Elephant Dung #22: Judd Gregg warns of Palin's road to nomination

Tracking the GOP Civil War

By Michael J.W. Stickings 

(For an explanation of this ongoing series, see here. For previous entries, see here.)

I'm not sure anyone really cares what former New Hampshire Gov. and Sen. Judd Gregg has to say, not least within the right-wing Republican base, but he is a prominent figure in New Hampshire, that key early primary state, and so perhaps he does matter somewhat. And it seems he doesn't much care for Sarah Palin:

Prominent New Hampshire Republican Judd Gregg says that Sarah Palin just might have a clearer path to the Republican presidential nomination next year than commonly understood – an event he warns would lead to President Obama's clear reelection.

Gregg, the former senator and governor of the Granite State, says the muddled GOP presidential field means it's more likely than ever there won't be a clear consensus candidate before the party's nominating convention in August of 2012. If that happens, says Gregg, Palin and her army of supporters might have the upper hand when it comes to settling on a presidential candidate.

"A candidate who runs second or third in a great many primaries could go into the convention with a sizable block of delegates," writes Gregg in an Op-Ed in The Hill newspaper Monday. "Who would this favor? Does Sarah Palin come to mind? Although she is not viewed by most as strong enough to win, she is viewed by many as a person worth voting for to make a statement."

*****

"Finishing second and third isn't really a big deal – until you get enough delegates to be the nominee," writes Gregg. "And picking a nominee who it seems would be easily defeated by President Obama might not be the best statement."

Well, it's not clear if he doesn't like her or if he just thinks she isn't electable, but I suspect the former as much as the latter. Add him to growing list of establishment Republicans, including pundits and intellectuals, who are hoping to keep Palin on the sidelines in 2012, and understandably so, and who are taking admittedly mild but increasingly aggressive shots at her.

Then again, the 2012 Republican field looks incredibly weak at the moment, and Palin, for all her faults, is one of the few, if not the only one, who could stir it up a bit and excite the party's rabid base. (Santorum's trying to be the Palin alternative, but he can't exactly match her star power.)

Oh, does Gregg have an agenda of his own? Of course. He's a Romney supporter, and obviously he'd like to keep out anyone with the potential to beat his man. Which is pretty much everyone, given Romney's standing with grassroots conservatives, what with his Mass. health-care reform and moderate past and all.

So maybe, as he pathetically tries to play GOP kingmaker from his perch in New Hampshire, we'll get Gregg op-eds -- you can read his anti-Palin one here -- against every possible Romney rival. Romney unchallenged, after all, is perhaps the only way he can win.

Stupidest Republican of the Day: Judd Gregg

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Sen. Gregg of New Hampshire, almost a member of Obama's Cabinet, has come out swinging against the use of reconciliation, but, speaking on the Senate floor on Thursday, he struck out. From his remarks:

Why did they choose that bill called reconciliation to do this? Or why will they? Because under the Senate rules, anything that comes across the floor of the Senate requires 60 votes to pass. It's called the filibuster. That's the way the Senate was structured. The Senate was structured to be the place where bills which rushed through the House because they have a lot of rules that limit debate and allow people to pass bills quickly, but they don't have any rule in the House called the filibuster which allows people to slow things down.

The Founding Fathers realized when they structured this they wanted checks and balances. They didn't want things rushed through. They saw the parliamentary system. They knew it didn't work. So they set up the place, as George Washington described it, where you take the hot coffee out of the cup and you pour it into the saucer and you let it cool a little bit and you let people look at it and make sure it's done correctly. That's why we have the 60-vote situation over here in the Senate to require that things get full consideration.

There's so much stupidity here, and, honestly, I'm just too tired -- at 12:21 am -- to do it justice. Thankfully, we can turn to Matthew Yglesias, who has ripped Gregg's "argument" apart and exposed it for the nonsense it is:

It's true that the Founding Fathers wanted checks and balances, but this is why we have bicameralism and presidential veto power. Those are the checks. The filibuster rule is not in the constitution. But since the Founding Fathers did specify supermajorities to override a Presidential veto and to ratify a treaty, presumably there would have written a supermajority rule into the ordinary legislative process if that’s what they'd wanted to do. I don't think "the Founders wanted it this way" should carry a ton of weight in our arguments, but it's very clear that the Founders didn't intend the Senate to vote by supermajority; if they'd wanted that, they would have written the constitution that way.

Meanwhile, just to point out that Gregg is an idiot, where on earth has he gotten the idea that the Founding Fathers "saw the parliamentary system" and "knew it didn't work?" There were no countries operating on a modern parliamentary system when the constitution was written. And why doesn't it work? It seems to work in Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, India, Japan, Korea, etc.

Arguably what history has shown is that the "strong president" system used in the United States doesn't work. It's worked out okay for us (despite that Civil War business) so far, but the vast majority of enduring stable democracies go parliamentary or semi-presidential systems. 

Yglesias vs. Gregg just isn't a fair fight.

Gregg clearly has little to no understanding of the Consitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers, little to no understanding of comparative politics, and little to no understanding of how the Senate works -- after all, Republicans were happy to use reconciliation when they were in the majority (and when they wanted just a simple majority to get things done), including when Bush was president (and so not so very long ago -- how convenient that Gregg doesn't seem to remember).

Here are the facts:

-- Health-care reform bills have already passed both the House and Senate. In the Senate, the Democrats were able to break the Republican filibuster with 60 votes.

-- Democrats have no intention of passing the entire comprehensive package through reconciliation. There's no need to (see above). Reconciliation would only be used for so-called "patches," minor changes to the bill to appease the House (which, hopefully, will pass the Senate bill as is).

