There doesn't seem to be much of a consensus about just whom New Hampshire John Governor, a moderate Democrat, might appoint to replace Judd Gregg in the Senate if Gregg, as now appears somewhat likely, is chosen to be Barack Obama's Commerce Secretary. The Hill is reporting, however, that sources to Gregg claim that he would not vacate his Senate seat unless a Republican were to be named in his place.
If Gregg's replacement must be a Republican, there is one name that would allow Lynch to come as close as possible to splitting the difference between the parties. That name is that of former State Representative Liz Hager, who has admitted to her interest in the position.
Hager is a Republican and says she would caucus with the Senate Republicans. Beyond that, however, there is a lot for Democrats to like. Hager, after being primaried out by more conservative opponents for her State House seat, endorsed Barack Obama, citing his pro-choice position. She is also a proud moderate, as the Concord Monitor reports:Hager said she sees the loss as a victory by the more conservative wing of the Republican Party over moderates. But, she said, she does not envision the primary winners prevailing in the general election. "Clearly, the people who are now in control of the Republican Party don't want people like me in it," Hager said. [...]
Hager, a longtime veteran in state government, is a true Rockefeller Republican, the liberal/moderate wing of the party which, until recently, had a fairly strong presence in New England. As the Republican party has gravitated toward conservatives, however, and as the Rockefeller Republicans have simultaneously been co-opted by New Democrats, they have become a dying breed, their vestige only apparent in a few remaining legislators like Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine. Hager, who has become an active critic of the Republican establishment, would probably legislate to Collins's and Snowe's left, and quite possibly to the left of several Senate Democrats, probably doing the most to upset the symmetry between party and ideology of any Senator since Zell Miller (whom, like Hager, was a relic of an older political tradition).
Hager describes herself as a moderate who is "proudly pro-choice, proudly pro-government." She sponsored a bill in 1999 that would have established an income tax to pay for education. She says her major interest was in "good government and efficient, well-run state government."
Hager described her opponents as Republicans who are "right-wing, anti-government and want to control social issues."
Hager said she's saddened by the low turnout, with the winner getting 395 votes. "I think a lot of people that have been associated with the Republican Party for years are no longer Republicans," she said.
Hager's appointment would furthermore deprive the Republicans the opportunity to claim that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof monopoly on power. And yet, at a time when their party is struggling to formulate anything resembling a majority coalition, they would seem to have little choice but to accept her, as her appointment would be the result of a Democratic President and Democratic Governor each having taken the unorthodox step of reaching across party lines to select a Republican. The Republicans could, of course, complain with ample justification that Hager was a RINO, but in so doing they would appear immoderate and intolerant at a time when the pretense of moderation and postpartisanship is the name of the game. They might also risk alienating Snowe and Collins, without whose votes the Republicans already lack the power to sustain a filibuster.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
For Democrats, Best Choice May be a Republican
-- Nate Silver at 2:23 PM
Labels: ideology, new hampshire, senate republicans
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)




49 comments
I...still don't know about this.
I mean, if Bush had done something like this, we would have been OUTRAGED -- trying to suborn the verdict of the voters, subverting the institutions of government by appointing less-qualified individuals for political advantage, and what effectively amounts to legal corruption -- a blatant quid pro quo.
I do very much like the idea of Liz Hager, who would bolster the much-threatened Snowe/Chafee/Collins wing of the party (well, less a wing than a growth, these days), but I remain fundamentally uneasy of the idea of 'stealing' a seat.
I think this is the best possible course of action. On paper, the optics of a female, moderate, Republican filling Gregg's seat (who in turn would bolster the Administration's claim to bi/post partisanship) are excellant. Should Gov. Lynch appoint a Democrat, it could been seen as a cynical political move overwriting the wishes of the voters and Republicans would be better able to crusade against big-spending liberal dominance. Appointing Hager, or any Republican, would make that more difficult, while giving the White House a moderate from NH, which is the next best thing to a democrat.
If it were McCain pulling a Democrat, there would be no question about a Republican being put in place.
The Democrats should grow a spine and nominate a Democrat. Although Hagen Lagen or whatever doesn't seem that bad and another woman can't be that bad either.
The people of NH elected a Republican and, because of this, they should be represented by a Republican. Even if Gregg didn't say that he would only go if the Governor picked a Republican, There would still be a good chance that the NH Gov would pick a Republican.
If the Nh Gov picks Hager, great she sounds like a great choice. If he picks another Republican, then the Democrats can try to wipe them out in 2010.
