Did Harry Reid Intentionally Try to Sabotage President Obama?

[redstate_democrat]

Harry Reid apparently recommended Judd Gregg to President Obama for Commerce Secretary. Was this sabotage? And no, I am not at all joking or being hyperbolic.

Why on earth would Harry Reid do such a thing? Why recommend someone who:

Voted to ABOLISH the Commerce Department (Why not nominate Ron Paul as Secretary of Education while we're at it?)

Voted NO on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism. (Jul 2005) How the FUCK do you vote against restricting business with entities linked to TERRORISM? And then turn around and vote this way:

# Voted YES on cutting $221M in benefits to Filipinos who served in WWII US Army. (Apr 2008)
# Voted NO on requiring FISA court warrant to monitor US-to-foreign calls. (Feb 2008)
# Voted NO on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months. (Jul 2007)
# Voted NO on implementing the 9/11 Commission report. (Mar 2007)
# Voted NO on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006)
# Voted NO on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods. (Sep 2006)
# Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
# Voted YES on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)

Voted YES on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (Apr 2000)

Voted YES on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. This is particularly interesting since he would be in charge of the Minority Business Development Agency.

Voted NO on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)

Voted YES on reforming bankruptcy to include means-testing & restrictions. (Mar 2005)

Rated 92% by (wingnut) CATO, indicating a pro-free trade voting record. (Dec 2002)


This is extra fun STUFF:
Voted NO on $52M for "21st century community learning centers".

Voted YES on $75M for abstinence education BUT Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives

voted to define an UNBORN fetus as eligible for SCHIP :wtf:

Voted NO on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility. (Nov 2007) I wonder if the UNBORN fetuses count?

Voted NO on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity. (Mar 2006)

Voted NO on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Apr 2007) He doesn't want the government to negotiate drug prices
with Big Pharma, how is he going to negotiate and bring it to trade partners who undermine fair trade? He likes to take it on the chin it appears.

Voted NO on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002) This is NOT the "free market" working. I wonder why he voted against this, being the big free market douche he is.

Voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (Jun 2007)





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

Reading this guy's page is terrifying. He is a total and complete wingnut. Really, please read the wingnuttery at Ontheissues.org. He is opposite of everything Democrats stand for.

Did Harry Reid forget to use his :sarcasm: tag or what? Was this a joke gone bad? We are giving the Commerce Department to a total wingnut in return for.....? Couldn't we at least aim for a Republican not AS wingnuttery? Why not a Democrat? How do you go from Bill Richardson to Judd Gregg? Clearly they didn't have a defined "profile" or "type" they were searching for to fill this position.

It takes a LOT of balls to not only take a job you voted to eliminate, but to also take a job under a President you derided and DEMAND that your successor (WHO IS TO BE SELECTED BY A DEMOCRAT) in the senate be a Republican. It takes a lot of something else to accept such demands from that kind of person without kicking him to the dustbin of irrelevancy.

[firedupdem]

1. I have been able to understand every pick so far even if I had a

few reservations. This one I don't understand at all. I know Gregg's replacement is supposedly a place holder and a Dem will easily win in 2010, but from what I read this guy should have been able to easily beat anyway. I don't understand this one.

[redstate_democrat]

6. He was up for reelection in 2010 anyway.

:shrug:

[ProSense]

2. This is such nonsense.

Here is Senator McCaskill praising Gregg.



On edit: If Reid did suggest Gregg, why exactly would Obama just accept Reid's suggestion? Isn't Obama responsible for making the decisions on who he appoints to his cabinet?

[defendandprotect]

7. If you believe Obama is really president ....yes. If you understand ....

nation run by wealthy/corporations ... no.

[ProSense]

8. If you believe Obama isn't president, but some weak puppet, then give it up. n/t

[defendandprotect]

16. What do you believe? Is Gregg an Obama pick, or not?

[onenote]

38. absolutely an Obama pick

Obama served in the Senate for four years, and was on the same committee with him: Children, Education, Labor and Pensions. The idea that he didn't know what Gregg's positions were and picked him, or that he was forced to pick him against his better judgment, is, as another poster indicated, "utter nonsense."

[firedupdem]

10. He is the President. He's shown that everyday. No doubt about it. n/t

[defendandprotect]

17. OK .. so Emmanuel + Gregg are Obama's picks ...???

[firedupdem]

20. Yes they are...he stood up there with them and introduced them

as his picks. He's not an idiot.

[defendandprotect]

24. Therefore, these are the people Obama wants ... agrees with ...!!!

[FraDon]

35. • whoa, citizen, THAT's a leap too far.

What part of "...and keep your enemies closer" escapes you?

[defendandprotect]

51. Obama's entire Cabinet is there because he wants them . . .

pissing out of the tent rather than inside of it -- ???

All of them are his "enemies" ---

Dream on --

[debbierlus]

40. Obama has the final say. He is the President. He chooses his people

Obama has chosen the the Republican wing of the democratic party to inhabit his cabinet positions, oh, & Republicans.

[defendandprotect]

52. "Obama has chosen the the Republican wing of the democratic party "....

you got it ---

and Republicans, as well --- !!!

Some would like to deny all of this --- takes a lot of desperate mental acrobatics tho -- !!!

[redstate_democrat]

9. I'm trying to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt on this.

by shifting the blame to Reid. Maybe he took this recommendation on Harry's "good word"? It's clear many of these nominations haven't been thoroughly vetted. I just can't see President Obama KNOWINGLY nominating a stooge who voted to abolish the commerce department and get rid of funding for minority and women business development (a key agency in the Commerce Department). This guy is on the FRINGE and I thought we weren't supposed to be tolerating the fringe anymore in our quest to reach towards the "center". Democratic activists are considered the "fringe" and not worthy of any due attention or consultation, according to some political consultants and strategists.

[ProSense]

14. " I just can't see President Obama KNOWINGLY nominating a stooge "

Obama was in the Senate for nearly four years. He didn't unknowingly do anything related to the Judd appointment.

It's his decision. The buck stops at Obama.

[redstate_democrat]

23. You have absolutely no idea what he knew or didn't know.

[ProSense]

25. Right, he's clueless about Gregg's voting record that can be found on Google. He's being manipulated

by everyone. Poor Obama, he's in over his head. What made him think he could be President, run the country and make cabinet appoints?

[redstate_democrat]

28. President Obama is not the one googling or checking into people's tax returns

He RELIES on advisers to do that for him and then he makes his decisions. Now, what I am saying is that he has been getting some FUCKED UP advice lately. He cannot be entirely faulted for relying on this advice. However, I understand that Obama and this man hadn't even talked while he was in the senate the entire 4 years he was there. :wtf:

Clearly President Obama would take back his nominated of Dashle if he had known back then what he knows now. "I screwed up" Even he knows he can screw up. What I am saying here is that President Obama screwed up by selecting Gregg as ComSec.

If you call justifiably relying on advisers you trust being "manipulated" then I guess that's what it is. His advisers suck lately.

[ProSense]

29. People's tax returns are available on Google. A Senator

who doesn't know another Senator's voting record is clueless.

You can continue believing Obama is naive and being led around by people he also has no clue about.

Obama owned up to Daschle. The buck stops at Obama.

[redstate_democrat]

30. "People's tax returns are available on Google."

:wtf: Did I SAY people's tax returns are available on Google????

Normally, when one VETTS another, they have a person fill out a questionnaire on things like taxes, past statements, views, and research is conducted as to that person's personal and political life, including voting record if applicable. The President is not the one conducting this research himself, so he must rely on those who are supposedly charged with that responsibility. If these people didn't do their jobs, then he gets bad advice. If these people have some personal agenda and decide to omit certain things, that's another situation. I'm saying that President Obama probably didn't have time to personally get on the net to research Gregg's votes dating back to the early 90s. Obama has only been in the Senate for four years and has been campaigning for two of those years. He of course didn't have the time to learn every member's voting record on every issue while there. So, now, because of a lack of personal knowledge, he probably had to rely on vetters for a view of the man and probably a few one on one conversations with Gregg. But, the overall picture of this man is terrifying, and I just will not believe that President Obama felt this man was the BEST and BRIGHTEST he could have at Commerce.

