If This Is Change It's A Wooden Nickel- Judd Gregg Sucks!

[Orwellian_Ghost]

Radical Free Trader to Head Government's Trade Enforcement Apparatus
by: David Sirota
Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 09:42

Per Chris's post this morning, I just wanted to remind folks that Judd Gregg (R-NH) - who has built up a record of voting for every single corporate-written trade deal of the last generation - will now be heading the government agency that is supposed to enforce the meager fair trade laws we have on the books, and whatever new fair trade laws get passed.

That's right, the Commerce Department is the home of the International Trade Administration, whose mission is to "ensure fair trade and compliance with trade laws and agreements." During the Bush administration, this key agency was used to enforce the protectionist provisions in trade deals that help corporations - stuff like patents and intellectual property. But it could also be used to enforce the minimal human rights, anti-dumping and anti-currency-manipulation provisions in trade deals, as well.

And though Barack Obama campaigned on specific fair trade promises, it's hard to believe that the government's trade enforcement apparatus will be focused on fair trade now that Gregg will run it.

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=11326

In a very real sense, the appointment of Gregg is the equivalent of the Bush administration hiring people to government offices they had previously worked to destroy. Gregg not only voted to eliminate the Commerce Department he now heads, he will run the trade enforcement agency he has worked to undermine.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Judd Gregg's Plan To Destroy Social Security
by: Chris Bowers
Mon Feb 02, 2009 at 17:19

New Hampshire Republican Senator Judd Gregg is one of the leading candidates to become Commerce Secretary, if not the leading candidate. If he were to become Commerce Secretary, the Democratic Governor of New Hampshire would appoint a Republican a replace his seat.

So, for some reason, in the wake of total Republican intransigence on the stimulus bill, the Obama administration will respond by putting a Republican in charge of one the federal departments overseeing the economy. Judd Gregg himself has said he will oppose the stimulus package. That is certainly an, um, interesting way for the Obama administration to incentivize Republican opposition. Oppose President Obama, and he will reward you by giving you a cabinet position.

It is worth noting what sort of ideas Judd Gregg has for the economy: a commission of center-right insiders operating in secret and circumventing Congress in order to destroy Social Security and Medicare.

<snip>

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=11314

Yes, Commerce Secretary Is Important
by: Chris Bowers
Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 05:00

So, Judd Gregg will become Commerce Secretary, and a Republican will keep Gregg's seat in the Senate. Gregg's lifetime Progressive Punch rating of 10.08 out of 100.00, and 6.91 "when the chips are down," should make him a much needed right-wing champion for the Commerce Department.

Gregg should also be a useful voice during cabinet meetings, making sure that President Obama and the other radical liberals there don't over-reach.

Now, even though Gregg is a conservative Republican and I am a progressive Democrat, I generally agree with the argument that there are no progressives qualified to run the government. We are incompetent managers after all, just like Republicans have always said. This is why I did not apply for a job in the Obama administration. Better to leave it to the serious, non-ideological people.

Further, bipartisan gestures like this are likely to pay big dividends when President Obama and congressional Democrats need Republican support. Results speak for themselves, and Republicans have been voting with Democrats at a record pace so far during 2009.

Yet further, I agree with the arguments that the Commerce Department isn't very important. For one thing, it only has a budget of $8.2 billion. Even beyond its meager finances, as I explain in the extended entry, it also touches on a number of entirely unimportant areas.

End snark:

<snip>

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=11324

[BobRossi]

1. DLC baby!

We was punked again!

[Stinky The Clown]

2. Off to the Greatest with ya

He sucks big time. And there is NO GOOD FUCKING REASON he got named.

He's not on the same side I am.

[nichomachus]

3. Bipartisanship

A process in which the Democrats give the Republicans anything they want and expect nothing in return.

[FLAprogressive]

4. +1

[burythehatchet]

5. I thought bipartisanship is when we are graced with a reacharound

[nichomachus]

7. Only if Larry Craig is involved

[endarkenment]

12. we have seen it all before. 1992. Here we go. Hang on.

