Is there any upside to that Judd Gregg appointment? DLC appointees are tolerable but

[yurbud]

putting a Republican in a position related to trade deals is really beyond the pale.

I'm not sure why Obama is making this effort except that the owners of the GOP still own the media--but if he let the GOP die, their sycophantic media would be an even bigger white elephant than Karl Rove's K Street Project.

What am I missing?

[liberalpragmatist]

1. I'm not a fan, but here's the upshot

I don't really like putting Gregg at Commerce, but it has a few upsides:

(1) Commerce really doesn't do much. Even its trade functions are pretty minor.
(2) Gregg is an ardent conservative - he gets replaced by a more moderate conservative (Newman), who's also just a caretaker and will vote with us more often than Gregg would have.
(3) In 2010, we now are likely to pick up the seat with Paul Hodes - before, it was only a 50-50 prospect.

[Jennicut]

2. We will definately have a shot at that seat in 2010. That is only two years away.

[snowbear]

3. That's what a few DU'ers from NH said too.. They said Judd would've won re-election easily..

.
.

So hopefully we'll have a stellar candidate -


--

[Jennicut]

4. My father in law lives in NH. He is a repub but thinks that seat will go Dem now.

Good for us in the long run.

[yurbud]

5. that's a good reason. Give him a deputy who will be Cheney to his Bush

[SoxFan]

23. Hodes would have beaten Gregg

This appointment stinks to high heaven, and the sleazy deal to put a Republican in gregg's seat is even worse.

[Sebastian Doyle]

18. And how many seats will we lose in states with Diebold machines?

This asshole shouldn't be able to set any conditions on him leaving the Senate anyway. The governor should appoint a Democrat (as far as I know, he's legally entitled to do so) to the seat, then they should seat Al Franken, and go on with a 60 seat Senate majority NOW, and not give Harry Reid an excuse for another 2 years of spinelessness, only to have it all stolen from us in the next election.

[Occam Bandage]

19. After '06, and '08, you're still raising the "OMG DIEBOLD WILL STEAL IT ALL NEXT ELECTION" flag?

Apparently they were asleep at the wheel in the past two cycles.

[Thrill]

6. None that I can see. This was the first time I've been disappointed with an Obama appointment

[Occam Bandage]

7. Is there any downside?

He's an ardent conservative, and his Senate replacement will be a moderate conservative. Commerce doesn't do a whole lot, so Gregg will basically sit on his ass and fold paper airplanes for four years. That's a net win for us. And we'll likely pick up the seat in 2010. That makes it even better.

Other than the visceral reaction to having "another Republican in the cabinet," what's the downside? It's not like he has the ability to set trade policy by himself or anything; he can't do anything substantive related to foreign trade without Obama or Congress enacting it.

(Edit for full disclosure: this is probably the fourth time I've copy-pasted this exact text block in a thread.)

[yurbud]

8. thanks, I feel better

[BlooInBloo]

9. No matter how many times you say it, it will never be enough.

[Hippo_Tron]

10. What you are missing is that trade policy is set by the US Trade Representative

The International Trade Administration (the trade part of the Commerce Department) has absolutely nothing to do with trade policy. It is basically a liaison for US businesses to assist them in finding export markets and handle complaints from businesses of trade practices being violated.

The Commerce Department is in reality little more than an umbrella organization that oversees a few agencies that provide services (mostly statistical research) to American businesses. The Commerce Department and Commerce Secretary have little to do with actual process of making policy. Put simply, the Commerce Secretary doesn't really do much of anything except act as figurehead liaison between business and government. He has absolutely no control over economic or business policy whatsoever.

This would have been the perfect place for Obama to place a token Republican in his cabinet in the first place instead of making Ray LaHood Secretary of Transportation. That appointment is far more consequential than Gregg at commerce yet it didn't get nearly as much attention on DU. I think that's probably because we were discussing Caroline Kennedy or Roland Burris at the time it was announced.

[Demeter]

11. Gregg Will Have to Follow Obama's Orders, Or Suffer the Consequences

Sort of like putting a headlock on known head cases.

[burythehatchet]

12. Excellent, I was looking for a thread where DU denizens were able to rationalize the

Jugg Gregg pick, and I found it!

Congratulations y'all, you're officially the twilight zone co-inhabited by Cheney's 12%.

[Occam Bandage]

13. Feel free to provide counterarguments.

Maybe even counterarguments beyond "RAAGH BIPARTISAN REPUBLICAN RAAGH NOT CHANGE I CAN BELIEVE IN."

