Judd Gregg - is it a VIP "pass" or disenfranchisement of NH's GOP? - Granite Grok

Judd Gregg – is it a VIP “pass” or disenfranchisement of NH’s GOP?

Was at Fort Benning this week so I am just catching up on the news….and saw this conversation.  To be truthful, I am fit to be tied – Judd Gregg has plain given up any plans on representing ME and the other GOPers here in the "Live Free or Die" state.  By his action (actually, his statement of inaction, he may have well given effective control of the Pelosi-Reid-Obama Generational Theft bill (aka, the Stimulus bill) over to his political enemies.

He is taking a walk – a powder – a time out – a mulligan – a pass.

From NRO:

One Republican Senator Who Won’t Vote Either Way   [Byron York]

One interesting side story in this Senate stimulus fight is the role of Republican Sen. Judd Gregg.  There are just 41 GOP senators, so every vote is important to the party.  But does Gregg vote with his party against the bill, or does he vote with the man who just nominated him to be Commerce Secretary, for the bill?  His office tells me that Gregg has recused himself from all votes pending his confirmation.  No amendments, no final vote, no nothing? I asked. "That’s correct," I was told.

With the past election, Republicans can barely hold onto the "filibuster vote" with their collective fingernails.  One vote has just left the building.  And presently, three Republican defectors:

  • Arlen Spector (R-PA)
  • Olympia Snow (R-ME)
  • Susan Collins (R-ME)

have given the Dems everything that they’ve wanted for years.  They have turned their backs on the Republican ideals of lesser government with lesser spending on a bill that will fail to do what it is intended to do.  Spector is facing re-election in 2010; already PA GOPers are looking to primary him out.  Judgement day for the two Mainiacs are several years away…

But the expansion of the welfare state, Big Government, will already be a fact of life, with little ability to turn it back.

Bonnie Newman has been nominated to succeed him – but given her history (Republicans for Lynch), I’m getting the feeling that true Live Free or Die Republicanism being represented in DC may well be over for a while.  In the mean time, as Andy McCarthy from NRO put it – I’ve lost my representation:

I’m trying to wrap my brain around Sen. Gregg’s sense of conflict-of-interest.  It’s not like the people of New Hampshire got nominated to be Commerce secretary.  Why should they be disenfranchised because he got a new job?

…That vote belongs to the people of New Hampshire; why should they be deprived of it just because Sen. Gregg doesn’t want to ruffle feathers before he starts his new gig?

…Sen. Gregg may be telling himself he’s doing the ethical thing, but to me this seems the antithesis of public service.  When they were running for president, Obama and McCain may have missed votes because they were campaigning, but they also showed up for some very important votes — I never remember hearing any suggestion that they should recuse themselves because one of them was going to be in the executive branch soon.  And speaking of that, President Obama is certainly not recusing himself now — he is agitating wildly to affect the outcome.  Why should a senator who has a vote and whose constituents have a stake in the outcome stay out of it?

Indeed.  We here in NH will be saddled with the costs for years (decades) for a bill that may well not work that his vote, a single solitary vote, could have stopped.  I know that I have participated in decisions or actions where that single person made the difference – on such an important issue, why does he feel that he can take a walk?  Has he become so Obamacized that his conservative roots have been yanked out of the ground?

Make no mistake – if he fails to vote, and the Porkulus passes, he will own the results of that bill along with Obama and his other minion Democrats (oh yeah, and the three defectors named above).  NH is a small state – people know his name and his visage; he will not soon be forgotten and not for the right reason.

My fellow Granite Stater, Mark Steyn has similar thoughts

Speaking as one of Senator Gregg’s constituents, I agree with Andy: There’s nothing "ethical" in one of only a hundred people out of 300 million who get to vote on this behemoth sitting on his hands.

On the one hand, why does an incoming cabinet secretary have to recuse himself when his boss is agitating for the legislation to pass?

On the other hand, why should an outgoing legislator have to recuse himself from his final votes? Presumably, when President Obama nominated Gregg, he was aware that the Senator had voted against the bill in the Appropriations Committee, and that this is unfinished business that he should be allowed to finish as he sees fit.

…On the other other other hand, voting present in such a weaselly way suggests Senator Gregg’s Obamassimilation is proceeding apace.

Remember, out of seven possibilities, Gregg has voted six times.  This would, even with an Obama style "Present" vote, would move that to a 7 out of 8.

And if Judd was thinking he was going to be the stealth Repub in a Manchurian Administration, well, he’s already lost that bet too with the news in the last few days that the control of the census taking will become VERY politized with that 2010 activity being rolled up hil into the White House and out of the Commerce dept.

You thought that the census taking was outlandish last time?  You’ve seen nothing yet.  And there won’t be a think Gregg will be able to do about it – not with Ruhm Emanuel standing guard…

Big bet by Judd – gone bad all the way around before it started?

>