Commenter Evie, last night:
Mark my words. If he’s offered it and then takes it, it will be because the governor agreed to appoint a Republican in his place.
The Politico, today:
Republicans in Washington and New Hampshire are mounting a full-court press to keep Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) in the Senate and out of the Obama administration, aides and senators said Friday.
But if he does take the commerce secretary job, they want a commitment that New Hampshire’s Democratic governor will appoint a Republican senator so the party holds at least 41 seats, the minimum needed to sustain filibusters. No such commitments have been made, even as Granite State Republican sources tell Politico they are worried Gregg will take the Cabinet job if offered it by Obama.
“I think it would be a loss to the Senate of a great mind and somebody who I think we need a lot as we chart our way through economic challenge,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, told Politico on Friday.
Why is the Governor obligated to make any such deal? From what I can see, they have no bargaining position whatsoever.
And can we change this system, please?
*** Update ***
It just occurred to me that getting a 6oth Democrat will just mean more opportunities for Joementum to publicly stick the knife in.
lysias
There must be plenty of moderate Republicans in New Hampshire who would support a lot of Obama’s policies and oppose filibusters against him.
Lola
Could the NH governor call for a special election?
Fencedude
@lysias:
The phrase "be careful what you wish for" veritibly leaps to mind.
ed
Why is the Governor obligated to make any such deal?
The Gov is obligated to say he’s gonna appoint a Republican, and then appoint a NotRepublican. Well, I think so anyway.
Reverend Dennis
We all know that if a Democrat left the Senate the Republicans would insist that a Democrat be appointed to fill the vacancy.
Damn. I just dropped my crack pipe.
cleek
i bet the RS sTrike Force is being called to action as we speak!
Brien Jackson
Sweet Jeebus can you imagine the shit storm that would erupt if the Democrats took a 60th seat by appointment? It’d be a disaster.
John S.
I think this could be another brilliant piece of judo by Obama:
1. Get Sen. Gregg to take commerce post.
2. Let GOP think NH governor will appoint a Republican.
3. Have NH governor appoint Democrat.
4. Let GOP have a hissy fit.
5. Ram constitutional amendment to end Senatorial appointments down their throat.
6. Enjoy the show.
If played correctly, Democrats will look like the heroes for cleaning up government AND have a 60 seat majority McConnell can suck on.
You read it here first!
BDeevDad
OT: Claire McCaskill rocks –
Tonal Crow
Aw, poor GOPies might lose the filibuster. I feel so sad for them……….
No, I don’t. I feel like sayin’ Yeeeeeeeeeeee-Haaaaaaaaaaaa!
John S.
@Brien Jackson:
The only shitstorm resulting from the plan above would be directed at the NH governor. Considering his situation, I think he can weather that storm.
TheFountainHead
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS FOR THE PERMANENT REPUBLICAN MAJORITY!
Chris Johnson
Ooooh, that bailout legislation is awesome :) you just have to know how to frame things, and I’m seeing more and more brilliance in that respect.
Bush spent years trying to establish that the president was God, so the vibe of that legislation is ‘nobody gets to take federal money and then give themselves salaries higher than God’ ;)
The Other Steve
Ouch
excathedra88
Pardon my departure from usual lurking habit, but I suddenly detect the odor of Republican urine in conjunction with the appearance of embarrassing damp spots on many congressional pairs of pants ( probably skirts also).
Some folks might be inclined to think that Obama fully intends to crush these fools into submission, but of course, we know that can’t be true, as ‘Obambi’ ( boy, did he sucker ’em in) just wants everyone to hold hands and sing Kumbiya.
Reverend Dennis
@BDeevDad:
Oh noes! How will they ever hold on to all of the brilliant motherfuckers who have done such a fine job of running their companies?
Laertes
This will hurt rather than help the chances of Feingold’s amendment. Right now, we have 28 senators who would be replaced by governors of the other party if their seats were somehow to become vacant. Fourteen of these are in each party, so there’s no obvious partisan advantage to making the switch.
If Gregg is replaced by a Democrat, we’ll then have 14 Democrats vulnerable to replacement by a Republican, but only 13 Republicans in the reverse. Further, the snotty little Republican crybabies will be in a snit, feeling like they’re owed one, and won’t be in any mood to change the rules until they’ve gotten even.
BDeevDad
@Chris Johnson: Actually it is probably based on the federal law that noone in the federal government can make more than the president.