[burythehatchet]

14. It is not difficult to identify those with whom a rational discussion can occur

and those with whom it cannot. Just like I stopped debating Cheney supporters about 7 years ago.

:hi:

[Occam Bandage]

15. Try me.

Seriously, it's a lame cop-out to say, "oh, well, I guess everyone who has a different opinion simply can't be reasoned with..."

[burythehatchet]

16. RAAGH BIPARTISAN REPUBLICAN RAAGH NOT CHANGE I CAN BELIEVE IN.

I simply do not possess the intellectual capacity to counter that. I'm sorry.

[Occam Bandage]

17. Here, I'll go first:

I think my RAAGH post was entirely on the same intellectual level as pseudopsychiatric claims of "rationalizing" and "twilight zone"-knocks-slash-Cheney-comparisons, but it seems your feelings were hurt or something, so we'll go back to facts:

He's an ardent conservative, and his Senate replacement will be a moderate conservative. Commerce doesn't do a whole lot, so Gregg will basically sit on his ass and fold paper airplanes for four years. That's a net win for us. And we'll likely pick up the seat in 2010. That makes it even better.

Other than the visceral reaction to having "another Republican in the cabinet," what's the downside? It's not like he has the ability to set trade policy by himself or anything; he can't do anything substantive related to foreign trade without Obama or Congress enacting it.

Now, what are your counterarguments?

[burythehatchet]

20. sure

This is a list of the department's mission. It is your value judgment to declare it a useless cabinet position. (Then why is it a cabinet position?) I believe that several of the items listed below are critical to an economic recovery, as well as how business interests must relate to scientific issues like climate change.

Like many other governmental agencies, Commerce has the potential to act as an engine of positive socio-economic change, or it can be a useless bureaucracy. You argument seems to be that it is indeed a useless function that can used as a political lever to try and gain a senate seat. I want reasons NOT to be cynical. What is so wrong about hiring a liberal Democrat to actually pursue some of the goals listed below?

The Department fulfills this mission by:

a. Participating with other Government agencies in the creation of national policy, through the President's Cabinet and its subdivisions.

b. Promoting and assisting international trade.

c. Strengthening the international economic position of the United States.

d. Promoting progressive domestic business policies and growth.

e. Improving comprehension and uses of the physical environment and its oceanic life.

f. Ensuring effective use and growth of the Nation's scientific and technical resources.

g. Acquiring, analyzing, and disseminating information regarding the Nation and the economy to help achieve increased social and economic benefit.

h. Assisting states, communities, and individuals with economic progress.

[Occam Bandage]

21. But you will note those are simply a pack of vague generalities.

Realistically, most of the Commerce department's functions are indeed just bureaucratic processing. As best I can tell from looking around their sites, they administer the census, produce an enormous, enormous mass of economic reports (through several agencies), distribute some science and small business grants, administer the weather service, process patents, issue standards of measurement and collect materials/engineering/chemical data for scientists and engineers, and provide input on and promote trade deals. The mission statement list is so vague because Commerce is really just a hodgepodge of technical/bureaucratic subagencies thrown together. Few will require his input on anything but a bureaucratic-management level, and fewer still will provide opportunity for partisanship, especially since Gregg will be surrounded by Obama appointees and career technocrats in every agency.

It isn't a useless department, though I can understand why some people (such as Gregg, incidentally) would believe it should be dissolved and its agencies reorganized or redistributed. It is, however, useless for partisan purposes. It is primarily a bureaucracy and not a regulatory force; those things it does regulate (such as in the NTIS) are so dry and technical that there isn't much room for partisan mucking-up; I don't think that the Republicans have been pushing to alter the layout of material safety data sheets.

[Hippo_Tron]

24. Also, Commerce Department exists because it used to be Commerce and Labor

Labor became a higher priority than it used to be and it got its own department. We were then left with the Commerce Department that as you say probably shouldn't even be a Department in the first place. The Commerce Department doesn't even perform any functions as far as I can tell that aren't performed by its various agencies. The hierarchy is Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and then all of the undersecretaries are the agency heads.

As you say, it really should not even be a department since it is just an umbrella of the various agencies. Get rid of the department and appoint a cabinet-level Director of Commerce to oversee all of the agencies just as the Director of National Intelligence oversees all of the intelligence agencies.

[florida08]

22. not this guy

Gregg will be a blocker. He already recused himself from the stimulus vote..what kind of support to the president is that. His staffer is also in trouble..mixed up with Jack Abramoff..don't trust Gregg as far as I can throw him. Obama should get rid of him.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=132&topic_id=8169560&mesg_id=8169560