[blindpig]

28. This guy is gonna make Clinton look like a liberal. n/t

[HughMoran]

92. That's giving him a chance

not.

[The Brethren]

64. Foolishness is what I call it.

[The Doctor.]

65. Just think of this;

"At the pleasure of the President"

I just hope he's that ruthless.

[RedstDem]

75. Nail

Meet hammer....

[HughMoran]

91. A checker player might think that way

A chess player might disagree.

[bagrman]

93. Bi-partneringship. the 2 sides of the same nickel. Everyone forgets

that our government is owned by the corporations. If a Representative doesn't toe the line they won't get the money or the press to get them back in their seats. We all want to look at Obama as our salvation but he can't do anything unless it's will eventually going to benefit the fascist owners of this country. When he brought in Clinton, everyone should have gotten a clear message, business as usual. To many unused lamp posts in Washington.

[burythehatchet]

6. I'm done

[buff2]

8. I am really disappointed and disgusted

I thought in this election we were rid of the repukes and their power grab. I was wrong.Like Clinton,Obama will get what he deserves after sucking up to rethugs.You would think he would have learned from that. YOU CAN'T BE NICE TO ANY RETHUG and get anywhere. They will never accept a dem unless it's a Joe Lieberman dem. Khrist,I can't believe what's going on. It's totally depressing. :banghead:

[Orwellian_Ghost]

9. My Breakfast with Judd

My Breakfast with Judd

I had breakfast with U.S. Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) this morning. Well, me and a whole bunch of others, most of whom are members of the Greater Portsmouth (NH) Chamber of Commerce. A few of us from our local peace group, “Seacoast Peace Response”, decided that since it was a public event, we would attend because we hoped to express some very deep concerns to Mr. Gregg.


Mr. Gregg was introduced a few minutes after 8:00, and he spoke until about 8:20. From early on in his speech, I could hear the language of racism and fear mongering. In his speech, and in response to my question later on, Mr. Gregg invoked all of the now standard responses of the hawks who are benefiting from the so-called war on terrorism the most.


He echoed George W. Bush’s first speech following the attacks of September 11, 2001 saying that “Islamic fundamentalists” hate our way of life, hate our freedom, we are at war, etc. They hate our way of life. I hated that lie the first time I heard it, and I hate it still. What about years of US support for vicious dictators around the world, including Saddam Hussein for several years? What about US military presence in 4/5 of the countries in the world? What about strong-arm business tactics by US business that exploit people and environmental resources throughout the world? On the other hand, when the phrase, “they hate our way of life” is spoken by George W. Bush or Judd Gregg, there is some truth to it. I suspect that people anywhere in the world who are angry at the policies of the United States do hate the way of life of those in power here today. Make no mistake; our leaders’ lives are profoundly different from that of most of us. Does that give terrorists a right to kill? Of course not. But in the pursuit of a criminal, law enforcement doesn’t shy away from looking for a criminal’s real motive. In fact, I suspect that our Federal government is fully aware of the reasons for anger and resentment worldwide. This knowledge should be used to show that our policies for how we treat the rest of the world should be changed.


When I had my chance to ask Mr. Gregg a question, I first thanked him for being there and wished him happy holidays. I then expressed my concern for our troops over seas, and also for Iraqi civilians. I asked him to urge the Bush administration to reverse the new policy of not counting Iraqi civilian casualties, and explained that I understood that this policy announced yesterday came from an Iraqi ministry, but it was under pressure of the U.S.-run Coalition Provisional Authority. Mr. Gregg said he wasn’t aware of the change in policy and that he doubted the administration would approve of such a policy. Some people hear what they want to hear, but his response just made me angry. As if the Bush administration doesn’t have control over all policy moves in Iraq today.