Martin
I think the gov of NH should throw Russ Feingold a lifeline and appoint a Bernie Sanders socialist. Maybe a Muslim communist if he can find one in NH. Make it a full-tilt GOP shitstorm so that they’ll work with Russ to get the constitutional amendment for special elections.
I think achieving the broader goal is worth making an irresponsible step.
Laertes
And on topic, of course Cole is right: The Republicans have no bargaining power here at all. The Governor should agree to appoint a Republican, and in exchange…what, exactly?
And who could blame Gregg for taking the job? Life in the minority isn’t much fun, and as a moderate, he’s a despised minority within a minority. Team Obama is winning, and looks like they’re going to keep on winning. Winners have way more fun. If I were Gregg, I’d take the job.
Martin
How about also no lobbying if you receive bailout money.
Reverend Dennis
Or on the notion that in a real free-market meritocracy most of the affected bozos would be dumpster diving for a living.
Brien Jackson
The Beltway press and everyone on the right would erupt. Not necessarily the worst thing to happen, but it would certainly be a major distraction, and it could very well push someone like Blanche Lincoln into a major defensive crouch. She’s in a tough spot as it is.
KG
You know how hard it would be to have a statewide special election in a big state? You’d have to have a shitload of money to be able to pull it off, as a candidate. Hell, I’m guessing that even in some of the smaller states, it’d be a pain in the ass.
Besides, the Constitution basically sets up a special election, at the next national election, there is an election to fill the remainder of the term. Two years folks, ain’t that long to wait – and that’s the longest you’d have to wait (see Missouri, circa 2000-2002).
Michael D.
@The Other Steve: I’m not sure this is a good idea. Name someone worth his or her salt who would run Bank of America or a similar company for 400k a year?
Actually, I think it’s a terrible idea.
Zifnab
@BDeevDad:
Sounds kinda elitist to me.
mgordon
Is it even that big of a deal?
Snail
Well, as a New Hampshirite, I have to say that Gov. Lynch is not exactly a model progressive. His primary skill seems to be staying popular by avoiding anything remotely controversial or innovative. I wouldn’t be surprised to see him agree to some sort of Republican appointment to appear bipartisan.
KG
@ 21: pretty sure you’re going to run into a little problem known as the First Amendment… you know, the whole "right to peaceably assemble and address the government for a redress"
BDeevDad
@Michael D.: They could outsource to India and get similar results.
SpotWeld
Why does the govenor even have to get his hands dirty?
Don’t most states have the rules set up that a senate vacancy can be filled by the govenor in an emergency (usually due to the death of the current representative)… this means the gov can just set up an emergency election to seat a new sentate rep.. or what ever cheaper alternative the state laws allow.
Or heck, have an informal poll of the state level representatives and just use that as guidance for the gov’s choice.
Seriously, why would a govenor (after all the troubles that Ill. has been having) want to get thier hands dirty with this.
Brien Jackson
Well there’s that 1st amendment thingy to deal with.
Church Lady
@John S. –
7. Render John Lynch irrelevant, as no one will ever take him at his word again, hence making governing deals all but impossible.
8. Make sure that Judd Greg has difficult time during tenure as Commerce Secretary due to Republican anger/payback and then has no future once he leaves the Obama administration.
Shygetz
If the NH governor doesn’t appoint a Dem to the Senate, I see NO upside to appointing Gregg at all. I’ll be honest, having a Republican at Commerce does not thrill me at all, but I’ll take it in exchange for 60 in the Senate. Without that, screw it.
linda
digby notes:
James Pindell, who has covered New Hampshire politics since 2002, tells Political Wire that the odds of Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) taking the job of secretary of commerce are currently 65-35 if offered.
But Pindell notes that Gov. John Lynch (D), who would choose Gregg’s replacement in the Senate, "is the type of guy that would pick a Republican just because he is replacing a Republican and to bone up his bi-partisan credibility. Lynch has yet to comment on the issue — heck Gregg has yet to be appointed — but right now the money is on former Gov. Walter Peterson (R). He was chair of the ‘Republicans for Lynch’ committee, would vote with Democrats as much as Maine’s Senators do, and most likely wouldn’t run in 2010."
.
ugh. this is getting very depressing.
Shygetz
Which doesn’t apply to peoples’ speech rights to promote birth control and abortion when they receive Federal funds?