-- Reconciliation is in the Senate rules, just like the filibuster. It's not like Democrats are pulling a trick out of some magic hat. Republican talking points use the word "trick" to make it seem as if Democrats are behaving in some grossly un-democratic and even un-American manner (though what's so un-democratic about simple majority rule?), but Republicans have used reconciliation, too, and frequently. Gregg knows this. He was all for reconciliation as recently as 2005.

So just what is Gregg? An idiot? A hypocrite? A partisan hack? All of the above?

Yes. And pretty fucking stupid.

(Retro) Quote of the Day: Judd Gregg on reconciliation

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Here's the New Hampshire senator, a Republican, in 2005 (when Republicans had a majority in the Senate):

We are using the rules of the Senate here. That's what they are, Senator. Reconciliation is a rule of the Senate set up under the Budget Act. It has been used before for purposes exactly like this, on numerous occasions. The fact is, that all this rule of the Senate does is allow a majority of the Senate to take a position and pass a piece of legislation... Now, is there something wrong with majority rules? I don't think so.

If you've got 51 votes for your position, you win.

Pretty simple, huh? Pretty democratic.

Ezra Klein notes that, at the time, Democrats were against reconciliation, "a terrible abuse of power." And so, yes, the hypocrisy cuts both ways. But Republicans, who are now against it, went ahead with it, as Democrats should now.

What has been appalling, though, has been the Republican-friendly Beltway media coverage and "analysis," heavy on GOP talking points, portraying reconciliation as some sort of indefensibly anti-democratic and even anti-American partisan trick. It isn't, and, far from subverting democracy, it actually allows the majority party to cut through a Senate rule that paralyzes the legislative process and, with it, democracy itself -- namely, the filibuster.

Hey, if it's good enough for Judd Gregg...

Cabinet stupidity

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Anonymous Liberal makes a good point: "The Notion of a 'Bipartisan Cabinet' Has Always Been a Stupid One."

Very stupid.

If you elect a Democrat, you get a Democratic Cabinet. It's as simple as that. Or should be.

There are plenty of ways in which a president can demonstrate that he's open minded and willing to work constructively with the opposition. But putting members of the opposition in charge of implementing his policy is just dumb. The fact that the Beltway centrist chorus believes that this is what good presidents should do is just a reflection of their own bizarre obsession with symbolism and belief that bipartisanship is some sort end in and of itself.

I think it's important for Obama to continue to appear respectful and bipartisan in his general governing approach, if for no other reason than to provide a contrast with the never-ending immaturity and childishness of the GOP. But the best way to do that is by sitting down and talking to Republicans, not putting them in charge of various executive branch departments.

"Bob Gates is an exception to this general rule," AL states, and I think he's right -- whether or not you like Gates is beside the point. But there was no need for Obama to nominate Judd Gregg.

The symbolism -- along with the approval of the likes of David Broder and his centrist ilk -- just isn't worth it.

More on Gregg

By Michael J.W. Stickings

(Following up on Creature's post from earlier this evening...)

Sen. Judd Gregg's explanation for backing away from the Commerce job for which Obama had nominated him was suitably self-absorbed: "I couldn't be Judd Gregg."

But how did he now know that when he accepted the nomination? What has changed? Sure, there's the stimulus bill, but it's not like that wasn't on his radar. He knew, more or less, what was coming, what the package would contain, and perhaps even what the partisan divide would be.

And -- let's be clear about this -- he reached out to Obama. He wanted the job.

And so I think Andrew Sullivan's explanation is probably about right:

When Judd Gregg approached the Obama administration to see if he could be a part of it, he was assuming that his own party wasn't going to adopt a policy of total warfare against the newly elected president in a time of enormous economic peril. Between that moment and the current all-out ideological assault on Obama, his position became untenable. His recusal on the stimulus package provoked fury at home (check out the comments here) and dyspepsia among the GOP who are intent on responding to an open hand with a clenched fist.

Gregg may have reached out in good faith, acting the good bipartisan in a time of crisis, hoping to bridge the gap between Obama and the GOP, but he belongs to a party that is acting in bad faith, that is trying to score political points off the economic crisis, that is united in ideological fervour, and that is as partisan as ever.

In the end, with Republicans enforcing orthodoxy, that was likely just too much for Gregg, who now skulks back home with his tail between his legs, no doubt hoping to avoid ostracism by stressing his Republican bona fides -- there were just too many "irresolvable conflicts," he now claims -- taking shots at the man he hoped would be his boss, and, perhaps most pathetically of all, suggesting that it was all just a big "mistake."

Republican Gregg backs out of Commerce job

By Creature

I never understood Obama's attraction to Gregg in the first place. Well, beyond the (R) after his name. Time to move on. Time to pick a (D). Radical, I know.

Gregg to Commerce

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As you may have heard already, Obama has tapped Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire to be commerce secretary. (If you remember, Obama's first choice, Bill Richardson, withdrew his nomination amid swirls of scandal.) It's a fine choice for a relatively impotent Cabinet post, and it helps that Gregg has spoken favourably of Obama's economic stimulus plan. As part of the deal, New Hampshire Governor John Lynch, a Democrat, will replace Gregg with another Republican. (Gregg had said he wouldn't take the job if it meant a Democrat taking his place in the Senate.) That Republican is reported to be Bonnie Newman, Gregg's former chief of staff. The good news is that Newman may not run in 2010, when Gregg's current term is up, meaning that, in a state that is turning ever more blue, the Democrats have a good shot at picking up the seat.

**********

On an ironic note, Gregg twice voted to abolish the Commerce Department -- both times in 1995, first on the Budget Committee, then on the Senate floor.