<snip>

http://www.joepublicfilms.com/jpf_mtblog/archives/2003/12/my_breakfast_wi.html

[endarkenment]

11. I agree. This is a fucked appointment. Judd is a rightwing idiot of the first order.

I really do not understand Obama at this point. Three crappy vettings - wtf? Gregg for commerce, a clever choice if and only if it put a Democrat in the Senate, but instead a sleazy quid pro quo deal is worked out to prohibit that and we get a vastly rightwing fool as Commerce Sec. :wtf:

[veritasvg]

33. The Fact Is...

...Obama isn't in control. He was never in control.

We're really being governed by our international bankers now. They were the ones who insisted on Geithner and Summers with Volcker pulling the levers. They were also the ones who insisted on Rubin as an adviser.

We're not in control. We haven't been for a very long time, going back to the creation of the Federal Reserve.

We're not gonna fix healthcare, either. There's no money. It all went to bail out the banks. How the hell can you put in a new entitlement for a nation of three hundred million people when you're running yearly deficits of one trillion dollars? You can't. Canada has it for thirty million people and they're going broke.

This is what happens when you get into debt that you can't ever possibly pay back. You lose control of your destiny.

It's permanent. It's gonna be this way and they can't do anything about it.

And remember one thing. Bernanke has to somehow monetize all this debt, so what we're gonna have is a 1974-1975 recession that we're currently in the middle of, followed by growth by inflation for five years or so and then another recession where we have stratospheric interest rates (ala 1980-1982) to kill off the inflation we used to boost ourselves out of the mess we're currently in. Only after that will we again enjoy the kind of growth we've become accustomed to. The last twenty years have to be paid for and then we have to build a foundation for the next twenty. This is how economic cycles work. It's Paul Volcker, Act II.

Keep an eye on the price of gold. If gold starts to skyrocket, the scenario I posted above is what the big boys have in mind.

They're also saying the pound sterling is shot and the Brits are likely to end up on the Euro. I would say that situation also bears watching because of the potential that investors may run back to the Dollar.

It's gonna be interesting.

[defendandprotect]

51. Agree ---also precedent for voter $$ via internet with absolutely no leverage on ....

Obama --

Lesson: Don't give $$ where you don't have leverage --

Corporations/Elites wouldn't be that dumb ... !!!

At least unions got a crumb in Labor appointee ...

The rest looks like it's all about the wealthy dominators --

And we financed the candidate .... ???

[defendandprotect]

10. All the appointees mainly suck . . .

and I think we should be getting the message about now --

if not earlier!!!

[leftchick]

13. no worry, obama is the prez and will direct policy decisions

:sarcasm:


I am so sick of this blind faith in Democrats that screw us over and over and over again.

:grr:

[nichomachus]

15. Whew

I was so glad to see that sarcasm thingie . . . .I was about to blow my stack

[defendandprotect]

37. You know what they say about people .....

who keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results ...!!!

:crazy:

[truedelphi]

58. In the Stimulus Package they added tax cuts the Repugs watned even though

The Dems had the plurality!! Do they know how to negotiate or what?

[democracy1st]

72. I know its freakin pathetic how often do you have to get ur a.. busted before you understand !

[LSK]

14. and if appointment is not about Gregg himself but about the Senate seat and..

and having more Republicans tied to the administration making it harder for the GOP to attack and obstruct what Obama wants to do???

:shrug:

[nichomachus]

16. Never stopped them before . . . .

We've tried this before -- it doesn't fucking work. You give them a centimeter and they want a kilometer.

[defendandprotect]

40. As a matter of fact, GOP is still in control --- they just blocked us again . . .

When did you see the Dems block GOP when Dems were the minority---???

[blindpig]

18. Man, ya gotta stop reaching like that.

You're gonna hurt yourself.

Please, stop that, it makes me wince to read such pathetic contortions.

[defendandprotect]

38. They'll be another Repug in the seat --

and you're turning yourself inside out to avoid facing reality ---

just sayin' . . .!!

[FriendlyReminder]

17. WTF is going on here. After 3 screw-ups in the vetting process now we have

to stomach a repuke in a cabinet position! Gawd, this is NOT what I expected. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad we are done with the past administration but man, lets get our act together NOW!!!!!

