Department of WTF?
By Brian Beutler
What was I saying yesterday about pro quo?
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), the president’s pick for Commerce Secretary, just revealed during an interview with CNBC that he would recuse himself from congressional votes while his nomination is being considered by his former Senate colleagues.
Things would be different if he had, for instance, resigned in anticipation of his confirmation. But a cloture vote only succeeds if at least three-fifths of all duly elected and serving members of the Senate vote ‘yes’. With Gregg still seated, the Democrats need 60 votes to end debate, even if he votes ‘present’. If all caucus members vote yes, they have 58. They need two. Gregg could have been one of those two. But of course, Gregg has nothing but the utmost respect his soon-to-be boss–who has, of course, committed to changing Washington–and to vote the way Obama wants him to would appear unseemly.
49 Responses to “Department of WTF?”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
February 4th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
We are so fucked.
February 4th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Screw this. If Obama had any balls, he’d tell Gregg that he has one day to either resign from the Senate or resign as Commerce Secretary-designate. The choice would be his. Fuck this nonsense.
February 4th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
We’re entering the “power struggle” phase of a relationship, which means that the honeymoon is over. The question here is whether Obama is going to show Congress who’s boss or whether he’s going to be led around by the nose by Congress.
February 4th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Resigning would also bring the 3/5 quantity down to 59 Senators.
The bigger worry is the fence sitting Ds. I fear lots of the so called cave ins to the Rs were actually to keep the Blue Dogs happy.
February 4th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Glad I’m not the only one who understand this. I see that Josh and Atrios are pissed.
In fact, to the whole circular firing squad in the left blogsphere today, I say “feh.”
.
February 4th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Obama — Not as Tough as the Steelers
Wrong. Obama and his team ran an impressive election campaign – disciplined and focused like the Steelers (although the Steelers did rack up too many penalites).
They’ve had in impressive transition and have done pretty well during the opening weeks. Of course the Republicans are being obstructionist and cynics on the left cry wolf every five minutes but that’s to be expected.
February 4th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Tyro:
We’re entering the “power struggle” phase of a relationship, which means that the honeymoon is over. The question here is whether Obama is going to show Congress who’s boss or whether he’s going to be led around by the nose by Congress.
Such drama queens… Such STURM AND DRANG!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturm_und_Drang
The cynics are cracking me up.
February 4th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Yeah, Obama got rolled on this one. Unless his goal is to dismantle Commerce (not a bad idea, still), I don’t see what he gained.
February 4th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Peter K., it’s not cynical at all. I didn’t even say that I think Obama was fooled or rolled or what-have-you. I simply said that we’re at a point where Obama has to prove that he is in charge and that he has power worth following. Does he or doesn’t he? Does or can Obama wield any sort of leverage to get senators to do what he wants, or not?
February 4th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
I might add that an interesting comparison to Obama is Bush– Bush loves to make lots of petty displays of his power over others– eg, the head-rubbing, the nicknames, the use of the “jacket rule” in the oval office to refuse to talk to senators who were merely carrying their jackets, and the prickly anger he displayed when someone came across as upstaging him in the tiniest of ways.
While Obama is more secure than Bush and thus doesn’t feel the need to engage in these petty acts of dominance, Obama also lacks the instinct to threaten anyone into doing what he wants. Gregg clearly doesn’t feel the need to act with any sort of deference towards Obama, and the reason for this is that Obama hasn’t given him any reason to. The question is whether Obama can convince other Senators that he’s the alpha dog in this relationship.
February 4th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
My understanding is that a cloture vote requires 60% of the members who are present, not a raw total of 60 votes.
Therefore, with Franken as yet unseated and Gregg abstaining, this lowers the number of votes needed to pass the stimulus to 59. And is effectively a “Yes” vote by Gregg.
February 4th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
LaFollette Progressive – a cloture vote requires 60% of the total number of seated senators, not senators present. Not voting is the same as voting no.
Anyway, this is totally fucking ridiculous – the guy basically gets to support a filibuster of an administration bill while being under nomination for an administration job.
