Google Ads


Site Stats

NH-Sen: Gregg Angling to Keep His Seat in GOP Hands?

by: James L.

Fri Jan 30, 2009 at 7:05 PM EST


Judd Gregg, who is currently under consideration for Commerce Secretary, is supposedly making it known that he'd want Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat, to appoint a Republican to his seat should he get the gig. From the Hill:

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) won't accept a position as President Obama's secretary of Commerce unless he is guaranteed his Senate seat remains in GOP hands, said two Republicans who know Gregg well.

Departing the Senate without one could give Democrats 60 members and a filibuster-proof majority.

"Gregg would never allow his seat to go to a Democrat, the only way he would allow it is if he died," said a Republican close to Gregg. "He would consider it to be a breach of trust to people who elected it."

As DavidNYC presciently argued yesterday, Lynch is just the type of Dem who would probably gladly acquiesce to such a demand. However, if Lynch tapped, say, Walter Peterson or Warren Rudman -- both oldsters whom I would not expect to see run in 2010, then this wouldn't be a bad deal.
James L. :: NH-Sen: Gregg Angling to Keep His Seat in GOP Hands?
Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

NH-Sen: Gregg Angling to Keep His Seat in GOP Hands? | 60 comments
how deep is the GOP bench in NH?
who would they likely run if Gregg doesn't in 2010?
Two probables
Kelly Ayotte, currently the state's Attorney General (who may or may not be replaced this year, depending on whether Governor Lynch decides to keep her - he had to keep her four years ago because he couldn't get a replacement past the Executive Council), and Manchester Mayor Frank Guinta.

The only other names even peripherally on the radar are John E. Sununu, who was just soundly defeated by Jeanne Shaheen when Sununu had the power of incumbency behind him and is unlikely to try for such a quick return to statewide election, or John Stephen, who headed the state's Department of Health and Human Services, left with divided opinions about him, and lost in this year's Republican primary to oppose Carol Shea-Porter. Stephen is considered to be front-runner to take on Shea-Porter this round and would probably not give that up to try for a Senate seat.

Other than those, there aren't any Republicans with much in the way of buzz. John H. Sununu (John E.'s father) is current GOP chair and is far too old and hard-core right-wing; Fran Wendelboe is too far right even for the Republicans to support for internal positions, let alone statewide races; everybody in the Executive Council, Senate, or Legislature lacks statewide profile. The only one I can even think might want to try would be Ray Burton, Executive Councillor for the North Country for ages - but he might not want to give up a safe seat for a quixotic run, and he knows as well as the rest of the NH GOP that if he leaves that seat, given the partisan turn of the area, it's going blue and not turning back any time soon.

[ Parent ]
Why can't the governor.....
just appoint Gregg's chief of staff?  He or she is probably a complete unknown who has no interest in elective office, couldn't get elected if he or she did, and would be very close to honoring the voters' wishes to have Gregg serve from 2005 to 2011 since the senator and staffer probably agree on just about everything.

Shalom
ZWrite

You kind of answered your own question
Gregg's CoS probably has no interest in elective office and probably would have no interest in being a senator for a couple years.
[ Parent ]
I should have been more specific
I meant the Chief of Staff would have no interest in RUNNING for office.  As Chief of Staff, he or she is already doing many of the things a senator does so I think he or she might be interested in BEING a senator.

There is also another plus -- continuity in terms of constituent service and the other nuts and bolts things senators do.

Shalom,
ZWrite

[ Parent ]
Being a CoS
And being the actual senator are two very different things. I could definitely imagine why someone who was CoS would have no interest in being an actual senator.
[ Parent ]
What is the value in that for Obama?
Why does he take Gregg into his cabinet instead of his pal at Symantec, who has valuable ties into Silicon Valley, if he doesn't get a meaningful change in the Senate seat?  Because Obama ain't offering the position just cause he loves all of Gregg's ideas.  They're on completely different ends of the ideological spectrum, remember?  This is a deal they're making, not plans for a sleepover.  Commerce is good for Gregg, and getting Gregg out of the Senate (and to a very small extent, into his cabinet) is good for Obama.

Incidentally, I fear that the leak of this plan means it's scuttled.  Too many people are leaning on Gregg now, and he'll wind up making some demand of Lynch that Obama won't care to see met.  I'm pre-emptively bummed.

28, gay guy, Democrat, CA-08

[ Parent ]
Open seat in 2010
Appointing Gregg and replacing him with a placeholder would guarantee an open seat in 2010 that we'd probably be favored in.
[ Parent ]
Getting appointed to the cabinet
doesn't mean you get to run the world.

