Dem Senate to make substantial progress.
Obama is a chess player.
It is definitely a shock to the system to not be able to immediately identify some of Obama’s strategies. Quite unlike the Bush administration whose preferred method of “getting things done” involved breaking the rules and utilizing incompetence as an obfuscation tool.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:25 amWill he reverse his position 180 degrees? Following standard GOP rules of engagement…. yes. If he is confirmed to the position he will suddenly be very concerned about how the department is lacking in funds, and will be seeking more. The ideology is NOT smaller government (that is the lie told the little people) — it is “get yours, screw everyone else.” Wait and see. He will be seeking to expand.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:27 amHas the NH gov “promised” the seat to another GOP’er? As Andrew Sullivan commented yesterday…
Matt Miller is puzzled by Republican Senator Judd Gregg considering becoming Commerce secretary:
Commerce is typically a backwater cabinet post far from the action on anything. Even the most creative reinvention of the job would leave it nowhere near the thick of key issues like the budget and the future of Social Security and Medicare, which Gregg’s Senate posts give him a real voice in. Plus, if Al Franken is finally seated, and New Hampshire’s Democratic governor appoints a Democrat to replace Gregg, Senate Democrats would reach the magic 60 votes that could give them the power to really get things done. I can see why it’s a brilliant move for Obama if he can pull it off, but what Gregg is thinking escapes me.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:27 amSomeone here, without using “the Google” please tell me the last “impact decision made” by the Commerce Secretary?
Gregg won’t have veto power over policies that Obama wants to implement, and when 2010 rolls around it is a near certainty that NH will elect a Democrat for their Senate seat.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:27 amLook, can someone please explain to me why on earth we want to have a Republican of any stripe anywhere near Commerce? Wasn’t it the last 8 years that saw the Republicans dismantle and destroy commercial and business regulation??
This is what Wikipedia has to say about the Dept of Commerce:
The mission of the department is to “promote job creation and improved living standards for all Americans by creating an infrastructure that promotes economic growth, technological competitiveness, and sustainable development.” Among its tasks are gathering economic and demographic data for business and government decision-making, issuing patents and trademarks, and helping to set industrial standards.
Can anyone tell me why we should let someone with a clear Republican point of view be setting our industrial standards??
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:28 amAmong its tasks are gathering economic and demographic data for business and government decision-making, issuing patents and trademarks, and helping to set industrial standards.
Can anyone tell me why we should let someone with a clear Republican point of view be setting our industrial standards??
I think that those standards must comply with other departments in terms of environmental impact etc. I don’t believe that the Commerce Secretary is in a position to override any of the policies that set the framework which his decisions rest in.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:36 amWasn’t a governor just kicked out of office last week for playing quid pro quo with a senate seat?
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:39 amJust because Gregg wanted to abolish the department when Clinton was in office does not mean he will feel that way when he is in the cabinet. Functionally, Commerce is not a front line position. It isn’t unusual to place an old crony (think Malcolm Ballridge under Ronnie Raygun) or a member of the opposite party (especially a token Republican) in the spot. The Rs wanted to gut the department when Clinton was in office in part to weaken the executive and in part because they didn’t like Ron Brown who had the job for a few years before his untimely death. You note they didn’t try to get rid of it under Chimpy. This makes some sense. Gregg gets four more years in DC and doesn’t have to run again in an increasingly blue state. Obama gets more bipartisan cred. New Hampshire probably gets another Dem senator in two years.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:39 amWhy is Russ Feingold the only federal legislator who continually speaks sense in public?
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:43 am… more confused now than ever…
have been wondering and asking for days just what qualifies this guy to head commerce…
does this mean it is because he wants to eliminate the dept.???
shades of JOHN BOLTON ??? (yell when you say that)
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:48 ami did just read this on the FAST thread, and it helped, some:
ElBruce:
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:51 amI don’t see a big downside. The Cabinet is not a voting body. They do what they’re told. It was worth a shot; maybe he could have gotten the Senate flipped, and he looks good for doing so. It’s becoming increasingly clear who the real “partisans” are as long as Obama keeps holding his hand out for them to bite.
spencers mom Says:
Call me dense, but I just don’t get this appointment.