The only justification for this I could see is if Obama thinks he has the votes anyway.
February 4th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Obama’s bipartisan credentials
What are those worth, exactly?
February 4th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Guys just don’t simply kvetch about this. Call his office. I just called myself.
February 4th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
John hits the nail. Obama feels like he has the votes despite the mania in the press. If he’s wrong about that, this will be a colossal error, whatever his intentions for Gregg.
February 4th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Gregg would have never voted for the bill. He is a rightwing Republican -of the fiscally “responsible” type
February 4th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
“The Democrats gained a much better shot at Gregg’s seat in 2010, and Obama may have gained an easier vote to get in the meantime. And on top of those gains, it appears Obama’s bipartisan credentials have actually been enhanced.”
I suppose all that’s true- but so much of Obama’s- and the Democrats’- political fortunes are tied into this stimulus bill. Jeopardizing a vote on it seems to be not worth the other gains.
February 4th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
We didn’t need him to vote for the bill; we may find out we needed him to vote for cloture.
February 4th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Jeopardizing a vote on it seems to be not worth the other gains.
But we don’t know that he is jeopardizing a vote on it. Firstly, he’s no worse off than he would be if he hadn’t picked Gregg, since Gregg would have opposed cloture anyway. Secondly, we don’t actually know if Obama has the votes. If he does, this really doesn’t matter. If he doesn’t, he has bigger problems than Judd Gregg.
February 4th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Obama is a wuss!! I had been afraid of this for too long, but kept hoping. There I said it.
– r
As the first commenter said, we are SOOOOOOOOOOO Fucked…
February 4th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Lets see what happens by the beginning of next week before we declare the entire Obama administration a failure. President’s Day is about 10 days away. If a stimulus bill passes of over $800 billion and it contains substantial spending, then Obama didn’t really lose anything and all this hyperventilating will be for naught. If not and the thing goes down, then we are really in trouble. Until then, this is all speculation.
February 4th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
BTW, wasn’t SCHIP stuck in the Senate and doomed to failure a few days ago.
Oh, and Obama is violating his promise of letting the bill be made available for 5 days of public comment….even if that would mean delaying getting health care to children. “The horror….the horror….”
Take a breath, drink an espresso, and chill out for a minute people. Daschle was a loss, but I hope it will be a lesson learned going forward. So far, its been the only one.
February 4th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Obama didn’t really lose anything and all this hyperventilating will be for naught.
To me all of the hyperventilating by certain anonymous internets posters has become part of the background noise. They crave drama. Different strokes for different folks. I pefer to take the long view.
1) Obama did campaign on being bipartisan
2) as DTM notes, this gives the Democratics a practical lock on another Senate seat.
But John Chait hit the nail on the head, regarding Republicans or centrists the nutroots give no quarter, i.e. compromise equals death. While with Saddam Hussein or the mullahs of Iran (both similar to Republicans in certain respects) are always given the benefit of the doubt no matter what.
February 4th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
That said, the Democrats have moves here. They could vote to confirm Gregg for Commerce tomorrow, taking him out of the Senate. And if Bonnie Newman, the handpicked successor, is sent up to be seated, refuse to seat her until Al Franken is seated as well. Either way, with 98 Senators or 100, the Dems need only one crossover vote to pass. Some of this is moot because useful idiots like Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu and Kent Conrad love to stab their party in the back. But there are options, if they want to play hardball.
February 4th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Tyro:
While Obama is more secure than Bush and thus doesn’t feel the need to engage in these petty acts of dominance, Obama also lacks the instinct to threaten anyone into doing what he wants. Gregg clearly doesn’t feel the need to act with any sort of deference towards Obama, and the reason for this is that Obama hasn’t given him any reason to. The question is whether Obama can convince other Senators that he’s the alpha dog in this relationship.
Well Obama did tell that one House Republican “I won” but sorry to disappoint- that’s about as Alpha Dog as he’s going to get I bet. At least in public.