If that is a condition of Gregg's, then don't appoint him, period.

Feingold better be writing fast.

I'm not too impressed with that article.
I hear a lot of wishful thinking in those quotes.  Granted, there's a lot of wishful thinking on our side too.  But the quoted persons, one of whom is the recent chair of the NH GOP, basically just say "But Gregg couldn't do that!"  Well, he and everyone else in DC are talking about it pretty seriously, so I'd say yes, he could.  Not to say he will, but he could.

The quotes from Fergus Cullen, the GOP chair are in particular all garbage.  Everything he says is contradicted by one of the other two quoted persons.

The question is, just how moderate is this Walter Peterson person?  Obama's not going to pick Gregg instead of his pal at Symantec unless he's getting something meaningful out of the change in the Senate seat.  Is there a significant enough difference between Gregg and Peterson that Obama would go for it?  Or is he going to insist on a Democrat (of Lynch's choice, probably not Hodes), in a sticking point that may break the deal?

If Peterson is a Chafee or Snowe, likely to vote for EFCA or other progressive legislation that Gregg could not while running for re-election, then this may go through.  And that would still be good for Hodes and for the 111th Congress.  So I guess I'm ok with that, IF this Peterson guy is the doppelganger of Snowe or Chafee.  

28, gay guy, Democrat, CA-08

Who knows
He served as governor from 1969 to 1973, so who knows where he stands.  And being 86, he might not remember where he stands.
[ Parent ]
Classic placeholder
In 1941 one of the US Senators from Texas died.  The Governor, Pappy O'Daniel, wanted to run himself so he appointed 87 year old Andrew Jackson Houston, the only living child of the venerable Sam Houston to the post.  Andrew Jackson Houston lasted two months but was a US Senator.

That is an elderly placeholder.

[ Parent ]
I got you one better
Rebecca Latimer Felton got to be the first woman Senator and served...one day at the age of like 87.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.
[ Parent ]
Chairman of Republicans for Lynch
Peterson has three times supported Governor Lynch for election, supported Obama this year, and was the last Republican governor whom the state's right-wing newspaper, the Manchester Union Leader, vigorously opposed. You could consider him a lingering Rockefeller Republican, who hasn't changed his party registration to be a Democrat mostly out of stubbornness and momentum. He's made it clear that the Republican party as currently constituted has gone far, far away from where it was when he was a governor.
[ Parent ]
If Lynch
can appoint any Republican, in other words a place holder, I willing to take the deal. First, we have a better chance of picking up an open Senate seat and hopefully get a more liberal Republican in place of Gregg
Exactly...
Make a deal with Gregg and Lynch.  Appoint a GOP caretaker.  Losing yet another probably safe incumbent will be a blow to the GOP, that could bleed into other races. Who knows maybe even Grassley will call it quits.

An open seat, or even a credible senator with only two years in, is exponentally better than running against Gregg.  

Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.  

[ Parent ]
My sentiments exactly
Don't get to sixty now but get a moderate Repub who won't run for a full term thus creating an open seat which is a hell of alot easier to win next year without Gregg.
[ Parent ]
Doesn't make sense
If Gregg is considering this, he will not run for reelection in any case.

Gregg is done as a Senate candidate as of now.  Lynch appoointing a placeholder is stupid, and corrupt.  He should appoint the best possible person for the people of his state, not make a sleazy deal.

[ Parent ]
Oh, c'mon.
Gregg was elected to the seat.  There's no reason whatever that he shouldn't or couldn't have a say in who replaces him, given that he would be resigning voluntarily to take another job.
[ Parent ]
A say?
He can have an opinion.  That's not the point though obviously.
[ Parent ]
There's nothing sleazy or corrupt
about Lynch, Obama, and Gregg working out some parametres for who will replace Gregg if Gregg takes the Commerce job.
[ Parent ]
Of course there is
Politicians don't always act in the best interests of the constituents, but a President, Governor and Senator conspiring to not appoint the best possible Senator is sleazy and betraying the public trust.
[ Parent ]
How is Gregg 'done' ??????
If Gregg is not asked to take the post, or politely declines it, he has not seriously damaged his chances for re-election.  On the cratrary, the whole episode would probably help him.  It makes him look both valuable for his knowledge, and bipartisan. Not exactly a bad thing going into a tough election.

By appointing a caretaker, all they (Obama, Lynch) would be doing is giving a 'fair shot' to all potential candidates in 2010.  Let the electorate decide without giving a leg up that incumbency always gives.