I don’t get it either. What’s in it for Obama? If he thinks it will help him in his attempt at bipartisanship with the Republicans, one would think that he would have gotten the message by now that it’s not going to happen.
I also don’t get it as to why Lynch would agree to go along with this. It isn’t going to help his political career as a Democrat. I know if I was a resident of NH I would be really pissed at Lynch if he appoints a Republican, especially one that is simply the female version of Gregg.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:54 amMysteriousTraveller Says:
Wasn’t a governor just kicked out of office last week for playing quid pro quo with a senate seat?
I’m sure that this is not going to be lost on Blago, who is hitting the TV circuit once again. He may be insane, but he’s not stupid. He’s going to bring this up as an example of how he was “railroaded”.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:55 ammk3872 Says:
So what? Politically, the Dems now have a great chance of picking up the seat in 2010.
That chance was already there without picking Gregg for Commerce. NH has gone pretty blue and conventional wisdom said any Republican’t running would have lost.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:59 amYeah, I don’t think this was a great idea after all. I’m sick of people in government who don’t believe their jobs should be done. Of course, he can always be fired if he doesn’t do a good job. Then he’d be just another schmuck, which would make me grin.
.
CageyCretin Says:
If his acceptance had a prerequisite of a repug being put in his place — how is that NOT a bribe or “pay to play”? Just HOW?
Because nobody got offered or paid any money.
.
cubilist Says:
Has the NH gov “promised” the seat to another GOP’er?
Gregg says he promised it to him. But Lynch will only call it an “understanding.” Link.
If it turns out Gregg let himself get punk’d, he’s probably going to be persona non grata to the Republican party for a long, long time.
But as others have pointed out here, even with a R placeholder, that seat will be easy pickings in 2010 with no real incumbent.
I think Lynch should appoint Sam “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher to Gregg’s seat, just to make sure. Who’s with me?
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:01 pmRegardless of Judd’s political past, his new job REQUIRES him to fulfill and promote Obama’s Commerce policy.
Hope that crow both tastes great and is more filling.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:16 pmWell, I think Finegold’s got it right, or we risk pinheads like Wurzelbacher being appointed. We already got the Roland Burris Fiasco (sounds like a band name) from the Illinois vacancy, and Dem or not, that guy is batshit crazy.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:18 pmWindSore, your Great Zero Bush is no longer president. Wake up and inhale the aroma of a new beginning. Or STFU.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:18 pmDeal-making on appointments of senators is apparently illegal only in Illinois?
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:19 pmElBruce Says:
CageyCretin Says:
If his acceptance had a prerequisite of a repug being put in his place — how is that NOT a bribe or “pay to play”? Just HOW?
Because nobody got offered or paid any money.
Last time I looked, the illegality of extortion (which is what “pay to play” is), was not dependent on money changing hands.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:22 pmHeh. I don’t see ANY Repuke who is worth being held hostage for (re NH Democratic gov must pick another Repuke to fill his spot)…
Screw ‘em. They LOST. And they lost for good reason. I wish the Dems would remember that.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:26 pmDirty Hippie Says:
Well, I think Finegold’s got it right, or we risk pinheads like Wurzelbacher being appointed. …
which would be worse, that? or being elected?
but, yes, feingold does have it right…
and i dunno how “batshit crazy” burris is, but we’ll soon see how he works on the U.S. level… i’m just amazed that he’s out of southern illinois… there IS a LOT more to illinois than chicago…
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:29 pmMaybe — juuuust maybe — after devoting full-time energies to Commerce and being surrounded by intelligent, thoughtful, leaders, Mr. Gregg will see the wisdom of the president’s vision and can support him through words and actions.