He didn’t exactly campaign on making the Republicans his bitches, did he?
What he campaigned on is being effective at moving his agenda through the legislative process and the jury is still out on that seeing as he was inaugerated on Jan 20th and it’s only Feb. 4th.
February 4th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Well, the most important thing, apparently, is that a Republican feel he has had sufficient deference paid. Democrats control all three branches and they are still whipped by Republicans!!
Fuck the workers and the homeowners. They are far down the list behind the bipartisan fetish.
February 4th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Democrats control all three branches
All three? I must have missed something.
February 4th, 2009 at 4:43 pm
I’m disappointed that it seems to be Ok this time for quid pro quo on a Senate appointment.
When Blago was doing it, all hell broke lose.
Now that Obama is making deals on who will be named as replacement for Gregg in the Senate- crickets.
February 4th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Fuck the workers and the homeowners. They are far down the list behind the bipartisan fetish.
No to fuck the workers – I’m a wage slave – Yes to fuck the homeowners – I rent.
All three? I must have missed something.
No, you’re right, the conservatives led by Justice Roberts (who Obama corrected inaugeration day in front of the World AlphaDog Style!) control the Supreme Court.
February 4th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
the conservatives…control the Supreme Court.
The Federal judiciary is a lot more than the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the right wing controls just about all of it.
February 4th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
“Fuck the workers and the homeowners. They are far down the list behind the bipartisan fetish.”
That’s kind of what the “bipartisanship” is all about. You have a far-right corporatist party and a centre-right corporatist party, and of course the leader of the latter wonders why they can’t just get along. Imagine what they could do! They’ve already put $700 billion into bank shareholders’ pockets, and there’s plenty more where that came from.
February 4th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
We’re such a bunch of pussies as a party that we couldn’t get Gregg to vote for the Stimulus in return to his appointment to lead a department that he tried to shut down. This is a man who seems to have very few common ground positions with the Obama Admin, yet he’s invited to the table… and we can’t even get him to vote for the Stimulus?
WTF.
Obama use to talk about Chacago Politics that he grew up in. He’s quickly learning DC Dem Politics, which is playing Fem to the GOP’s Butch.
John
February 4th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
And Obama could withdraw the nomination. No reason to get stunned in the headlights every time a Republican does something predictable.
February 5th, 2009 at 5:19 am
Get off your Obama can do no harm agenda. He royally screwed up the stimulus.
Two issues are at play here:
A) Ideology – Of course Dems prefer spending while GOP prefers tax cuts.
B) The House Bill was filled with pork. It included very little immediate stimulus to help the economy. If the spending was wasteful. I could support a liberal ideology stimulus plan if the spending was quick enough to help the economy and investment oriented (bridges, roads, power grid, etc.).
Obama has had an awful start to his presidency and is making numerous mistakes.
Thats my summation of his mistakes to date.
A) Bad stimulus bill
B) One of first acts was the Mexico City thing which was unimportant and partisan
C) His bad bank idea is a failure. Paulson has already figured this out, its why the plans for TARP changed. (soros recently proposed creation of side pockets which I like)
D) He’s hurt Poland/Ukraine
E) This whole “protectionists” thing that he’s had to restate
F) Iran thinking it has the right to “ask” Obama for an “apology”
G) Nominating a bunch of tax cheats…he’s lost political capital here, he would have been wise to have dumped their nominations when the tax issues first arrived. Geithner’s not an uncommon man.
H) China currency manipulator was badly handled. You attacked them, made the chinese mad, but have yet to show a purpose.
February 5th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
I’m not an expert on senate rules or any of this stuff. Can someone explain why at least threatening to activate the “nuclear option” – a la Bill Frist several years ago – is not an option for the Dems now? Do the Dems just lack the party discipline necessary to prevent a new gang of 14 or 16 or whatever from emerging and pull this off?
March 2nd, 2009 at 8:46 am
levitraI bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:26 am
tramadol
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
April 8th, 2009 at 3:42 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
viagra