I think that appointing a Democrat to that position would look bad for both the Nh Gov and Obama. Both would be seen as using their position to play politics instead of considering what the people voted for.
As someone who came from a Rockefeller-Republican background, I've often ruminated on the seemingly inexorable slide of the party into an ultraconservative Christocracy; spending most of their energy promoting emotional wedge issues and hardly bothering to even pay lipservice anymore fiscal conservatism and efficiency of governance.
The USA is a big, complex nation. It doesn't need ideological amateurs in charge, wreaking havoc on whatever they don't understand.
It seems that since Reagan, at least, the Democrats are the only party that has shown any competence in the actual business of governing.
Hager seems like the kind of Republican I could vote for.
The people of NH elected a Republican and, because of this, they should be represented by a Republican.
No, they elected Gregg. That doesn't mean that the position is owned by Republicans.
The governor should select whomever is the best qualified.
Liz Hager is an interesrting, if somewhat inexperienced choice. If Lynch promises Gregg he will appoint a Republican, then he will. although I can think of about half-a-dozen moderate republicans that have as much or more experience than Hager. Heck, start with Warren Rudman, former gov. Peterson, Bruce Keogh. The list goes on and on. Rockafeller Republicans are rare generally, but not here in NH, the state of Republican nominee to the SCOTUS, David Souter.
Make the gift horse into a trojan horse? I am starting to like this game!
Seems like a great choice. Many of us had been drooling in hopes of McCain being appointed to a higher seat and then Napolitano appointing Kolbe, an openly gay republican, to fill his seat.
The gnashing of teeth and the rending of garments on the far right would have been delightful. But this would be almost as good - and they sound like good civil servants as well. What's not to like?
If Gregg makes his moves to the Cabinet conditional upon the naming of a Republican to replace him, that is both dishonest and unethical. Seats in Congress should not be subject to horse-trading.
Also, I wouldn't advise anyone to add Liz Hager to the Democratic caucus just yet. If she makes it to the Senate she will be under enormous pressure from the GOP leadership to toe their line exactly. I don't think Hager in the Senate will do the Democrats a scrap of good.
The lower house of the NH legislature has 400 members each representing 3000 people. They're paid $200 per year, plus mileage and free use of the state's toll roads.
Ms. Hager doesn't have what you would call a large political base.
if it must be a Republican, it should only be a caretaker like Rudman, who definitely won't run again.
By the way, by inexperienced, I just mean no federal government experience, by election or appointment. Liz Hager has lots of state government experience, having first served in the State House in 1972. I think she was there 26 years on and off. Hager is 64 years-old.
And, Nate, you'd probably like to know that Concord, NH, is about D+9.5, as of June 2008, so she's certainly moderate enough to win in 2010 in NH, which is now about D+1, I think.
And another BTW, Hager is not just pro-choice. She gave $1150 to NARAL in 2008 and gave in 2006 as well. She has also given for years to The Wish List, "America's Largest Fundraising Group for Pro-Choice Republican Women":
http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/elizabeth-hager.asp?cycle=08
in the first line--who is "New Hampshire John Governor"? :-)
Slight revision: I think Hager was the Concord Rep for Wards 5, 6 and 7. Those, together, are even more Democratic, at D+11.
From Politico.com:
"On the Republican side, a new name emerged Saturday as a potential Gregg successor: Bonnie Newman, a moderate Republican who has worked in the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administration, and was chief of staff to Gregg when he served in the House. Other GOP names frequently mentioned are former Gov. Walter Peterson, former Sen. Warren Rudman, former state House speaker Doug Scamman (who's a friend of Lynch), former Rep. Charlie Bass and former Sen. John Sununu, who lost his reelection bid in 2008 to Democrat Jeanne Shaheen."
Sununu?? Hager is looking better and better! Btw, Hager would get some serious primary challangers from the right.
And Rudman has, essentially, said he's not interested in going back to the Senate.
I just think that it's great that the folks in New Hampshire elected a governor named "Governor"! That bodes well for Wilfred B. President's 2016 run for the White House! :-)
Perfect choice!
It's not in President Obama's interest, or ultimately the Democratic party's interest, to have unbeatable majorities in both House and Senate. As soon as that happens, the party enjoying the advantage will soon self-destruct, i.e., wear out their welcome with the electorate.