Will.not.believe.it.

[ProSense]

47. Well considering that tax returns are not an issue with Gregg, but Senate records are

WTF is up with all your WTFs?

Obama is not clueless about Judd Gregg's record so if another Senator (Harry Reid) can dupe him on Gregg's voting record, then that's pathetic.

You can't seriously believe that Obama has no clud that Gregg is a conservative Republican.

[Thrill]

3. Its hard to judge his voting record sometimes. As the leader, he has to vote against some things so

they can bring it up again

[firedupdem]

4. My husband just reminded me of that. Reading post #2

it sounds like he will vote policy instead of party. I guess some deal has to be worked out for Obama to pick him. :shrug:

[defendandprotect]

5. "He is opposite of everything Democrats stand for" ....

I think you mean "used to stand for" --???

And, how much trust, confidence have any of us felt in Reid ....!!!

I think Reid recommended Gregg not to sabotage Obama, specifically, but to

further cause of sabotaging Democratic Party --- completely.

Because this is what will happen now with this administration --

Pelosi/Reid inaction on wars -- refunding them -- was the first signal for all this.

[democracy1st]

13. and the rightwing propaganda machine has found new life while the dems appear to get weaker

[Two Americas]

33. pretty obvious

There are many in denial about this, and the debates back and forth are getting tedious, eh? It is pretty hard to analyze and discuss what is happening when people deny what is happening.

The natives were getting restless. The danger of a popular uprising was growing every day. The ruling class has been wondering - what to do? How can we divide, negate and co-opt the opposition, the potential leadership for that popular uprising? Not saying that this is what is happening, however that would explain the bizarre things we are seeing, and there is no doubt that infatuation with a charismatic leader is causing people on the Left to contradict themselves, to acquiesce to almost anything, and to attack each other.

What do people imagine is going to happen with a collapsing economy and ever more suffering by an already stressed and beleaguered working class? A picnic?

[geek tragedy]

11. It's Obama's own damn fault for not recognizing

that appointing Judge Dredd would be a terrible, awful, no-good idea.

[backscatter712]

12. It's a little late now.

One of the advantages of putting Gregg in the Cabinet is that he now has to follow orders. It doesn't matter how right-wing Gregg is if he's ordered to implement left-wing policies by President Obama. The only thing left to do is to structure the Dept. of Commerce around Gregg, and give him some standing orders so as to make him absolutely useless. In other words, it will be Rahm Emanuel who will be the real head of the Dept. of Commerce, while Gregg gets to sit on his ass and sign his name when Rahm sticks papers in front of him. Nice gig if you can get it...

My theory was that Obama picked Gregg to kick him upstairs, so as to free up his seat. It doesn't look like his replacement is much of an improvement, but at least the seat will be far easier for Dems to take in 2010.

[redstate_democrat]

18. I hear a lot folks saying this... that he will just be some puppet at the head of another huge dep't

But I'm not so sure. Just look at the massive fraud, corruption, malfeasance of many of these departments in recent history. We have to CLEAN UP these departments. Many of the folks over at Commerce are probably Bushbots left over who have burrowed themselves into nice, cozy jobs. The White House doesn't have TIME to MICROMANAGE a huge department like Commerce. It just simply doesn't. Rahm cannot be secretary of commerce while doing his job as COS. It won't work. Why even bother? If you've ever worked for the federal government, you know how this works. Little rules changes or made here and there, money is redirected over there and not there, initiatives are undermined because an individual thinks it's crap, certain departments are understaffed as to make them ineffective, investigations into corruption, fraud or nonexistent, things are COVERED UP, and the tone, morale, and mood is markedly changed depending on who's heading the department.

[backscatter712]

21. Obama can always fire Gregg sometime down the road.

Either when Gregg fucks something up, or maybe in a year or two when he thinks the Rethug's hissy-fit won't disrupt things too much.

[defendandprotect]

19. That theory works ...

if you were born yesterday ...!

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

15. Re: Harry Reid's bad advice to 2 different Presidents

Harry Reid, more notable for his lack of presence than the opposite, has made 2 unusual recommendations to 2 different Presidents

1. Harriet Miers to President Bush for a Supreme Court nominee
http://www.courttv.com/news/supreme/100305_miers_ap.htm...