[Orwellian_Ghost]

19. Who is Judd Gregg

President Obama has named Republican Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire to be his Commerce Secretary. Gregg is a libertarian on trade issues, which means that the interests of Big Business will take priority over the interest of the American worker. It will be interesting to see how the heads of the American labor unions react to this announcement, since Gregg has repeatedly voted for nearly every "free trade" agreement that has been before the Senate.


* Voted YES on promoting free trade with Peru. (Dec 2007)
* Voted YES on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade.
* (Jul 2005)
* Voted YES on establishing free trade between US & Singapore. (Jul 2003)
* Voted YES on establishing free trade between the US and Chile. (Jul 2003)
* Voted NO on extending free trade to Andean nations. (May 2002)
* Voted YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam. (Oct 2001)
* Voted YES on removing common goods from national security export rules. (Sep 2001)
* Voted YES on permanent normal trade relations with China. (Sep 2000)
* Voted YES on expanding trade to the third world. (May 2000)
* Voted YES on renewing 'fast track' presidential trade authority. (Nov 1997) from On the Issues

http://prefatorial.livejournal.com/39562.html

[Career Prole]

21. And he starred

in my first journal post a few years ago.

Deja screw...

"It's hard to understand what a trillion is. I don't know what it is," confessed Senate Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican, this week when debating the government's staggering fiscal obligations.

[defendandprotect]

41. Here's more on Gregg --- "pro-life" fanatic, as well ---

Another really questionable appointment . . .

Also, anti-gay record.

Basically, a GOP neo-con . . . in the Cabinet!!!


http://senate.ontheissues.org/Senate/Judd_Gregg.htm

[chill_wind]

20. Judd Gregg on this Issues & Positions (big database). What a joke.

On us.


http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Judd_Gregg.htm

[frog92969]

22. Does Obama even know his record?

It doesn't seem possible.

[chill_wind]

24. Let's send him a simple diagram

from the link:



"Judd Gregg is a Hard-Core Conservative."

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Judd_Gregg.htm

[democracy1st]

73. he doesn't know there's so much going on he's relying on these weak advisors

[chill_wind]

94. I don't accept that. They are economic ideologues. If a schmuck like me

can access the guy's record in 30 seconds, so can they and I'm sure they did. Weak isn't a word I would use- maybe they really did gamble that they could flip a seat and craft a splashy "bipartisan" PR image in the bargain, since his trade and economic leanings probably don't bother them nearly as much as they bother you and me.

[Jakes Progress]

23. Change you can campaign on. nt

[chill_wind]

25. And another R gets the seat. What a deal.

A COMMERCE PICK (AT LAST): Days after we asked why there weren't even names mentioned for the Commerce Secretary opening, reports out of Capitol Hill suggest New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg (R) is under consideration for the job. (Coincidence? Um, yes.) Tapping Gregg would be a HUGE political coup for Obama and Senate Democrats as it would allow Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat, to appoint Gregg's replacement. Assuming Al Franken can hold on in Minnesota, that would put Democrats at 60 seats, a number that would allow them to break GOP filibusters and exert true control over the chamber. For that reason alone, we would say it's unlikely that Gregg is tapped. Our sources suggest that Gregg to Commerce is a possibility but would only happen if Lynch promised to appoint a Republican to the seat.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2009/01/white_house_cheat_cheet_banter.html?hpid=topnews

HAH!

CNN:

# Story Highlights
# NEW: Bonnie Newman, Gregg's former chief of staff, to be picked to replace him
# President Obama calls Gregg a "master of reaching across the aisle"
# Sen. Gregg lauds Obama's "bold and aggressive" plan to get country moving
# Gregg's selection marks the third Republican nomination to Obama's Cabinet

Gregg's decision to accept Obama's offer represents a stunning turnabout -- he voted to abolish the Commerce Department in 1995. If confirmed, he will be the third Republican to join Obama's Cabinet, following Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.

]New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch will appoint Bonnie Newman, Gregg's former chief of staff, to replace him, the governor said Tuesday.