I'm a staunch Democrat. Sent pretty big money to Obama's campaign. I'm also conservative financially, leery of consolidated union power, and--like Obama--in favor of what works. (BTW, I haven't seen any conservative Republicans recently--they've all gone big government, debt don't matter, don't pay bills, socialism (for their pals), nation-building, legislating their own morality on everyone else, and Big Brother listening in).
However. The last thing we need right now is for a solid Democratic Congress to get the bit in its teeth. Guarantee you the President doesn't want it. He needs some moderate Republicans, in order to keep the left of his own party in line on key legislation. Ms. Hager is perfect for Obama.
She is also perfect for leading a renewal of responsible, conservative Republicans, who believe in paying the bills on time, and not issuing bonded debt to pay operating costs, and other crazy behavior we have seen for 8 years past. Democrats won't be in the Presidency forever, and the Nation needs a return to the Cabot-and-Lodge Republican party.
F. Horne
I like it.
Of course, I also suggested something like it earlier, so I of course I like it.
Nate
Did you mean to say John Lynch, Governor of New Hampshire?
In one sense your fears may be justifiable; Democrats do not vote as a bloc. While a filibuster-proof majority for the GOP would be significant, since getting every single Republican to vote for cloture is highly likely, Democrats are more like a herd of cats. If a few fall off the wagon, there goes the cloture vote.
The flipside to this is that to get cloture without a 60 seat majority requires GOP buy-in. Adding Hager would mean there are three or four GOP moderates in the Senate, depending on what you think of Arlen Specter. While Olympia Snowe can do whatever she likes, the others (including Hager) will not be in so secure a position. McConnell can't tempt Snowe-she will never need his help to win anything. Hager might need campaign funds from the RNC-and where there's money, there are strings.
As such, I am not so sure Senator Hager would do much to help the Democrats. She might initially, of course, but sooner or later that election will start to feature prominently in her decision making, along with the funding source. Especially since much of New England has converted fully to Democratic turf- any contender she faces will have resources to draw upon that she does not.
So, that 60 seat majority might do more good than harm. It covers the Democrats' asses if some conservative Dems vote against a given bill and might on occasion result in cloture.
We live in desperate times-the economy is tanking and we're still at war on two fronts. We have to alter course entirely on social programs, infrastructure, the environment and civil rights. Sweeping changes have to take place very quickly. Obama has a high approval rating because he promised to make those massive changes. If he fails to deliver because his bills keep dying in the Senate from filibuster disease, the public will blame him for being ineffective and weak.
I think the American public will forgive ambitiousness. They will not forgive weakness.
Cynical i the word of the day.
"I won".
I sincerely hope that no Republican takes the bait to be the token.
If he wants to change his registration and stop attending the Republican caucus, that is right.
heh. Captcha is "goatc". Shouldn't that have a "cx" at the end of it?
I wonder if this appointment is a veiled suggestion that Gregg doesn't pay his taxes. Seems to be a prerequisite.
It's "who is a relic", not "whom is a relic". "Who" substitutes for "he" or "she", "whom" for "him" or "her".
This has been a public service announcement from the American Pronoun Council (but you can call us "Them").
I only hope that,behind the scenes,Rahm Emanuel ,has told John Lynch that if he has agreed to appoint a Republican,then the offer to Gregg will be withdrawn.
The offer to Gregg should be take it or leave it, straight up,with no third party deals.If Gregg resigns his Senate seat and is succeeded by a Republican then Obama will have been played for a fool by the GOP.
After eight years of having been pissrd on and outmaneuvered by the GO, it's time to play hardball and put some fear in the obnoxious Boehner and Canter who strut around as if they won!
Do I want the 60th sear now? You bet.We'll need it soon enough.There area lot of things that have to get done that the GOP will fight against ferociously.
The Democratic Party ,as it undoes the GOP damage of the Reagan/Bush?Bush years shouldn't have to be like Blanche DuBois and "rely on the kindness of strangers." The GOP aren't strangers;they are the enemy!
@Kimota94 aka Matt aka AgileMan
"I just think that it's great that the folks in New Hampshire elected a governor named "Governor"! That bodes well for Wilfred B. President's 2016 run for the White House! :-)"
Didn't work so well for Alexander Pope, however. The jury's still out on Peter King.
wv: briess: They make it into a ceremony? Ewww...
I don't think Gregg's demand that a Republican be named in his place is all that different than Blago's demand that Obama's Senate replacement hand him a million dollar check.