"Democratic and Republican special interests groups had been braced for a political brawl over the pick, but they may not get it. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had urged the president to consider Miers, according to several officials familiar with Bush's consultations with Congress."



2. Judd Gregg to Obama for Commerce Secretary

Just saying sometimes you have to wonder about Harry's agenda.

[defendandprotect]

22. Reid, like most people, probably recommends those he's like to see picked...!!!

I'm not so much wondering about Reid/Pelosi agenda ... I'm aghast--!!!

[redstate_democrat]

26. He gives bad advice.

[defendandprotect]

53. That's like saying Cheney gave "bad advice" . . . No . . .

Cheney gave the advice which benefited the team he was working for . . .

Same is true of Reid -- he advocated for those he wanted to see part of the

administration or SC. Now . . . tell me next that Reid is stupid?

Or that Cheney or Bush were stupid?

[Marsala]

31. Miers may have been deliberately bad advice to stymie Bush

With Gregg, Reid probably just wants him out of the Senate. Gregg's seat is now a much more attractive possible 2010 pickup.

[redstate_democrat]

32. So to get him out of the senate where he is simply 1 out of 100

he decides to suggest making him HEAD of the Commerce Department?

Good strategery there, Harry!

[Enrique]

27. Obama must be warned

write him and tell him watch out for this Harry Reid fellow.

[defendandprotect]

54. I think you should send that warning to DU --- !!!

[global1]

34. We Don't Know What Obama Knows About Gregg......

Obama is no dummy and I'm sure he has a very good reason for picking Gregg. As Gregg was a colleague of Obama's in the Senate = maybe Obama got to know the guy on a personal basis and maybe he believes that Gregg voted like he did because he was coerced by BushCo.

I will give Obama the benefit of the doubt anytime.

[defendandprotect]

55. Daschle character is well known by anyone who watches C-span . . .

or has any idea of what he did as Majority leader ---

Are you saying that Obama was probably "SHOCKED" . . . !!!! by the truth about Daschle???

I'm sure no one either thought to mention to Obama that Daschle was making tons of money

speaking to the health care/insurance folks???

[ClarkUSA]

36. Relax. Reid got rid of an incumbent. Now Democrats are even more favored to win the seat in 2010.

95% of incumbents get re-elected. Now, the placeholder will get a stiff challenge from Paul Hodes or someone else from
the deep NH Democratic bench. Also, President Obama gets a fiscal conservative Republican singing the praises of his
stimulus package (which Gregg did during his acceptance speech at the White House this morning) which should make
his fellow Republicans choke on their BS at the very least and possibly make some support the package where they
normally would not.

The New Hampshire Union Leader reports Rep. Paul Hodes (D-NH) will announce his candidacy for the U.S. Senate "within
the week." Paul Hodes is a popular and well-known incumbent Congressman who will soon become the next Democratic Senator
from NH. You better believe that President Obama will be campaigning for whoever the Democratic candidate is. In NH, which
Barack beat McCain in the GE, that points to a coattail win, especially if his approval numbers stay relatively high.

Team O, Sen. Harry Reid, and the DSCC are way ahead of the curve. They're playing political chess while many at DU are
still mastering checkers.

[onenote]

37. Of course he did. After all Obama couldn't have known anything about Gregg's positions

after serving with him in the Senate for four years, part of that time on the same committee (Health Education Labor and Pensions and of course none of Obama's advisors could've known about Gregg's positions either.

Yep, it was all a clever move by Reid.

Oh, yeah, I am joking and being sarcastic. I wish the OP had been.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

39. I wouldn't put it past him.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

41. REID is DLC. What did we expect? He has kissed Bush's ass for

8 years. What did we expect? The biggest problem with the Democratic Party: DINOs in the form of the Democratic Leadership Council.