One potential stumbling block to Gregg's nomination had been the issue of the veteran lawmaker's replacement in the Senate.

Gregg, whose Senate term is up in 2010, threatened this week to turn down the nomination if it upset the balance in the U.S. Senate. But in a move that will leave the Senate's party breakdown unchanged, New Hampshire's Democratic governor named a Republican to replace Gregg. Video

Democrats hold 58 seats in the Senate, with a Minnesota seat subject to legal challenge. Democrat Al Franken holds a 225-vote lead in that race, but Republican Norm Coleman is challenging the the election recount.

If Lynch had named a Democrat to replace Gregg, the Democrats could have had a 60-seat majority, which is needed to overcome Republican attempts to use filibusters to block legislation.

"It is important that President Obama be able to select the advisers he feels are necessary to help him address the challenges facing our nation," Lynch said in a statement Monday.


Newman, most recently the interim president of the University of New Hampshire, also worked in the White House during the first Bush administration and was an assistant commerce secretary during the Reagan administration.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/02/judd.gregg.commerce/index.html

[ooglymoogly]

26. For those of us who know Judd Gregg, this is the most disgraceful

appointment in a long line of unexplainable disappointments. Judd Gregg is a Luddite on steroids and another Trojan horse this president is inviting into his inner circle and it seems, is par for the course; He got nothing in return for this bowing and scraping sellout and make no mistake this is a sellout. The corporate press is conveniently calling Gregg a moderate. That is like as calling Hitler a moderate.

[defendandprotect]

42. Gregg is a GOP neo-con . . . now in the Cabinet -- !!!

[AzDar]

27. Why? Why? WHY??

:mad:

[defendandprotect]

43. What are the possible explanations . . . ?

Try some and see if they fit . . . !!!

[BlueJac]

29. Change we can't believe in........

WTF.....quit sucking supply sided economics ass. If I wanted this I would of voted for Mc Lame. We have been duped!!


Hope? Is it another 4 letter word?

[democracy1st]

30. Darn President Obama has some FkUpd Advisors

[ima_sinnic]

31. "change"--a meaningless campaign slogan that suckered millions

with some store-window dressing, nothing much has changed. Things are just shuffled around a bit.
I think I may change my voter registration to Independent tomorrow.

This "strategy" of having your "opponents" around you does nothing other than weaken your goals and visions with obstruction and bullshit. So happy room was made at the table for a fucking dinosaur. How, er, "progressive," and how tragic--for the world, at a time when something grand and new was needed.

[rapturedbyrobots]

47. change? what the hell does that even mean?

i don't remember obama running as a progressive...or even making any nods to progressives other than co-opting their rhetoric. i seem to remember him proudly touting his neoliberal market-based solutions (see healthcare, education, and the economy) as an example of his bi-partisan, pragmatic (aka center-right) approach. this didn't stop anyone from assuming that 'change' meant something more than a return to clinton-style neoliberalism...'capitalism with a human face'. so now here we are with ex-clintonites and dlc types running the show and shutting out progressives and somehow people are shocked. you get what you paid for. and its not obama's fault you projected your desires onto him...well...maybe it is...that was a damned good marketing campaign.

[ima_sinnic]

67. he was never my top choice. I remember saying I thought he was a "tool in the making"

very early in the primaries. I wanted Kucinich, but of course Clinton and Obama were the only candidates who were seriously allowed to run. They were the establishment pick and were rammed down our throats.

I got behind Obama only after it came down to Clinton v Obama. But in the long run, what difference would it have made between these two?

[Grinchie]

74. Kucinich at least sticks to his values

And I think we'd be better off with him as President.

Even Ron Paul seems better at this point.

[HughMoran]

101. "Even Ron Paul seems better at this point."

Lol - this thread is going to be a classic - bookmarked.

[marketcrazy1]

56. ima_sinnic said::

""I think I may change my voter registration to Independent tomorrow."" you are not alone!! this is NOT the kind of "chamge" I was looking for!!