That’d really confuse the die-hard Palinbots.
Just as we had occasion to doubt Obama’s planning during his campaign, I think we need to trust — not blindly, just patiently — this new notion of change.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:45 pm>Sigh< I lived in WI for 9 years. I really miss being rep’d by Feingold.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:57 pmBilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
Last time I looked, the illegality of extortion (which is what “pay to play” is), was not dependent on money changing hands.
Before you said it was bribery, now you’re saying it’s extortion. “Pay to play” would be bribery. Extortion is coercing someone to do something with the threat of releasing embarrasing or incriminating information about them.
Some states actually have laws on the books preventing an interim appointment from changing the majority party in the Senate. There is a good reason for this. Whether you or I agree with it, NH elected a Republican to the Senate. Therefore, the NH voters are the ones who’s will should be respected.
In this case, it’s perfectly fair to extract a promise before taking the job. Mind you, it’s not legally binding, and Lynch can still do whatever he wants. But if he lies to Gregg and goes back on it, that would be a totally dick move.
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:04 pmI stoped hoping for change with Obama’s silence about the PALESTINIAN MASSACRE…
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:21 pmI really stop hoping for change when I heard that Obama kept Bush’s policy of RENDITION…
[gives Feingold a standing ovation (as usual)]
Anyway you look at it, it is pay to play, but it IS the way the game is played. He will only be confirmed because others have an assurance that it will not upset the balance of power. That is a quid pro quo. Senators confirm, if and only if, they have an assurance of a Republican replacement. The real story is Feingold speaking out about changing the system EVEN WHEN IT CURRENTLY BENEFITS HIS PARTY. When was the last time you saw a Republican propose something in the best interest of the country if it didn’t benefit their party?
Where are the other senators like Feingold (proud to be from Wisconsin).
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:40 pm.
Figures that a Constitutional Lawyer who, when under Oath to “Protect and Defend” said Constitution, voted to undermine said Constitution, would pick someone to head up an agency who once wished to abolish said agency he’s now being appointed to run, NO?
.
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:22 pmsacopenapa Says:
I stoped hoping for change with Obama’s silence about the PALESTINIAN MASSACRE…
I really stop hoping for change when I heard that Obama kept Bush’s policy of RENDITION…
February 3rd, 2009 at 1:21 pm
_________
Obama is not keeping Bush’s policy of rendition, since it wasn’t Bush’s policy. It dates back to the Reagan administration There’s nothing wrong with rendition – it’s an important tool of international law enforcement that complies with the Geneva Conventions.
The problem is Bush’s policy of EXTRAORDINARY rendition – transferring detainees to countries known to practice torture. Obama is not continuing this policy.
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:22 pm#1 Spencers mom,
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:23 pmIt’s called bipartisanship, the Democrats way.
See, it’s all about “COMPROMISE”.
You know, values, principles, laws…
It’s called triangulation which does not do much for progressive politics.This is starting to look like the same BS now dressed in camouflage.
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:39 pmI’m not getting this but I’m giving Obama the benefit of doubt for a while.
February 3rd, 2009 at 7:07 pm“Gregg also opposed President Clinton’s efforts to increase funding for the Department to run the 2000 census.”
Aaaaah, I now see why President Obama and his Blue Dog Democrat advisers chose Gregg to be Commerce Secretary over many more liberal, progressive Democrats who would no doubt do a much better job…the upcoming 2010 census.
So, will putting a die-hard Republican in charge of the Commerce Department have any impact on how the census is conducted shortly?
And will this Republican-slanted census process cost a whole lot of Democrats, especially of the liberal, progressive persuasion, their voting power, thus costing Democrats seats in Congress?
What the hell is President Obama thinking?!?!?
February 3rd, 2009 at 9:20 pmwhat
sikis
April 26th, 2009 at 2:13 pmporno izle
porno videolar
porn videos
next
sikis
April 26th, 2009 at 2:14 pmporno izle
porno videolar
porn videos