Hilarity Ensues:
It is rich anybody would say Obama would be "playing politics" if a Democrat replaced Gregg. That is the game; he is playing politics either way and no matter who gets appointed. The point of this game is to get your agenda across using whatever legal means are at your disposal, even creative ones. Notice how Republicans crammed down every tax cut and deregulation they could for the first six years of Bush, with zero regard for whether they were perceived as "playing politics", but now they are out of power, playing politics is suddenly a violation of the public trust and an unbelievable breach of their delicate sensibilities.
I do believe that if you make a deal you should keep it, so if it is legal for Gregg to put restrictions on his successor, and he makes that deal with Lynch, then Hager sounds like the best choice.
Otherwise, screw the Republicans, play hardball and go for sixty. Playing nice hobbles you, and the only thing Obama needs to promote in bipartisanship is exactly these Rockefeller Republicans.
Well, fuck.
Gregg told the AP that he will not accept a cabinet post unless his Senate seat goes to a Republican.
Unlike Nate, I am not a fan of a non-filibuster proof majority. I see weakness and ineffectiveness as more of a problem for Obama than appearing overambitious. Harry Reid is weak, Lieberman strays to the Right too much, and Democrats are notoriously individualistic in their voting patterns.
The more ground we cede to the GOP, the harder that cloture vote becomes. I forsee a future of bills sailing peacefully through the house and then dying on the Senate floor. Maybe this makes you seem nice and humble, but it also makes you appear incapable.
This reflects negatively on Obama. The honeymoon will eventually end, and people are going to start complaining if he can't get any bills passed. The comparisons to Carter will begin to pile up, and the GOp will slaughter us in 2010.
And who will we have to thank? All those of you who are so concerned about image that you forgot that no image looks worse than incompetence.
I've been mulling Statler's comments on a "filibuster-proof" majority in the Senate, and while I'm sympathetic, I'm not convinced.
Remember, the rationale for the Republican rejection of the stimulus package in the House is to be able to say "I told you so" if the economy is still in the dumper by 2010/2012. This assumes that Obama and the Democrats get most of what they want despite Republican opposition.
Suppose Republican-led filibusters in the Senate are responsible for the failure of a large number of Obama/Democratic initiatives on the economy, and the economy doesn't recover by 2010/2012. Wouldn't this support an argument that the Republicans have again done their best (worst?) to mess up the economy, and that more Democrats are needed in the Senate or the economy will never get fixed? This is not the outcome I want, but it is one possible upshot of the current situation.
Nate said: "The Republicans could, of course, complain with ample justification that Hager was a RINO, but in so doing they would appear immoderate and intolerant at a time when the pretense of moderation and postpartisanship is the name of the game."
So much for the Republicans "big tent" effort if they did label her a RINO (but then we all knew those Grumpy Old Pendejos were just putting out a snow job about the GOP big tent anyway).
polls_apart,
Your argument assumes that the economy will fail no matter what Democrats (and particularly, Obama) do.
You're already looking around for someone to blame for the economy's failure in 2010/2012.
I'm not looking for someone to blame. I'm not looking at how to cover up for failures that have not yet happened. Primarily because I do not want Obama to fail. I believe the President can turn the economy around if we let him.
Instead of looking for someone to pass the buck on to, why not confront the issue and fix it, so there will be no blame to assign?
Maybe for you, what's important is to always look for someone else to blame and never to even try to succeed, the politics of "It's the other guy's fault". That's not the politics I voted for in November.
Can we fix this economy? Yes, we can. Can we get it rolling again by 2010? Yes, we can. Do we need to pass the buck to somebody else if we succeed? No we don't. Whose to blame if we never even try? We are.
I think the Democrats can do this. Now get your obstructionist-justifying, blame-assigning, buck-passing ass the fuck out of our way, before we run that outdated political style of 'it's everybody else's fault not mine" over with an economic steamroller.
Stop implying we can't do this. Stop trying to get us to give up before we even begin. The fight is on. The time to stand up and exert ourselves is now. We need that 60 seat majority to cut through the logjams created by people who spend their energy taking advantage of the failures of others instead of developing their own success.
No excuses. The American people do not want you to spend the next 2-4 years looking for reasons why you failed to do your job. They want you to get off your ass and do something to fix the mess Bush left behind.
If in 2010 we have failed to correct the excesses of the Bush era to the point where the American people will vote us back into office so we can push ourselves into the success we would have achieved had he never set foot in the Oval Office, then we do not deserve the offices for which we run. If, by 2010, we have done nothing to improve this country, food and water safety, the environment, civil rights, and the economy, we do not deserve to be in power.
If we win in 2010, let it be because we did what we set out to do, and not because we were better at slinging mud than our opponents. Nobody loves a whiner. You are not given trophies for blaming the other people in the game. The Commander-inChief is not, and does not want to be, the Whiner-in-Chief.
The days when Democrats could successfully blame everything on the GOP are over. Nobody is going to look at the majority we hold in both House and Senate and believe that we couldn't egt anything done because of the GOP.
Most voters do not know what a filibuster is. Most of them just see the numbers, and can tell which side has the bigger ones.
It's time to grow up and get shit done.
Maybe after a few weeks with Hager in the Senate, caucusing as a Republican, Obama can withdraw his nomination of Daschle, because of the political support he is losing due to his tax evasion problems.
Then Obama could offer that job to Hager and the governor of New Hampshire could appoint a Democrat in her place.
I just wanted to clarify one thing in my above post, when I said, "This is not the outcome I want..."
I WOULD like to see more Democrats in the Senate after 2010. I hope it's not because the economy still sucks, but Republican intransigence in the Senate is the cause, and is successfully depicted as such come 2010. I would rather that it be the result of a recovery underway due to positive actions on the economy.
My previous post actually harks back to the 1948 elections, when Harry Truman ran successfully against a Republican "do-nothing" Congress. True, the Republicans actually held majorities then, whereas the Democrats do now. It seems to me that continuous obstruction by Republicans in the Senate stopping bills which pass the House can be used against the Republicans, if such comes to pass. If Republicans play the obstruction game, it will be at their own peril, not that of Democrats.
Remember also the 1980, 1982, and 1984 elections. Recovery from the the sour economy of the late 1970's didn't occur until after the mid-term elections of 1982. Reagan's victory in 1980 and the Democrats' gains in 1982 were largely due to the elongated period of poor economic performance. The turnaround came in time for Reagan's re-election in 1984.
So Obama is taking Gregg, a Republican moderate, out of the Senate in hopes of replacing him with another Republican moderate?
Obama's got a shot at hiving off the moderate Republicans. It's a big idea.
F. Horne
No, jjj1951, he is appointing his Secretary of Commerce. The Senate power dynamics, while of the highest importance obviously to his legislative agenda, are still not his only concern. He can't pick his people solely on how much they will affect his ability to advance bills through Congress - they need to be the people he believes can do the job. Plus (and a little conversely), he needs to wave the bipartisan flag a little, too.
Placing the choice solely in the terms of how it affects the Senate misses what is supposed to be the primary consideration for the pick.
I don't care if they appoint a Democrat, Republican or a snow fairy as long as they appoint somebody that is moderate and available to vote for a reasonable Obama position. Party label means less that how they vote. Some of the more conservative Democrats are more of a problem than a few good reasonable moderate Republicans. State politics vary from state to state. Not every Republican is a conservative wacko.
President Obama is playing a good hand by appealing to moderate Republicans. Suppose he took his Congressional majorities and crammed his legislation right down the throats of the Republicans. What that would do is continue the party polarizations, drive _all_ the Republicans away; and create the reasonable perception among Americans that now we just have another crowd of ideologues in charge, opposite but equal to the last crowd.
By appealing to moderate Republicans, he does two things: First, he drives a wedge into the Republicans, allowing the moderates to have some bacon to take home to their folks, while marginalizing the Limbaugh wingnuts; Second, he disciplines the wingnuts in his own party, since he can carry his legislation by peeling off Republicans, and doesn't necessarily need them. Finally, he creates the reality of a new politics, one which puts America first and party second--which is what folks would like to see.
Obama's niceness is in fact a devastating weapon against the right wing nuts. Boehner gets it--you notice he made it his business to create polarization on the house stimulus vote. He knows that polarization is the only thing that can hold Republicans together as a party. But Obama is defeating Boehner et al, by creating a political dynamic where moderate Republicans can have influence and hold their heads up while cooperating with the President. This approach will ever more powerfully pull the moderate Republicans into the President's orbit, while marginalizing the right wing nuts and limiting their power to just a handful of states.
F. Horne
HORNE
that is just wishful thinking on your part that anything Obama can do will garner actual hard support [as opposed to support 'approval'] from Moderate GOPers
appeasing them is not gonna gain any votes from the GOPer bloc in either the long or short-run. maybe some slack from GOPer senators in gfear for their relection chances in purple/blue states - but not in registered GOPers or in the house.
not gonna happen no matter how much Obama panders to them
however, Obama can continue to sell off access to his soul by leaning to the same old same old center-right pol gamesmanship & it might have a short-term impact on the INDs which could conceivably improve his own reelection in 2012
but at what cost to progress & his core progressive base ? and the impact on house DEMs in 2010 & 2012 & beyond
the appeasement smacks of Clinton triangulation whic cost the DEM party dearly in 1994 until 2006 [12 LONG years for Congress & progress in the wilderness]
history tends to repeat itself - and Obama playing nice with the GOPers will only continue to get him a shiv in the back at every opportunity
besides, BHO 'won' - and the GOPers lost running on their campaign theme that the country should not allow the DEMs to have control of all 3 branches...
Well, I'm not convinced that Republicans are entirely human,in the sense that they have this whole 'hive-mind' thing going on and rarely think for themselves. Holding a conversation with one is a bit like talking to a refrigerator; the light goes on, the light goes off, it won't do anything that's not built into it. Look at the House vote on the Stimulus package; Obama tried to reason with them, appeal to their individual intellects, and nothing happened. Why?
Because they have no individual intellects. You're dealing with people that refuse to think for themselves. Anh Cao refused to even represent his own district's wishes, choosing to vote however Boehner told him instead of how New Orleanians wanted him to vote.
There people are like robots. Okay, Snowe, Collins and Specter have some shred of humanity left in them, but the rest? Forget it, you're wasting your time.
I'd rather shove the legislation through and drag these ignorant bastards into the 21st Century kicking and screaming, to the benefit and appreciation of their constituents, who are held captive by Senators that refuse to represent their interests. Show their constituents that our plans work, that we know what we're doing and the GOP doesn't. When election time rolls around, we can point to our accomplishments, and how we did represent our constituencies. Then offer them a Democratic candidate that will do the same for them.
Show them they don,t have to vote for robots.
@Statler N Waldorf:
I agree, but I suspect they are like robots because they represent robots. The religious right is clearly people that cannot think for themselves and pretty much choose to obey authority without question.
Look at Bush's national approval rating; those that still approve of his great job are clearly not rational people, or at least are so overwhelmed by their fears and/or greed that they can't think straight.
It is not too surprising that the people they choose to lead them come from their own ranks.
Time for me to move on--no intelligent life here.
Tony C
Maybe so, but we can at least offer them the choice. Choice stimulates debate, and sometimes during debate people who have up until then done what they were told will find themselves questioning things. If anything is going to destroy the hive-mind, it will be the capacity to choose-even when that capacity is not immediately acted upon.
Take it from someone who lives and dies by the levee-all it takes is one crack to break through.
"Former State Representative Liz) Hager...says she would caucus with the Senate Republicans. Beyond that, however, there is a lot for Democrats to like." - Nate Silver
I'm not so sure I'd want a fresh Democratic-leaning Republican Senator to revive the shrinking party of reptiles by making them look newly reasonable.
Nate,
I am a great admirer of your writing and analysis. However, I do recommend that you take 3 minutes to review the difference between "who" and "whom," since you've been over-whom-ing a bit in your recent posts.
Trying to salvage the Republican Party is a waste of time. They jumped the shark a long time ago and are never coming back. The Democrats are the best center right party in my 50+ years and the only question left is how to create the center left party we're now missing. Those people still calling themselves Republicans are neither left, right, nor conservative and in the fullness of time will be marginalized to their rightful non-relevant place as an asterisk party.
So, to those thinking NH's governor can save the GOP by appointing a moderate, sorry it's too late for that. The handful of "moderates" that are left aren't that moderate, they're just the few sane conservatives mostly from New England and the Upper Midwest still animating like chickens without their heads until the blood stops flowing. Let's help it stop flowing.
That said, I think the appointment belongs to NH and whatever they think best. If Gregg, who I think distinguished himself in September and October, and appears worthy of Commerce, is making a demand I hope the WH is taking two steps back to see if there isn't a better choice available.
Senator Gregg, "moderate", is in a futile job where his only power derives from bucking the GOP leadership. Commerce is a clear step up. He has no need or right to make demands.
NH's governor has incentive to play along and get more representation in Washington, but he also has an incentive to build his party in NH. He better have a very good reason to pass over qualified Democrats for any Republican. He owes both the state and his party. In this case satisfying both is probably the right thing to do.
dennis,
By calling the GOP reptiles, you imply that Norm Coleman could actually be 'Lizard People'
Post a Comment