Senator Judd has the most anti-worker, anti-union voting record of anyone in the entire Senate!

[Better Believe It]

So why has this union bashing, anti-labor, right-wing Republican extremist going to be Secretary of Commerce?

By no stretch of the imagination is Gregg considered by anyone to be a "moderate" or "liberal" Republican.

Just check out Senator Judd's voting record on every major issue affecting working people and the middle class. He has the worst record of ANYONE in the United States Senate!. Senators Hatch, McConnell and Shelby's records are almost "liberal" in comparison to Senator Gregg's record!


According to the AFL-CIO voting record stats, Senator Judd's lifetime Senate voting record thru the end of 2007 has him voting against issues that benefit working people 96% of the time and supporting labor endorsed legislation only 4% of the time! And that includes 169 votes!

How does that compare to other extreme right-wing Republicans in the Senate?

Voted FOR labor legislation Voted AGAINST labor legislation


Senator Shelby 37% 63%

Senator McConnell 11% 89%

Senator Hatch 12% 88%

Senator Gregg 4% 96%

Check out Gregg's voting record at:

http://www.aflcio.org/cgi-bin/member.pl?state=NH&pg=2&id=57&year=07&congress=s

And Senator Gregg's record wasn't much better last year!

He voted with labor 2 times and against labor supported legislation 11 times!

[Thrill]

1. I just don't get it. Why when we have so many qualified Democrats

[Better Believe It]

5. Obama couldn't even find a moderate Republican, but did find outright reactionary???!!!

The one with the worst voting record in the entire United States Senate?

Why?

[OhioChick]

2. I assume that he's the opposite of Sherrod Brown? n/t

[Bluebear]

3. He's only singing one song. nt

:evilgrin:

[NightWatcher]

4. was this anything more than an attempt to get the gov to replace him with a Dem? (which failed)

[LaPera]

6. Absolutely disgusting! Why would any democrat nominate a republican with such distain

and obvious hatred for workers and unions....showing no respect for working people - Gregg is just another republican corporate lying, hateful, greedy pile of shit....which is of course a redundant statement because all republicans are lying, hateful, greedy piles of shit!

This is very sad and a truly disgusting appointment by Obama.

[whistler162]

8. Yup... the author of the thread doesn't even know

Senator's name and yet is complaining about him!

[backscatter712]

7. Ironically, Obama may be doing union interests a favor by kicking Gregg upstairs.

In Obama's cabinet, Gregg has to do what he's told. Meanwhile, he gets replaced by someone that might be less viruently anti-union in the Senate. This may actually help get things like EFCA through.

Though that all depends on who ends up replacing Gregg. Lynch will pick a Republican, but that doesn't mean he won't pick the most moderate RINO he can find...

[Better Believe It]

10. Ya. Great move. Just what labor needs. A labor hating Secretary of Commerce. Thanks a lot

[Zynx]

13. Secretary of Commerce does precious little. It is really just a cushy job.

They are probably the least powerful cabinet department.

[backscatter712]

14. He still serves at the pleasure of the President.

Meaning he's gonna have to stuff his labor-hate and do what he's told...

[avaistheone1]

38. This reminds me of Bush appointing to government all those cronies of

his who actually hate government and have done everything they possibly could over the last eight years to undermine and destroy our government.

[QC]

25. I just KNOW there's a pony in here somewhere!

[Still Sensible]

9. You may have hit on exactly the reason

if he is as much of an asshat as you say. With him stuck in the cabinet doing Obama's bidding (he now serves at the pleasure of the President), he'll be replaced by someone much more moderate--probably in the Snowe mold.

I still don't like it, but in that respect it may turn out to be at least somewhat positive.

[Better Believe It]

12. I bet you can find the silver lining in a piece of crap! :)

:)

Come now. Let's engage in even more wishful thinking and fantasy politics.

Here goes:

This appointment is a great step forward for working people and the labor movement.

Really.

You'll see.

It's time to celebrate this latest appointment. Pop the champagne!

What a clever move!

Sure fooled the Republicans, including Senator Gregg.

Slick!

[Still Sensible]

16. Not at all

That's nuts. I said there could be soething positive, not that I supported it.