[MasonJar]

32. What is with Obama? This only made sense if we at least got a Dem

Senator out of it. Why did he want him so much that he gave up that option? The idiot voted to do away with the Commerce Dept. Is Obama desperate to get GOper votes in the Senate? If so, why? He doesn't need them, but if he keeps this up he will in 2010 and 2012.

[threadkillaz]

34. The REAL change is that congress is taking over the exec branch.

We are witnessing a congressional takeover of the executive branch.

All Senators All the Time.

How did we let this happen when congress has an approval rating below 20%?

[defendandprotect]

44. Money/Power is making this happen . . .

[Greyhound]

71. Approval is completely meaningless for the next year and a half.

We are the nuisance they must endure every other year so that they can continue to do the work of the masters.

[quiet.american]

35. The thing is, your large-font premise seems to be missing a vital piece of logic.

Here's my take:

When Bush appointed anti-"name-the-department"-types to head those departments, or to fill those positions, it was to do his/Cheney's bidding to destroy the department/institution/position/U.S. relationship. I would hope it is obvious that Obama has different objectives; with the Cabinet under his direction, he certainly will not allow for the further destruction of the Commerce Dept.; if Gregg goes overboard/does not bring anything useful to the table, no doubt he will be cut loose.

In the meantime, President Obama, by very visibly keeping his promise of bi-partisanship, continues making Boehner, et al. look like (pardon the expression, care of "King of the Hill") the whiny-ass titty-babies they are, and also most likely obtains one more Democratic vote toward a 60-vote majority in the Senate next year.

[defendandprotect]

45. Dream on ---

[NeedleCast]

36. Sometimes it's good to have an opposing point of view

Otherwise, you end up being Bush...

[defendandprotect]

46. Well, Obama supposedly now has an entire Cabinet full of them . . .

either that or he agrees with them . . . ???!!!

[NeedleCast]

49. Right

Sorry we couldn't clone Kucinich enough times to put him in every cabinet position, or he is to far right for you too?

[defendandprotect]

54. Somehow you seem an unlikely Dennis Kuchinich supporter ...

more like you're bent out of shape by immense criticism of Gregg and

Obama picks overall --

DLC --???



We should be so lucky as to have Kucinich in Cabinet in any position--!!!

Love Dennis Kucinich --!!!

[HughMoran]

102. You have a different viewpoint, so you're DLC!!

Wow, what passes for political discourse these days.

[newtothegame]

39. It's fine, Obama made history.

:sarcasm:

[Mister Ed]

48. Hmmm. I wonder. A cabinet member serves at the pleasure of the president, right?

Sooo...Obama could fire Gregg whenever he pleases. Obama couldn't fire him when he was a senator.

Of course, this is almost certainly just wishful thinking on my part. But a fella can dream, can't he?

:evilgrin:

[Duke Newcombe]

50. Don't you think he has his leash already?

I think I'll be putting this one up a lot from now on...

[man4allcats]

84. I hope you're right about this.

For the moment, I'm still willing to be convinced. I must admit I had hoped for a faster start out the gate, but quarterbacking is always easier on Monday morning. My real choice was Kucinich, but I'm not throwing Obama to the wolves just yet. Still, while I don't expect him to be a miracle worker, I do expect him to be a Democrat; not a DINO.

BTW, love the graphic.

[ElboRuum]

99. Keep it handy.

You'll need it just about every time Obama makes a pick that, on the surface, seems like a WTF? moment.

[truedelphi]

52. How can this be such a surprise - Rahm headed up many efforts for NAFTA

Geithner, Rubin and Summers were among the criminal element involved in the collapse of the Trading System formerly known as our economy.

The more things change, the more they remain the same.

[defendandprotect]

55. "Those who control the past control the future" ---

[Baby Snooks]

53. What would Molly say?

What would Molly Ivins say? We would probably never know unless she put the column out via email because it would probably be so filled with "cuss words" that no one would run it. Suffice it to say it would have to do with letting the foxes guard the chicken house.

