Judd Gregg gets Secretary post AND gets Republican replacement?

[ddeclue]

What possible up side is there in this for progressive politics?

The guy actually voted to abolish the department he now plans to head back in the 1990's

Here is what care2.org had to say:

http://www.care2.com/causes/politics/blog/judd-gregg-why/

This morning, President Obama nominated Republican Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire to be his latest cabinet nominee--for Secretary of Commerce.

Which leaves me wondering...why?

Daily Kos gives a rundown of a New York Times article about how the deal played out, suggesting that Obama was first intrigued by the possibility of getting a Democrat to fill Senator Gregg's seat (see Marc's earlier post about why this is intriguing).

But when Gregg insisted that his seat be filled with a fellow Republican, Obama still chose to nominate him--in the spirit of bipartisanship. AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay echoes what progressives are all grumbling about today:

Just wondering: If a Republican president appointed a Democratic Senator to his cabinet, how many Republican governors would agree to deal that only let them replace a Democrat with a Democrat? I believe the answer is NONE. Democrats are such saps.

This bipartisanship spirit Obama keeps espousing is especially troubling in wake of the House Republicans' extreme partisanship with the stimulus package. And since Democrats haven't quite made that elusive 60 yet, Senator Gregg's vote is going to come into play. It'll be interesting to see whether he sides with his Senate Republican friends or his new boss.

Also troubling about Judd Gregg is his environmental record on marine issues, given that as Commerce Secretary he will control decision-making for U.S. ocean wildlife--for example, endangered marine species and commercial and recreational fishing.

Senator Gregg has been a strong supporter of the Bush administration's plans for offshore aquaculture--the mass production of fish in huge floating cages in ocean waters. He consistently expresses support for an experimental facility in New Hampshire and pushes for federal funding for ocean fish farming projects.

Want to express your disappointment with Obama's choice of Senator Gregg, especially given his environmental record? Sign a petition to encourage Obama to ensure Gregg does not push to allow ocean fish farming in the U.S. waters.

[MNDemNY]

1. It's a change we can believe in.

[Bolo Boffin]

2. And praises bipartisanship in his acceptance speech.

Give us some of dat bipartisanship!

[grantcart]

3. what is the problem with federal funding for ocean fish farming products

wouldn't successful ocean fish farming help solve the problem of predatory commercial fishing projects and avoid some of the envirionmental problems that on shore fish farms have?

just curious.

[hughee99]

4. I wasn't clear on that either,

though I'm not an expert on the politics of ocean fish farming.

[ddeclue]

6. I'm no expert on biology or the environment

but as an engineer who knows something about systems I would be afraid of the law of unintended consequences which says for every intentional act not only is there the intended consequence but that there is also one or more unintended consequences as well.

In short I think it seems a rather arrogant thing to do environmentally- especially if done all at once.

Does anyone really know what the consequences to the environment would be in doing this?

Remember that "killer bees" are an example of man's arrogance in messing with mother nature...

What if for instance these fish broke free from their confined area?

What if they interbred with the native fish?

What if they ate the native fish to the point of extinction?

What if they consumed so much of the natural food supply that they killed off the naturally occurring wildlife there?

What if they created large amounts of dangerous waste products that made their way into the environment that could not be absorbed by it. (Think a variation on "red tide")

In short I am not opposed to this concept generally but I don't think it should occur without serious study and even then it should only be introduced in stages, gradually and evaluated at every stage to make sure it hasn't done some irreparable harm.

Doug D.

[grantcart]

7. all good points

but for example some scientists now think that the introduction of 'killer bees' may be strengthening local bee populations against the 'hive collapse syndrome' that seems epidemic.


I am not for or against it but my point is that currently commercial fishing is destroying fishing stocks in many part of the world, while ocean farm fishing may have some deficiencies it would have to be pretty catastrophic to be worse than the current predator commercial fishing fleets that wonder outside of governemnt territories and operate without controls.

having the government involved in research responsible alternatives seems like a resonsible thing but I am totally ignorant.


My point is that it isn't operating in a vacuum but as a possible alternative to something that I perceive as to be catastrophically bad. (But I could be wrong on everything stated above from bees to hive collapse syndrome to the effects of international commercial fishing to the possibilities of ocean farm fishing - just hoping somebody with real expertise could inform).

[hughee99]

9. All issues that can be addressed and/or studied

on a small scale. The law of unintended consequences applies everywhere, but having questions and concerns shouldn't prevent us from studying things or trying new things.

[regnaD kciN]

5. And not just a Republican replacement...

...but not even the "moderate" Republican people were speculating would be named as a compromise.

Looks like we got played. Again. :grr:

[katandmoon]

8. No upside at all, just one more example of Obama's strange little fantasy world where

making nice with Republicans works, when in reality it has consistently proven not to.

[CTLawGuy]

10. not happy

but possible upsides include

1. He could be a back-channel liason to congressional Republicans in the way that Dick Morris was in the 1990s.

2. Dems have a better shot at taking Gregg's seat in two years with him not in it.

3. Obama gains unspecified bipartisan cred.

[Bobbie Jo]

11. Doesn't the new Senator have to start from scratch... in terms of seniority, chairmanships, etc..?

I so, its the only plus I can see here.

[Occam Bandage]

12. I dunno, other than replacing a conservative with a more moderate Republican,

replacing a popular incumbent with a zero-seniority nobody two years before the election, making the Republicans look even pettier and more childish, and putting that conservative Republican in a near-powerless spot where he'll be surrounded by Obama loyalists, I can't see an upside.

What's the argument against appointing Gregg? That he might increase domestic fish farming without proper studies beforehand? That's a pretty weak case. That he's a Republican and Republicans are evil and should be shunned? That's, er, pretty much the opposite of why American elected him.

[ddeclue]

13. I prefer the devil I know to the devil I don't...

How do you know that the replacement won't turn out to be surprisingly popular for some reason?

You don't...

I don't see any up side to this.

[Occam Bandage]

14. Appointed Senators have a pretty bad track record compared to elected incumbents.

If we're talking about the next two years, Gregg was a reliable hardcore conservative, who is going to be sitting on his ass and making paper airplanes for the next four years. Bonnie Newman, on the other hand, campaigned for the Democratic governor of NH, John Lynch. That doesn't scream "arch-conservative" to me. She's likely going to be weaker than Gregg, since appointed candidates always are, she's probably going to face a primary challenger, she's going to have zero seniority, meaning she won't be able to buy NH's affection, and she's going to cross party lines more often than Gregg did.

Again: what is the downside? That she might, as you put it, "turn out to be surprisingly popular for some reason?" That's a pretty weak case.