[w4rma]

37. Snowe isn't a moderate or we wouldn't need 60 Democrats to break a filibuster. (nt)

[liberalpragmatist]

11. The commerce secretary does virtually nothing

There isn't even much about "commerce" or economics in the purview of the department. It manages things like the Census Bureau and the National Weather Service.

I'm not crazy about this deal either, but all we probably get in the end is a centrist Republican placeholder (who'll vote with us more than Gregg would have) and an easy pickup in 2010 (rather than a more difficult pickup).

[DFLforever]

15. Gregg is the second/third most supportive Republican

(after Snowe) in supporting Obama's agenda this year. He's tied with Voinovich for that spot.

According to Nate Silver at 538.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/01/fili-buster-watch.html

He will be Secretary of Commerce not Labor. Not a bad spot for a moderate Republican.

[Better Believe It]

17. "Not a bad spot for a moderate Republican."

Moderate? How do you define moderate .... someone who doesn't propose jailing and placing into concentration camps every union member in the United States?

I can only assume you haven't checked out his voting record which counts for a lot more than nice words.

Tell me about all his "moderate" votes in the Senate, all 6 of them.

Thank you.

[Zynx]

18. Name something the Commerce Secretary does regarding labor unions?

Maybe you are so enamored with how the CCP governs you forgot how our own system works.*


*The above poster is one of the biggest boosters of the PRC I have ever seen and seems to think everything they do is just golden.

[DFLforever]

23. You first. Tell me about Gregg's plan to put every union member

in the US in a concentration camp. I'm all ears.

[Better Believe It]

28. You didn't read or understand my comment.

I asked for your definition of a "moderate" Republican writing "Moderate? How do you define moderate .... someone who doesn't propose jailing and placing into concentration camps every union member in the United States?"

Don't twist my words. That's dishonest. I did not say that the right-wing sob you apparently defend advocates placing all union members into concentration camps.

So stop the bull shit.

OK

[LaPera]

26. A 4% lifetime rating from labor unions....

How can anyone call Gregg a moderate, Gregg voted with Bush over 83% of the time.

[Better Believe It]

29. According to your site he voted against the only piece of labor legislation this year

that has actually come up for a vote.

He voted against the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act!

Wonderful.

[Barack_America]

19. He'll be pro-Union in Obama's Cabinet, or else he'll find his ass out of a job.

Either way looks like the Senate will lose an anti-Union vote.

[Zynx]

21. Also, Commerce Secretary has almost nothing to do with Labor.

[Barack_America]

24. True. I expect him to be supportive of Obama's policies, whatever they may be...

And whether they pertain to his post or not.

That's supposed to be the Cardinal rule of being a part of the administration, right?

[spanone]

20. his job from confirmation on will be to promote President Obama's labor policies, not his own.

[PM7nj]

22. Well, thank God he's not Sec. of Labor! nt

[zulchzulu]

27. A Democratic Senator for this ASSHAT or the Deal is vapor...

Why we would put a Repig as Secretary of Commerce without getting a Democratic Senator is beyond me... I do understand that in a year or two, Gregg will have to say we need to increase taxes and appeal to the Repigs, but they'll just throw him under the bus.

Gregg can have the gig if we get another Senator, making it a veto-proof majority or NOTHING. ZIP.

[Occam Bandage]

30. Boy, it's a good thing he's not Secretary of Labor then!

[Better Believe It]

31. So far I have only read lame excuses in defense of this right-wing union bashing Republican

appointment.

And wild fantasy about what President Obama's "real" reason was behind this appointment.

Well, can someone tell me why Daschle is even being considered for a cabinet post considering the prominent positions that Tom and Linda Daschle held in union busting corporate law firms?

[Danger Mouse]

32. This doesn't seem like a good pick to me.

If we were getting the 60th senator in return, then yeah, it's a good deal, but if not...