Saying party considerations should not play a part in this is like saying party should not be considered in redistricting.  It's a nice sentiment, but it's not reality. And neither is it corrupt, it is the way the game is played.  To the victor go the spoils.    

[ Parent ]
That's ridiculous.
There's no one "best possible person".  Every state has a wealth of potential candidates who could do a roughly equivalent job.

If Gregg, who is a Republican and was elected as a Republican by the people, wants the remainder of his term filled by a Republican, and Obama and Lynch agree, that's above-board.  If anything, it's playing fair with the people's party-voting, which should be done everywhere (ideally, you would have to appoint someone of the same party), but isn't.

[ Parent ]
You are talking nonsense
Of course there is a "best possible person".  Lynch has a brain.  He picks who he thinks is best.  Duh.

Jeezzus, the nonsense that gets posted in these deal threads.  Making a backroom deal is one thing, justifying it via looney talk is completely another.  A yak is a yak, not an armadillo.

[ Parent ]
So, the best possible person is entirely subjective?
As I said, any seat will have many worthy candidates.  Gregg requesting a Republican replacement is not a backroom deal, anymore than the appointments process normally is, particularly given that the seat isn't even vacant yet.
[ Parent ]
I do think...
If the situation were reversed and it was, say, Bush who wanted to appoint a Dem senator to a cabinet post, right after the 04 election when the GOP had a solid majority in the Senate, and that Senator wanted to make a deal with his/her GOP governor to be replaced by a Democrat, then I think most Dems would think thats fair. And I would agree it is fair.
[ Parent ]
Go Feingold
Russ Feingold has proposed a constitutional amendment BANNING the practice of governors appointing senators.  The practice should never have been instituted and violates the spirit of the 1913 constitutional amendment.

Given that House members have never been appointed, it's clear that the amendment wasn't supposed to have a loophole, but its wording allowed "sleazy" politicians into "betraying the public trust."

Let's get rid of this horrible and anti-democratic practice.

Shalom,
ZWrite

[ Parent ]
Never read the 17th, have you?
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

The 17th clearly gives governors the right to appoint Senators until a special election anyway...the spirit of the 17th was to give voters the right to choose their own Senators, but with stipulations in place to prevent lack of representation in the Senate for long period of times.  

Liberty Avenue Politics - a place for politics in Southern Queens

[ Parent ]
I'm glad you think you're a constitutional scholar
I'M GLAD YOU THINK YOU'RE A CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR

Based on what you wrote, a talented politician with no real interest in being senator could get himself or herself elected to the Senate, resign on the first day, and have a governor appoint someone who couldn't get elected in a million years for five years and 364 days.

Numerous constitutional scholars have said that the practice of governors appointing senators as we know it is NOT what the framers of the 17th amendment intended.  Nowhere does it say "temporary" is two years.  Two years is the length of the term people in the U.S. House of Reps serve.

Making a temporary appointment of two years IS a violation of the spirit of the 17th amendment.  Do some reading before you act like you're the know-it-all of constitutional matters.

The 17th amendment was an initiative of the early 20th century Progressive movement led by Robert La Follette.  I can assure you that most historians will attest that these progressives didn't want authority figures to be making "temporary" appointments of two to six years.

Over the years, governors became more and more brazen about exploiting the ambiguity of "temporary" and steamrolling through this loophole.  No one challenged them so the system became rife with corruption with numerous governors appointing their wives, their children, and themselves to this position.

I suppose that this is what the framers of the 17th amendment intended when they gave the people right to vote.  I don't think so smartypants, but this is apparently what you favor.

And numerous states do NOT allow governors to appoint senators.  Those that do have contempt for their citizens.

The bottom line is that I agree with Russ Feingold and numerous constitutional scholars that citizens should have the same right to elect senators as they do to elect U.S. representatives.

And I'm guessing that you're one of those "liberals" who is constantly writing on this Web site that governors should exploit their opportunity for themselves and their political party.  In other words, a faux liberal.

And you don't want to get into a debate about who knows more about the Constitution.