Barack Obama turned the table over to Rahmbo and let him fill it and that is why we have the Clintons and the rest of the DLC Republicrats at the table. And now one of the Republican Republicrats. "Of the corportation, by the corporation, for the corporation." The motto of the Republicrat Party. Which has obviously hijacked both parties at this point. Along with everything else. Welcome to the oligarchy. Here to stay. The democracy is but a distant memory at this point.

[defendandprotect]

57. What's our response going to be ---????

[Baby Snooks]

60. The pots and pans?

Molly loved those old pots and pans. Loved banging them around. Maybe instead of banging them we should start throwing them. Fill the lawns at the White House with pots and pans.

[defendandprotect]

62. I think shoes are in this year --

Let's dig up photos of shoes to e-mail --???

[Baby Snooks]

77. Yes but it wouldn't be remembering Molly...

Why not honor her while dishonoring those who have dishonored us? And Barack Obama has dishonored us.

[defendandprotect]

98. Yes ... true ...

And Barack Obama has dishonored us.

This is also true and very sad --

Being more openly discussed here every day, however.

We're having Barack Economic Recovery House Meetings near us this weekend -- are you going?

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/economicrecoverymeetings/

[Riverman]

59. If you keep putting your hand out there and they refuse to even grant you

the common decency of a handshake, how do you feel? How does that make you behave? Respond? Keep putting your hand out there? Or, do you say Go Fuck Yourself!

[Individualist]

103. He who extends his hand to neocons

may very well soon find his arm is missing.

[caseymoz]

61. Obama screwed this up-- but the nomination was only an attempt to change the Senate.

I actually think that he was trying to change the balance in the Senate, but Gregg dealt hard, and Obama couldn't withdraw the offer because it would have then been obvious what he was doing. The plan just didn't work. And the governor of New Hampshire was probably opposed to going along with it.

I'm thinking, though, that Gregg won't last long in Commerce, though. He'll go to the unemployment line by 2010.

[depakid]

69. Once again, pandering to Republicans nets less than zero in return

Makes you wonder if Democrats will ever learn.

[caseymoz]

79. Yes, but if I'm right, the original purpose wasn't to pander.

It was to maneuver. It occurs to me that there might be a different angle here though . . . I wonder if Gregg will be nominated? If the committee looks at him, what will they find?

[JCMach1]

63. Key question is it too late to stop the nomination?

Are there any key dems who might hold his nomination (at least) so that there is time to mount an opposition?

By the way, this counts as Obama's 2nd mistake... not that I am keeping track or anything...

[ima_sinnic]

68. I've lost track--has this nomination been confrimed yet? (nt)

[JDPriestly]

66. We' ve been had. We did the work to get Obama elected, and he

has turned his back on us. He doesn't need us. He doesn't care about our issues. He caves under the slightest pressure.

I was an Edwards supporter. He may have cheated on his wife, but he knew where he stood on trade. Obama was always weak on trade issues, as was Hillary.

[Hubert Flottz]

70. Not just a Reich Winger, But A RABID Reich Winger...

We've been screwn again.

[blindpig]

76. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice.....n/t

[mdmc]

78. meh, McCains choice would have been worse or the same

either way, I'm with Obama. Whatever, I guess...
The DLC is beat..

[caseymoz]

80. Yet, this still could be a very good thing.

What if the committee turns down the appointment? What if there's a serious scandal in his life? Being shamed in front of the committee might come out as a good thing for democrats. If it's bad enough, it might guarantee the seat goes Democratic.

If Obama anticipated the scandal, this might still turn out to work in his favor.

[StillHopingForChange]

81. Wow.... thats a LONG stretch. N/T

[burythehatchet]

87. DUzy 2.0

[marshall]

82. Obama has a plan!

We don't know what it is yet because we can't see the whole picture, we don't have all the information he has. A few years from now we'll be looking back and kicking ourselves.

[ima_sinnic]

83. I hope so, very very much (nt)

[burythehatchet]

89. A few years from now we'll be lucky to have a roof over our head and a hot meal.

[blindpig]

90. No doubt, but for what reason?

Don't know about you but I can see the picture pretty well. Pretty much what I expected, and it ain't pretty.