[Better Believe It]

33. More hard facts on Senator Gregg's extreme right-wing voting record

The facts on Judd Gregg

Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Rated 0% by NARAL
Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
Rated 20% by the ACLU
Rated 33% by the HRC
Rated 7% by the NAACP
Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (Jul 2001)
Voted YES on limiting death penalty appeals. (Apr 1996)
Voted YES on restricting class-action lawsuits. (Dec 1995)
Rated 25% by CURE
Voted YES on increasing penalties for drug offenses. (Nov 1999)
Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (Jun 2008)
Voted NO on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
Rated 17% by the CAF
Rated 53% by the LCV
Rated 100% by the Christian Coalition
Voted NO on granting the District of Columbia a seat in Congress.
Voted YES on requiring photo ID to vote in federal elections.
Voted NO on including prescription drugs under Medicare. (Jun 2000)
Rated 25% by APHA, indicating a anti-public health voting record.
Voted NO on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006)
Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)
Voted NO on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex basic training. (Jun 1998)
Rated 0% by SANE, indicating a pro-military voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Jun 2007)
Voted with Republican Party 82.9% of 316 votes. (Sep 2007)
Rated 20% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)
Rated 20% by the CTJ, indicating opposition to progressive taxation. (Dec 2006)


http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0902/S00005.htm

[bunnies]

40. And thats EXACTLY why he was sure to lose in 2010.

Now, if a moderate Repub runs - we might not win the seat after all. This move SUCKS. I was so looking forward to voting this shitbag out of office.

And now Lynch has made himself vulnerable too. Unreal. :banghead:

[AtomicKitten]

34. Maybe it's a trade-off to get Hilda Solis confirmed who will actually be in charge of Labor.

:shrug:

[Better Believe It]

35. Obama Won. The Democrats Won. Why is a trade-off necessary?

[AtomicKitten]

36. Who knows? I was just speculating with my tin foil hat on. n/t

[pork medley]

39. Whew! I had no idea this rope-a-dope thing had to be so meandering and convoluted.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

41. If it means anything to you, Labor, not Commerce, has jurisdiction of union related issues.

So really, your arguments aren't very relevant unless you don't want any anti-union person in any part of our government - which is fine and all, of course, but it should be stated somewhere.

[Better Believe It]

42. I don't want union busters in Obama's cabinet

"So really, your arguments aren't very relevant unless you don't want any anti-union person in any part of our government - which is fine and all, of course, but it should be stated somewhere."

I don't want any extreme right-wing union busters and labor haters appointed by President Obama to high positions in his administration.

Is that clear enough for you?

Now tell me why you have a problem with that.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

43. If you read, you'd have seen "which is fine and all"

But your argument is not that Gregg is patently unqualified for the office of Secretary of Commerce, but that you don't want to see any anti-union person anywhere in the cabinet, regardless of whether or not that position has any influence over union-related policy. Therefore, you did not clearly state your opinion.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

[Better Believe It]

45. If you prefer right-wing corporate whores in the Cabinet that's your right

But I prefer seeing government leaders who support working people.

I can see that you're not burdened with political comprehension and compassion for working class people.

However, being such a high-class person you might be afflicted with a major case of snobbery.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

47. You're not burdened with reading comprehension.

At no point did I say or even imply that there was anything wrong with a pro-union stance. You're either a moron or a jackass - which do you prefer?

PS. That's not snobbery - that's me being pissed off at you for putting words in my mouth for absolutely no good reason.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

44. If you read, you'd have seen "which is fine and all"

But your argument is not that Gregg is patently unqualified for the office of Secretary of Commerce, but that you don't want to see any anti-union person anywhere in the cabinet, regardless of whether or not that position has any influence over union-related policy. Therefore, you did not clearly state your opinion.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

[Better Believe It]

46. In order for us lower-class elements to understand your comments do you

think it's necessary to post your comment twice, or are you just learning how to use a keyboard?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

48. Or, as is the case quite frequently at DU, there was a glitch.

Thanks for playing, moron.

[Better Believe It]

49. You're the glitch, not DU

Now go play with your rich friends on Wall Street and their political whores like Senator Gregg, leave us working folks on DU alone.

We don't play with right-wing jackasses who defend "qualified" reactionaries like Senator Gregg.

I just put you on ignore.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

51. Calling you out on a flawed argument is equal to defending Gregg?

Saying Gregg is unqualified for Secy of Commerce solely because he's anti-union is like saying that Howard Dean is unqualified to be Secretary of HHS because he supports the death penalty. It's not relevant to the position.

I oppose Gregg's nomination because he relies far too heavily on an entirely open market system that lacks protections for American workers. That's a legitimate reason to oppose Gregg for this position.

But you know what? Keep your head just firmly planted in your ass.

[demo dutch]

50. Calm down he's not going to be the Secr. of Labor, Commerce is a cushy job and he won't

be voting anymore, that's a good thing