A filibuster-proof Senate?

[Bando]

So this year the Dems got close to 60 Senators (59 to be exact, counting Franken and 2 Independents that caucus with them). 60 would have been the magic number, as that's the amount of votes needed to break a filibuster.

It seems now that 60 might not have to wait until 2010. Roll Call is reporting that Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) is under serious consideration for Commerce Secretary. This would be a bipartisan-but-really-partisan move by the President, as it would add another Republican to his Cabinet but allow the Democratic governor of New Hampshire to pick a new, presumably Democratic Senator, giving the Dems 60.

I can only think of a few reasons why Gregg would actually go for this. Either he's tired of getting gruff from conservatives for being a moderate, or he doesn't think he can win reelection. Thoughts, anyone?

[TC]

538 has Gregg voting 6/7 times with Obama on the first 7 votes (he voted against Ledbetter). Unless there's some Pelican Brief-like endgame here on an issue where Gregg would effectively be the firewall, I'm not sure I understand this - it's not like Snowe/Gregg/Collins are going to be voting along party lines all the time.

[Boz]

Looks like they have worked out a quid pro quo, where Gregg will accept the nomination if a Republican takes his place.

Almost certianly will be a more liberal Republican, but it will not automatically give the Dems a filibuster-proof Senate.

How exactly this type of arrangement differs in principle from Rod Blagojevich.....well, I'm not exactly sure.

This also clears the way for any right-minded person to oppose the recount of Embarrassment-Waiting-To-Happen Al Franken.

Just kidding. There's no overestimating the moronicness of Minnesotans.

I am confident that Franken will fulfill the old Jesuit adage: He will either keep his mouth shut and be thought a fool, or he will open it up and remove all doubt.

[TC]

Feb 3, 2009 9:35:50 GMT -5 Boz said:

How exactly this type of arrangement differs in principle from Rod Blagojevich.....well, I'm not exactly sure.

I get the point you are trying to make, but I completely disagree with it. A President shouldn't be able to choose the best people and build a bipartisan cabinet because of stupid partisan constraints like the number of Republican Senators? What they've worked out seems like the most reasonable compromise you could hope for in that situation.

The real issue here is that Governors shouldn't be choosing Senators, but since we're constrained by the fact until there is absolutely no advantage to either Democrats or Republicans to keep that system in place, what they did here seems pretty reasonable.

Unlike Mr.-Shakedown-the-Children's-Hospital-and-the-President-Elect.

Edit - one addition : "opposing" Al Franken really means "stalling Al Franken". Franken is an inevitability and Coleman's ethical troubles make everyone fighting for him look a mite bit ridiculous.

[EasyEd]

Judd Gregg should have declined the invite to join the cabinet. The deal to appoint a Republican to replace him until the next election stinks. This is no different from the Blago stuff.

[Boz]

Just FYI, TC, I wasn't trying to insinuate that the Obama administration, Gregg or whatisname up in NH had done anything illegal.

I do give Obama credit here for working to find a compromise with Rs so that he could get who he wanted. Or who he wanted second at least.

It's more wondering what Blago specific crimes were, other than being a sleazeball, which -- as we all know -- is an impeachable offense, under the right circumstances.

And, ironically, I also agree with ed. It stinks that this happens, but it happens all the time, so why is it illegal over here and not illegal over there?

And here's my edit: You want Al Franken (who has more than a little ethical troubles of his own)? You got him. Just don't be surprised when he embarrasses himself, his state and his party. He is an ass clown.

[The Stig]

I think I speak for a lot of Democrats when I say I didn't want Al Franken. He'll be a liability in the Senate, whereas he was sort of an asset over the airwaves and in books.

As far as the Gregg issue, I think anybody who compares it to Blago is really stretching. I don't see how Obama saying 'appoint somebody from the other party' is corruption. If the New Hampshire governor starts soliciting bribes from Repubicans to fill Gregg's seats, then we can talk.

On a semi-related note, an Australian state governor's refusal to appoint a Senator from an opposing party in 1975 led to a constitutional coup against the Australian government. It's not directly related, but I thought it might be interesting reading: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_constitutional_crisis_of_1975

[Boz]

Australia has a government?

I thought it was just a bunch of guys named Bruce walking around and poking dangerous things with sticks while drinking beer and playing tennis.

(yup, I'm an American all right)

;D