Gregg Supports Stimulus But Won't Vote On It

[democracy1st]

Senator Judd Gregg, nominated to head the Commerce Department in the Obama White House, delivered a double blow to the prospects of a stimulus bill passing the Senate when he let it be known on Wednesday that he generally supported the measure but would not vote on its passage.

"I have recused myself from voting during the pendency of my nomination," Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican, told CNBC.

Earlier in the program he said he was "not really engaged in the stimulus bill," but that he did believe "we need one."

"We need a robust one," he added. "I think the one that's pending is in the range we need. I do believe it's a good idea to do it at two levels, which this bill basically does, which is immediate stimulus and long-term initiatives which actually improve our competitiveness and our productivity."

By recusing himself from voting on a package that he claimed to broadly support, Gregg effectively denied Senate Democrats a possibly significant vote in passing the legislation. Majority whip Dick Durbin and others have begun expressing concerns that the stimulus won't get the 60 votes it needs to pass a Republican filibuster. Gregg could have voted on its passage up until the point that he officially resigned from office.

A cynic might wonder whether the New Hampshire Republican's support for the stimulus was being offered as a means of maneuvering his way towards the White House. Pressed by host Larry Kudlow on whether he had suddenly found the burning bush of Keynsian economics -- Gregg is, after all, a self-described fiscal conservative -- the Senator said that his position was sincere.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/04/gregg-supports-stimulus-b_n_163956.html


worst appointment by far !

[liberalpragmatist]

1. Yeah, I agree

And I'm generally a defender of Obama's. This one has me scratching my head.

On the plus side, we get a very likely pickup in 2010. And Commerce doesn't do a whole lot.

But seriously, why? How is Gregg so qualified for the position? And he's not even a "moderate" Republican - he's an ardent conservative. It really doesn't make much sense to me.

[Occam Bandage]

3. You just said why.

He's an ardent conservative, and his Senate replacement will be a moderate conservative. Commerce doesn't do a whole lot, so Gregg will basically sit on his ass and fold paper airplanes for four years. That's a net win for us. And we'll likely pick up the seat in 2010. That makes it even better.

Other than the visceral reaction to having "another Republican in the cabinet," what's the downside?

[liberalpragmatist]

4. I don't think it's a disaster

And you're right that it may well be a net positive. There are, however, a couple substantive problems. For example, Gregg now runs the Census, which has been relatively contentious politically in the past couple of decades, with Democrats wanting it to be augmented by statistical survey data (since census forms underreport minorities and low-income citizens).

Overall though, it just seems like kind of a baffling pick, I guess. It's not like Obama needed another Republican in his cabinet. And Gregg won't even vote for Obama's stimulus package! I mean, what the hell?

[Every Man A King]

2. Will you come back and post when it passes anyway?

How about when we pick up this seat in 2010?