[Enrique]

43. Reid is not DLC n/t

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

44. He's not? Prove it? Either he's not or he just acts like he is...

[Enrique]

45. here

John Kerry, John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, yes DLC. Harry Reid, not DLC.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Democrat_Coalition

Senate New Democrat Coalition members

The following Senators belong or belonged to the Senate New Democrat Coalition.<4><5><6>

Current senators

Blanche Lincoln (AR, founder)
Dianne Feinstein (CA, by 2001)
Thomas R. Carper (DE, by 2001; co-chair from 2003)
Joe Lieberman (CT, founder)
Bill Nelson (FL, by 2001)
Evan Bayh (IN, founder)
Mary Landrieu (LA, founder, co-chair from 2003)
John Kerry (MA, from 2000<7>)
Debbie Stabenow (MI, by 2001)
Kent Conrad (ND, from 2000)
Ben Nelson (NE, by 2001)
Tim Johnson (SD, from 2000)
Maria Cantwell (WA, by 2001)
Herb Kohl (WI, from 2000)

Former senators

Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY, from 2001; retired from Senate in 2009 <8>)
Bob Graham (FL, founder, chair from 2000-2003; retired from Senate in 2003)
Max Cleland (GA, from 2000; defeated in 2002)
Zell Miller (GA, from 2001; retired from Senate in 2004)
John Breaux (LA, from 2000; retired from Senate in 2004)
Jean Carnahan (MO, from 2001; defeated in 2002)
John Edwards (NC, from 2000; retired from Senate in 2004)
Bob Kerrey (NE, from 2000; retired from Senate in 2000)
Richard Bryan (NV, from 2000; retired from Senate in 2000)
Chuck Robb (VA, from 2000; defeated in 2000)

[ProSense]

48. John Kerry is not DLC.

They had Obama listed as DLC, and he actively remove his name from the list. Kerry obviously didn't take action, but he has never been a member of the DLC.
The DLC was started by Gore and Clinton. Kerry has embraced a lot of Democratic organizations, but in order to be DLC, one has to actually support their positions. Kerry has never supported a single DLC position, but people continue to push the lie.

[Enrique]

49. you kidding me?

"John Kerry has never supported a single DLC position". What about NAFTA? What about welfare reform?

I think people are under the impression that "he's DLC" is the same as "I like him." It's not. You can like someone who's DLC and conversely you can dislike someone who's not DLC, like Harry Reid.

Oh, and you can still like Obama even though he has some DLC tendencies. I do.

[ProSense]

50. No, I'm not. Kerry supports free trade.

His position has always been fix NAFTA. He voted against CAFTA because the bill wasn't strong enough.

[defendandprotect]

56. Reid doesn't have to wear the label "DLC" . . .

but he and Pelosi are certainly walking the walk of DLC.

[uponit7771]

42. No, 60 senate votes in 2010 outweigh what this guy can screw up under the Obama Admin

[grantcart]

46. While not intending to diminish any of your other points about Gregg

it seems that the vote about abolishing the Commerce Department was an absurd symbolic vote by the idiot Republicans and does not represent an actual interest in doing away with the department;

This Slate article has some points which also strengthen your argument (i.e. handling Census responsibilities but basically states that the Commerce Department doesn't have much ideological impact). However on the question of eliminating the Commerce Department it appears that it was a stupid vote but not a serious one about eliminating 4 government departments.

http://www.slate.com/id/2210438/

Finally, there is Gregg's vote to abolish the Commerce Department. At the time, Congress was voting on the 1996 budget. A representative from Michigan added an amendment that would balance the budget faster by killing the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Education, Commerce, and Energy—an absurdity, but also an attempt to signal to Democrats that balancing the budget would require cutbacks. Every Republican senator voted for it, plus a few Democrats. In a department with as many moving parts as Commerce, a conservative instinct to streamline could be a positive.

[defendandprotect]

57. Yeah . . . GOP doesn't want to kill most of government, including Education . . .

and Constitution . . . !!! They just act that way all the time for fun!!

They pollute every agency, twisting it's intent ---

And, of course, they didn't invent Signing Statements except for more fun!!!

Nothing serious in all of that --- !!!

And, they certainly didn't mean anything at all when they attacked the United Nations

by voting that they should leave NYC!!!

It's just all meaningless stupid stuff that counts for nothing --- !!!



PS: Just in case . . .

:sarcasm: