• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Gregg withdraws as Commerce nominee

Cylinder

Philosopher
Cylinder
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
6,062
Location
Arkansas
Stee-RIKE TWO!

Saying he "made a mistake," Republican Sen. Judd Gregg withdrew yesterday as the nominee for commerce secretary, dealing a fresh blow to President Obama's quest to fill out his Cabinet and dramatically undercutting his efforts to forge a new bipartisanship in the capital.

Gregg said that he had simply lacked foresight and that he shouldered the burden of the decision entirely. "I should have focused sooner and more effectively on the implications of being in the Cabinet versus myself as an individual doing my job," he said at a news conference on Capitol Hill.

He cited concerns about Obama's economic recovery plan and the administration's intent to have the next census director report to senior White House officials as well as the commerce secretary.
Click to expand...

Yes we can!
 
Not mentioned in that article is the plan to remove the task of taking the Census from the Commerce Secretary and giving it to the POTUS directly. Republicans fear the aim is to politicize the Census by overcounting in Dem areas via sampling, a method previously rejected by the SCOTUS.
 
WildCat said:
Not mentioned in that article is the plan to remove the task of taking the Census from the Commerce Secretary and giving it to the POTUS directly. Republicans fear the aim is to politicize the Census by overcounting in Dem areas via sampling, a method previously rejected by the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...
I have a feeling that a whole lot of Obama's decrees are going to wind up in front of the USSC. He is taking a page directly from FDR. He may even try to pack the courts.
 
Rika said:
... You have any ...

wait, what am I saying.
Click to expand...
Sure I do. The most recent is his EO mandating Union labor for stimulus projects. That will be be in front of the courts before the first contract is let.
 
Rika said:
Well. Can you link me to that?
Click to expand...

http://nrtw.org/en/blog/stimulus-big-labor-02092109


The new executive order signed by Obama on Friday encourages government bureaucrats to adopt discriminatory, union-only project labor agreements for any “large-scale construction project” – defined as any project costing over $25 million – and thus discriminate against the 92.5 percent of private sector workers who have chosen for a wide variety of reasons not to join a union.
Click to expand...
 
Texas said:
I have a feeling that a whole lot of Obama's decrees are going to wind up in front of the USSC. He is taking a page directly from FDR. He may even try to pack the courts.
Click to expand...

He's got a LONG ways to go before he comes anywhere near close to what Bush did.

That being said, I thought that Gregg's policy differences with the previous nominee, Richardson, made him a particularly bizarre choice. It also seemed bizarre that a prominent Republican would join the Obama cabinet just as 37 of 40 Republicans were voting against the stimulus bill. The Republicans do not seem to be in a particularly cooperative mood.
 
gdnp said:
He's got a LONG ways to go before he comes anywhere near close to what Bush did.

That being said, I thought that Gregg's policy differences with the previous nominee, Richardson, made him a particularly bizarre choice. It also seemed bizarre that a prominent Republican would join the Obama cabinet just as 37 of 40 Republicans were voting against the stimulus bill. The Republicans do not seem to be in a particularly cooperative mood.
Click to expand...
The are not in a cooperative mood simply because they believe in the plan. If you recall, it was the Republicans that voted down Bush's first Tarp plan. They are not voting against Obama they are voting their constituents wishes. and their own principles. The plan passed so be happy.
 
gdnp said:
He's got a LONG ways to go before he comes anywhere near close to what Bush did.

.
Click to expand...

Well it has only taken him 20 days to spend more than Bush did in his first 4 years so he is on the inside track and moving up fast.
 
Texas said:
The are not in a cooperative mood simply because they believe in the plan. If you recall, it was the Republicans that voted down Bush's first Tarp plan. They are not voting against Obama they are voting their constituents wishes. and their own principles. The plan passed so be happy.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid I don't give them so much credit. The plan is bad tasting medicine. Even though most economists seem to think it is necessary, it will not be popular.

So looking from their perspective, if the plan is a success Obama will get the credit whether the republicans voted for it or not. If the plan is a failure, then if they voted for it they will bear a share of the blame, just like the Democrats who voted in favor of the Iraq war did. Thus the upside of voting yea is minimal and the downside considerable. Much easier to vote no and then say "if only they had instituted OUR plan instead....
 
gdnp said:
I'm afraid I don't give them so much credit. The plan is bad tasting medicine. Even though most economists seem to think it is necessary, it will not be popular.

So looking from their perspective, if the plan is a success Obama will get the credit whether the republicans voted for it or not. If the plan is a failure, then if they voted for it they will bear a share of the blame, just like the Democrats who voted in favor of the Iraq war did. Thus the upside of voting yea is minimal and the downside considerable. Much easier to vote no and then say "if only they had instituted OUR plan instead....
Click to expand...
Then why did they vote against Bush's plan? These Republicans were elected by Republicans and Republican voters by a large margin are against this plan as they were with Bush's plan. You are trying too hard to find a venal reason for the Congressional Republicans to have voted the way they voted. As to medicine, I strongly disagree this is poison.
 
However, if the bill fails and the ones that DID NOT vote for it, they will be stronger because they knew their constituents did not want the bill. Way too many people already have called in o say no on bill. Most polls show this is not a favorable bill or if that half of most polled do not want it passed.

As far as Gregg, I have no clue what he was thinking, other then maybe he could get in and thinks he could of added wait to Obama's decisions. Clearly he realized that would not be happening. Only shows Obama's lack of insigh on who he is nominating.
 
Texas said:
Then why did they vote against Bush's plan? These Republicans were elected by Republicans and Republican voters by a large margin are against this plan as they were with Bush's plan. You are trying too hard to find a venal reason for the Congressional Republicans to have voted the way they voted.
Click to expand...
Regardless of the need for the TARP plan, there are still two plausible venal reasons for Republicans to vote against it:

1) Bush was an unpopular lame duck. There is no benefit to sucking up to him
2) The voters did not like it, especially conservative voters. The Republicans may have been pandering to their base in order to improve their election prospects regardless of their belief in the underlying need for the bill.

How many voted nay for these reasons and how many voted nay because of genuine philosophical differences is unknown. That the current bailout bill broke down almost perfectly along party lines would suggest that politics trumped philosophy. On both sides.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom