2 things - 1st, what the fuck do we need another Republican in the Cabinet for, 2nd ...

[ThomWV]

1. Another fucking Republican to be appointed to what I thought would be a Democratic Administration when I voted for it.

2. Once again a Governor will make an appointment to the Senate, and once again it will reek.

[Vinca]

1. I'm puzzled why Lynch would think appointing a Rep. is a good idea

as it pertains to his own career. He'll never get votes from this household again. As for Gregg - a person I loathe - all I can figure is keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

[DianeK]

2. it will give the dems the 60 vote majority

it needs to prevent a filibuster

[ThomWV]

3. You have that exactly backwards

[Tesha]

4. But it won't do that because Lynch will probably appoint a Republican "placeholder".

Sure, it makes us more likely to win the seat in
2010 because Gregg, a moderately-strong incumbent
no longer warms it, but it does nothing good for us
in the short-term and Gregg in the Cabinet *WILL*
work to damage Obama.

Tesha

[KharmaTrain]

5. It's Innoculation...

It's not as though President Obama offered this job to Jim Imhoffe or some other wingnut to the cabinet. Judd's a moderate and I imagine he had to sign onto the Administration's plans before he accepted...not the other way around. Having a GOOP face makes it more difficult for not only his confirmation to be blocked but also for future funding and other legislative requests to go unanswered.

During the Clinton years I was critical of him naming William Cohen...like Gregg, a moderate New England repugnican, to Defense, but in the end, Cohen was one of Clinton's strongest supporters. With a GOOPer or two in the cabinet, this gives President Obama some wiggle room as far as both reminding the public who created these messes and that he's working for the majority...making any GOOP obstructionism look as the cheap political stunt it is.

The appointment is for only 2 years...and I've long been critical of a governor who flips a seat without the consent of the voters. While it'd be nice to get that 60th seat and give a Democrat a leg-up on winning a full term, the people of New Hampshire did vote for Gregg and his party and it should be up to them to remove that party, not a governor.

Cheers...

[ThomWV]

6. Your last paragraph sums it up nicely

It should indeed be up to the good people of New Hampshire to remove 'that' Party, not the Governor.

[pilsner]

7. IMO, it's stupid to appoint Gregg

unless he's going to be replaced by a Democrat.

Besides, Lieberman is a wild card. He could flip and become a Republican with the promise of a cabinet post when Republicans next win the White House.

Then we'd be right back to 59 Dems.

[polmaven]

8. Well of COURSE it is..

What could the President POSSIBLY be thinking in making appointments based on nothing more than what his own staff may be reporting to him, rather than checking in with DU, and making that the final word????

I mean,after all, we have all the inside dope on who belongs where. What could the President know that is better info than we have?

Wassa matter with you, Mr. President?

[KharmaTrain]

9. Just Because They're A Democrat...

I'd be more concerned with a Ben Nelson screwing up President Obama's agenda than either Judd Gregg or any moderate repugnican seleted to replace him. The big deal here is this knocks out an incumbent in a state that has been leaning Blue and opens up the '10 Senate race in both parties. In the end it could strengthen Democrats by making it easier for one to be elected to a full 6-year term...and be elected by the people, not the governor. I'm in Illionis...that's a very touchy subject, as you can imagine.

Liebermann's renegade days are all but over. I've been watching Droopy and he's been a very good boy in all votes so far...going with the Democrats. Methinks he may be a pain in votes about Iraq...but when it comes to social and economic issues that will dominate, he's a solid Obama vote.

Rarely does a party have 60 or more votes in the Senate...thus why there is more bipartisanship there than in the House. The fact Democrats are so close is an advantage as this will allow pressure to be placed on the remaining moderates...peeling away a Snowe or Specter or Grassley where needed to get things done. McConnell has a very fragile party...he'll be the one hard-pressed to keep it together...and if it's shown he and his inept party are obstructing in supporting both a popular President and an electorate wanting things done, he's only cutting his own throat...and that of his inept party.