The Latest Pay to Play Scandal in the Senate

Say it isn't so!

After all the controversy surrounding a Senate appointment in Illinois, here comes another smelly deal -- in New Hampshire.

This one isn't about money. It's about party. But it still stinks.

President Obama has decided he wants Republican Senator Judd Gregg as his new Commerce Secretary. Fine. Gregg's a good man, he'd do a good job.

But, here's the hitch. If Gregg leaves the Senate, the Governor of New Hampshire would name his replacement. The Governor, John Lynch, is a Democrat. So, of course, he'd appoint a Democrat. Which would give Democrats a 60-vote, filibuster-proof, margin in the Senate. Right?

Wrong! Lynch has apparently agreed to name a Republican to replace Gregg, in order not to give Democrats a 60-vote advantage.

That's outrageous. Why should a Democrat appoint an anti-Obama Republican? Don't differences in party mean anything anymore?

And why should anybody demand or accept a quid pro quo for a Senate seat. In Illinois, Blagojevich allegedly demanded cash in return for a Senate appointment. That was wrong. In New Hampshire, Judd Gregg apparently demanded a Republican Senate appointment in return for a Cabinet post. And that's just as bad.

Judd Gregg is wrong to make that demand -- and President Obama is wrong to accept it.

Comments

[ncmom54]

the fact that he made a demand is good enough reason to recind the offer.

[SamEllison]

WWKD?

What would Karl Do?

[tvlandman]

No, its not as bad. Blago was selling the senate seat for cold, hard cash- profiting off the expense of his constituency. The deal Gregg made was only a political ploy to insure that a Republican would fill the seat (which the people elected a Republican to fill the seat.) Besides, is allowing one party to control everything in America without opposition really healthy and responsible? What about checks and balances?

[theyank]

I am a Democrat but if the people of New Hampshire elected a Republican to this seat
shouldn't they get a Republican to replace the one that agrees to fill a Cabinet seat of
a Democratic President. If a Dem. was appointed they could accuse Obama of trying to attain
a filibuster proof Senate. Now that being said I think Gregg is a poor choice. This is the side of
Obama that has always worried me. The Chicago school of economics side. That philosophy is why we are where we are and could push us into a Depression!

[LeftRight]

Not necessarily. Since the state is allowed under the Constitution to simply appoint a person to fill a vacancy, it can be whomever the state's executive chooses, whether they are the same party of the governor, or the same party of the former Senator or not.....

[Poboy]

The Democrats get stupider and stupider.

[LizM]

Sure, differences in party mean something - they just don't mean EVERYTHING! Come on...isn't this whole thing just a wee bit of common sense? Geesh. I guess we can't even recognize common sense anymore - is it really that bad?

[LeftRight]

And how would you have felt had BUSH had a 59 vote majority and he appointed a Democrat to the cabinet, and was told that the Democrat wouldn't accept unless the Republican governor in his state appointed a Democrat?????

The fact of the matter is that once Gregg made the demand, Obama should have withdrawn his offer, and the Governor should have said "NO! I will not do this!"

[LizM]

You just had to go and mention Bush, didn't you...I had almost forgotten about him. As a matter of fact, I would feel exactly the same way if the shoe was on the other party, so to speak.