New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, the first of Obama’s Commerce Secretary picks, withdrew on January 4th in the midst of a corruption investigation. It was important for the new administration to get the replacement pick right.
Step forward Judd Gregg, Republican Senator for New Hampshire. A congressional veteran and former Governor with a moderate streak, he seemed a decent pick. Whatever the benefits or otherwise of bipartisanship, it forms a central theme of President Obama’s approach to politics, and so picking a Republican seemed smart on that level. But there was also a potential political upside: Gregg was (though is no longer) thought to be pretty secure in his seat. Even if he were to be replaced by another Republican (a condition, it seemed, of his taking the Commerce job), Democrats would have had a far better chance of capturing the seat in 2010 in his absence.
Suffice to say, Gregg withdrew this week. My thought is this: He was in the wrong, and he’s made himself look like a prize fool.
Reaching across the aisle in filling an administration is always a tough business. The most pressing difficulty is the most obvious one: how much agreement is there between the administration and the potential nominee on the big issues? It’s a problem we’ve seen in Britain recently: Digby Jones, then the head of the CBI, was given a peerage and a ministerial job when Gordon Brown entered Number 10, only to resign not long after for the simple reason that he was (and remains) too much of a Tory to hold office in a Labour government.
Gregg was, it seemed, different. He reached out to Obama personally, putting himself forward as a suitable candidate soon after Richardson had withdrawn. The Obama team engaged in lengthy discussions with him, concerning, amongst other things, Gregg’s support for the administration’s policies. They judged him to be broadly supportive. Yet he withdrew this week saying he “couldn’t be Judd Gregg” and be in Obama’s cabinet. Specifically, he cited opposition firstly to the stimulus, and secondly to Obama’s view on the census.
First point, by way of response. He put his name forward, if the stories are to be believed, not long after Richardson withdrew. In other words, he offered himself for the post at a time when the stimulus had already been on the table for a long time. My argument: the stimulus was not why he withdrew. Or if it was, he should not have put his name in the ring in the first place.
Second point. The census debate is one of those monumentally daft political disputes. It is a definitive something-and-nothing issue, having to do with the way the census counts the American population. The current method is thought by a great many in the know to exclude a significant tranche of the population. Republicans are typically against changing the counting method because they think – rightly – that the people who’d be added to the census would be democratic voters in democratic areas (the census is used for redistricting of congressional seats), since they are the ones who are, at present, (unjustly) uncounted. For many it’s a no-brainer: if people are in fact resident, the counting method chosen should be that which counts them. For others it’s a partisan issue, built for wrangling. My argument: Either Gregg is one of those people, and when told by Obama that the census would be done properly, he did genuinely decide he was incompatible with the administration; or – and I tend to this interpretation – the census line is obfuscation.
To summarise, why do I think he’s out? I’ve two possible interpretations. The first is the less cynical: he’s out because he disagrees. But that only means he was stupid to get in in the first instance, especially given he knew then about the stimulus and the rest. In this first interpretation, Gregg put himself forward because he liked the thought of being Commerce Secretary, without realising he might have to actually agree with Obama some of the time.
The second interpretation is to say that all the rubbish that’s been spun by Gregg is just that – rubbish. This second interpretation says he’s out because he’s scared of the GOP base. Why do they matter? In four (or even eight) year’s time, he might want to run to get his old job back. Or he might just not want to tread on the toes of friends in his home state party or in Congress by making it easier for the Democrats to take his seat.
Whatever, my argument is the same: he should have thought of that before he got into the fray. Gregg’s standing is now nil, which I suspect is why he’s just announced he won’t seek re-election to his Senate seat in 2010.