[natrat]

85. bend over labor here comes O

[1776Forever]

86. Gregg: 100% score from Chamber of Commerce & 7% from the AFL-CIO

Sen. Judd Gregg reportedly considered for Commerce
By Peter Nicholas
January 30, 2009

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-commerce30-2009jan30,0,1157951.story

(snip)

He received a 100% score from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for his
votes in 2006, while earning just 7% from the AFL-CIO.

...............

What was Obama thinking here? I am 100% behind Obama but this is just
not registering as a win-win.

[burythehatchet]

88. aw quit complaining

President Cool Breeze has "got this".

[Vinca]

95. I must say, as a person who completely adores Obama,

my patience is being stretched to the limit. Just about the first words out of Gregg's mouth are something about cutting entitlements. WTF does that have to do with Commerce? The "Team of Rivals" bullshit is wearing thin.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

96. I Just Can't Help LMFAO At The Responses In This Thread.

:rofl:

[HughMoran]

104. This is the collection you've been waiting for

All your favorite hits in one 5 CD collection!

Don't forget to bookmark this one as some will say "I never said that" later on.

[Romulox]

97. Most of you weren't listening when Obama proclaimed: "I believe in FREE TRADE!"

Which is understandable (I guess...)

But did you also miss the appointment of Austan Goolsbee and Jason Furman to campaign positions? Tim Geithner? Larry Summers?

Obama is a dedicated neo-liberal, and only those who did not want to see that are surprised by this.

[ElboRuum]

100. I don't know where we got this idea...

There still seems to be a popular misconception on DU that Obama should be more liberal and that somehow we got sold a bill of goods, goods he's not going to deliver.

He's not and we didn't.

He's made it plain that he's not terribly liberal. He TOLD you so during the campaign. Maybe not in so many words, but he made it clear that he would not govern based on some ideological mandate that people on DU (and the left in general) dictated, rather with sensibility and (gasp!) pragmatism. He also made it clear that he was going to approach his governance with "reaching across the aisle". He has done everything he said he was going to do.

And that IS a change. Maybe not the change DU or the rest of the left envisioned or hoped for but a welcome one in my book, because at least now, with an actual thinker in office who is sympathetic to the needs of all of the people in this country instead of a select quarter (more like 5%, but you know what I mean), government has a chance of working for us rather than being dismantled from within by those who find it unfairly limiting.

Moreover, it is now absolutely CLEAR to me that not only are the Republicans still left in Congress as well as the RNC playing checkers to his chess, so are many of us on the left. Maybe it is the hallmark of idealists that confrontation and banging of heads and tilting at windmills are the way to get things done because it increases the "awareness" of the problem, but I am amazed that people who employ these methods have so little understanding of what they COULD have accomplished had they outflanked and outthought their opponents rather than simply engaging in ideological wars of attrition.

This country will be won back to its people by careful moves planned three or four in advance, not by ideological symbols and gestures designed to appeal to the base. We've just had 8 years of pure base appeasement, and did it SEEM to be the right way to do things? Taking 25% of the country and making them happy and letting the other 75% feel like they were sitting at the kids' table at Thanksgiving?

So, as a bit of a mental exercise, turn the tables and see how fleeting our "victories" will be when 8 years from now, should Obama do things obligatorily our way and at our behest and at the rate we would view as sufficient, the 8 years of progress that we make will be gutted by the 75% of the people we left out of the process to get our way and at our speed.

I'm a chess player, too. Relatively decent one at that. Obama has a plan for all of this. You know how I know? Because I would have a plan. We will get our change. But it will happen according to his timetable, not ours. It will occur under his control, not ours. Obama is NOT our puppet. We voted him in because we believed that he will act on our behalf more often than he will not. Let the pieces on the board move a little before deciding the game is over. Change cannot happen as fast as we want BECAUSE we want it to be permanent.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

105. Judd Gregg sucks, NOTHING can make that right, ever! n/t