Shalom,
ZWrite

[ Parent ]
Oh, really.
The amendment leaves the matter of the election schedule upt to the state legislators, the same state legislators who ratified the amendment.  They decided to hold it concurrent to the next slate of regular elections, thus a maximum of two years.  There's no big conspiracy.
[ Parent ]
Not sleazy at all
If Gregg does not accept a cabinet appointment (which he has not officially been offered in the first place yet), then Lynch does not get any opportunity to improve the composition of the Senate at all. Lynch and Gregg have differing opinions on what makes a good Senator. It makes sense for them to come to some agreement on what is required of a replacement for him, because otherwise Gregg might refuse the offer in the first place, meaning that Gregg in all his right-wing glory stays in the Senate for the next two years opposing Obama's agenda. Gregg would also be a tougher opponent in two years than someone without incumbency, so there is impetus for Lynch to want to get Gregg out and someone in who will not try (or be able to) hold the seat in two years, leaving it up to the voters of New Hampshire to decide who will represent them long-term.
[ Parent ]
Stop Bununu's Return!
This possibly open seat may open the possibility of John Sununu's return to the Senate, and no matter how much he tries I think it's too late for him to regain any image as a moderate. The good news is unlike 2002, John Jr. doesn't have a clear path in an open primary should there be one.
[ Parent ]
Would be pretty strange
for Sununu to lose as an incumbent in 2008 and 2010.

If Gregg stays, it's a tough uphill fight, but doable.  If Gregg goes, we're pretty much guaranteed that seat, either now, or two years from now (if Lynch appoints a Republican).

[ Parent ]
Sununu Won't Be The Incumbent
because that's not what I meant. I meant Lynch picks a placeholder Republican and Sununu runs in the Republican primary. He won't be an incumbent if he runs that way.  
[ Parent ]
Appoint Peterson
Peterson doesn't sound too bad.  He backed Lynch for Governor last year and the man is ancient, which guarantees another opne seat in 2010.
[ Parent ]
Appoint a Republican...
Appoint a Republican... but appoint a weak Republican. One that is too leftwing for the GOP base so he will be a primary challenge. And one that will be easier to defeat in 2010.  
Go for it.
With Gregg in the seat, it's an uphill battle for the seat in 2010.  With a caretaker, it's an open seat in a state with strong prospective Democratic candidates.  Strongly beneficial electorally.
No deal
If Gregg isn't going to play it straight up, then forget about it.  Gregg's weakened himself with this.  Republicans are pissed at him and Democrats smell blood in the water.  So I don't think an open seat, rather than Gregg, would be that much of an advantage at this point.  Drop the idea of Gregg at commerce.
Sounds like an open seat whatever to me

[ Parent ]
Uh, really?
If Gregg declines to take the job and says not getting a Republican successor was a dealbreaker, the GOP will be ecstatic, because he didn't sell them out.

There is a damn huge difference between facing a three-term incumbent who's committed no indiscretion and an open seat.

[ Parent ]
No
You think the Republicans are going to forget his flirtation with a Democratic administration?  And he might not even run for re-election.
[ Parent ]
your dreaming...
In a diffeent state under different circumstances, MAYBE.

This is NH and the GOP is going the way of the do-do bird.  If Gregg declines and says he did so because he didn't want the party to lose a seat, all will be forgiven.  

Ask yourself, who in the GOP is going to primary Greggg???    

[ Parent ]
Why Gregg?
What makes Judd Gregg qualified to be the Commerce Secretary in a Democratic administration?

I remember reading somewhere that Gregg agreed to be considered for the job because Obama assured him that he wouldn't mind if Lynch appointed a Republican.

Nothing especially
It's to open up another golden opportunity in the 2010 Senate contests.  With Gregg out and a caretaker republican in that race jumps to top-tier status and I wouldn't be surprised if Governor Lynch ran for that seat, giving us an overwhelming favorite similar to Mark Warner in VA last year.
[ Parent ]
If Lynch can find
the Republican version of Zell Miller, I'm fine with this.  
There have to be plenty of RINOS
The NH state legislature had some obscene number of seats.  Something like 450 between the state house and senate.  Pick a random no-name RINO if the only issues here is that the person needs to be a republican.
[ Parent ]
It sounds easy
but the guy/gal has to also agree to not run again in 2010.
[ Parent ]
I'd be fine with a Jim Jeffords Republican
We can run against him/her if we want to, ideally an ultra-liberal R.  Let voters choose between Hodes and a moderate Republican.  We need to be able to win the seat this way or a wingnut will come out of nowhere.  

That said, I think the best strategy is to select ANY Republican on the sole condition that the person take a position against anonymous holds, filibusters and other "partisan delaying tactics" and agrees to vote with Senate Dems on cloture and similar tactical votes.  I don't care if we only win the substantive votes 59-41 (or for that matter 50-50) so long as we have 60 votes on cloture.

[ Parent ]
Walter Peterson or Liz Hager
Peterson has supported Lynch several times and is a stout proponent of the position that the modern Republican party has gone over the right-wing cliff. Liz Hager was a NH Representative from the Concord area who got primaried out this year for being too liberal, and has already stated she'd be willing to serve two years and be done (particularly considering that if she couldn't make it through a Concord primary, with multiple seats available, there's no way she could make it through a statewide GOP primary anyhow).
[ Parent ]
none of the other senators who were appointed
got to say who their successor shold be.  why should he?

he and lynch can certainly talk,  but it doesn't seem appropriate to "make a deal."

Didn't they?
Joe Biden would seem have handpicked his.

Input into appointments like this is wholly an issue of individual power relationships.  Gregg has tremendous power in this scenario, because he doesn't have to give up his seat, and the people he's dealing with (Obama and Lynch) are of a different party.  If the Democrats want Gregg to quit his seat (creating an opportunity for them in 2010) and join the administration, setting such an agreement is well within the rights of all parties.  It certainly doesn't abrogate the rights of anyone.

[ Parent ]
I don't think Biden did
It seems to have been Minner's decision, possibly because Beau would want to run in '10.  And none of the others had to give up their seats either.  They all had the same amount of power.  In each case, they had the option to take the new job and leave their old one to whatever happened to it (and I'm fairly sure Obama wouldn't have wanted Blago's choice) or not leave their old job.

That is the choice Gregg has now.  Now I can see him wanting to protect his flank a little bit, and Lynch and the administration perhaps wanting to make it easier for him to do so.  But it is Lynch's absolute right to appoint who he wants (again as Blago demonstrated so clearly) and no one in the administration or the current senator can challenge it in any way.

[ Parent ]
So you think it's a coincidence
that a placeholder picked to favour Beau (which would itsel indicate significant involvement from Joe Sr.) just happened to be one of Joe's right hand men, known to virtually nobody outside Biden's own circle?

Of course Lynch can pick whoever he wants; I never said otherwise.  But he can get input from whoever he wants, and if he accepts Gregg's condition of a Republican replacement, that's totally allowable, and not sleazy or corrupt.

[ Parent ]
True, but
"But it is Lynch's absolute right to appoint who he wants (again as Blago demonstrated so clearly) and no one in the administration or the current senator can challenge it in any way."

It's not his right to appoint anyone until their is a vacancy and it's Gregg's absolute right to hold onto the seat.  If Gregg is only willing to leave the seat if Lynch makes a deal about Gregg's successor, there's nothing to stop that from happening.  Where is it written that outgoing senators cannot make a deal with the governor as to their replacement?

[ Parent ]
the 17th amendment says the gov can appoint anyone he wants
and think about this.  it won't happen, but imagine if you will - lynch and gregg talk.  gregg says gotta be GOP.  lynch says "OK." gregg takes the job.  lynch appoints the person he thinks is best qualified - who happens to be a democrat.

what happens next?  does gregg cry foul and say that "he promised me."  it would be fascinating.  and of course would accent the real power situation here.  gregg, like every other appointee, has no power over the governor who appoints his successor.  and he can try to make a deal, but there will be no signatures, no witnesses, and no binding agreement.

[ Parent ]
I agree
I agree with your assessment that there's no way to legally enforce any deal that's made.  But, that doesn't prevent a deal from being reached or suggest Lynch should not make a promise to Gregg about his successor.
[ Parent ]
Gregg made the front page of my paper today.
I'm sure many of his constituents saw the name 'Judd Gregg' and wondered aloud "Who is this man? What's that? Our Senator? I had no idea! He was our Governor too? Well, you learn something new everyday!".  
Same here in Florida
When Mel Martinez announced he isn't running for re-election countless people I know had no clue he was one of their Senators.  The guy had been invisible in the Senate.
[ Parent ]
EFCA
Anyone know where either of these two might stand re: EFCA? Picking up a vote for cloture would make a huge difference.  

All things being equal, I think Peterson would be the better bet.  You don't want a Lautenberg situation with Rudman perhaps falling back into the old job.  

NH-Sen: Gregg Angling to Keep His Seat in GOP Hands? | 60 comments

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

About the Site

Publisher: DavidNYC

Senior Editor: James L.

Senior Editor: Crisitunity

Contributing Editor: Jeffmd

Search the SSP archives:

SSP Resources

Presidential Vote by CD

SSP Document Collection

Race Tracker Wiki

Dave's Redistricting App

Blogroll

Daily Kos Elections
DemConWatch
Five Thirty Eight
Governing
Hotline On Call
Political Wire
Pollster.com
Prop*50
Public Policy Polling
The Thicket
Powered by: SoapBlox