No one’s forcing them to take bailout money. It’s a legitimate limitation on the usage of Federal funds.
Paul L.
This reminds me of the Democrat’s push in 2000 to abolish the electoral college.
If a Rule goes against the Democrats, then Democrats try to get rid of the rule.
geg6
@Michael D.:
Based on how the assholes who have been running BoA did, I have no doubt I could do a better job and I’d be thrilled to make that much.
I am responsible for several million dollars and am a department of one in my current job. I see no reason I couldn’t handle BoA.
kay
@Laertes:
And who could blame Gregg for taking the job? Life in the minority isn’t much fun, and as a moderate, he’s a despised minority within a minority. Team Obama is winning, and looks like they’re going to keep on winning. Winners have way more fun. If I were Gregg, I’d take the job.
Obama likes appointing Senators. Biden, HRC, Salazar and now Gregg.
Michael D.
@geg6: AHmmm, yeah. ok.
Brien Jackson
"Which doesn’t apply to peoples’ speech rights to promote birth control and abortion when they receive Federal funds?"
You don’t need to argue about speech, there’s also an explicit right to petition the government.
Punchy
What does RSSF send now? Live Rhinos? (Rhino) bed liners? Ryne Sandberg?
Laertes
@Paul L.:
What am I missing here? The rule has lately been benefiting Democrats. All these senate vacancies are getting filled by appointments from Democratic governors.
The Pale Scot
Dear facisté irrational fabulist redneck troglodytes,
SUCK ON THIS.
cleek
they’re one step ahead of ya:
well, maybe just a half-step, but it’s a start
Comrade Jake
If Gregg accepts the job, and Lynch appoints a Dem in his place, look for Sean Hannity’s head to explode into at least a million pieces. That ought to be fun to watch.
I caught about 10min of old Sean the other day on the radio. He is about as close as one gets to blowing a gasket these days.
The Other Steve
In other news, it appears the Grand Old Southern Party is going to promote change by electing a Southerner as it’s party chair.
JL
Sounds like Cornyn just made an endorsement for Gregg to be Commerce Secretary. If Gregg is that great, Obama should appoint him.
Brian J
Wasn’t there talk of some former senator/congressman who is definitely from the liberal end of the spectrum of Republican politics taking Gregg’s place and promising not to run in 2010? Perhaps that’s the best option, as it clears the way for someone they might really like in the primaries but someone whom the Democrats will find a lot easier to beat. Regardless of what they say they want, if Gregg accepts the job, then they will get a far more liberal senator than the Republican base would want, even if there is an "R" next to his name, one that might–might–be open to working with the Democrats. But I don’t see any reason for John Lynch to give into this people. Among other things, doesn’t he have a ludicrously high approval rating, something over 70 percent?
Jay B.
This reminds me of the Democrat’s push in 2000 to abolish the electoral college. If a Rule goes against the Democrats, then Democrats try to get rid of the rule.
We’re talking about how this would be to the Democrats advantage you fucking moron. And it’s still a stupid process that should be ended with Feingold’s amendment. You literally can’t get any dumber, right? (*Rhetorical question made for enjoyment purposes only, this should not be construed as a betting proposition or dare in any way. The writer fully understands and expects some equally braindead comment in the future.)
The Other Steve
Wait… Blackwell just dropped out and is supporting Steele. Katy leads, but not over yet.
Jay in Oregon
@Laertes:
Fixed.
Remember, the Republican Party has no sense of fair play or of bipartisanship. The rump party that’s left cares only about getting their way, by hook or by crook.
If the situation was reversed and a Democrat had the potential to be replaced by a Republican, they’d be howling to let the governor make the best decision for his state.
These are the people that voted straight party line against a compromise bill in the House, and then pissed and moaned because liberal PACs plan to run ads pointing this fact out.
The best example of "chutzpah" I ever heard was "killing your parents, then begging for leniency because you’re an orphan". I can’t think of a better description for these assholes.
peach flavored shampoo
There’s a circle-jerk I never noticed before: Congress gives cash to companies, who pay for lobbyists who give money to Congressmen in order to influence their giving of more money to these companies.
Senators end up with the very money they apportioned out. Yowsers.
Martin
Name someone worth his or her salt who HAS run BofA or a similar company for more than 400k a year?
That’s the problem – the pool of people we are examining are all failures. All of them. This was their expertise and they all failed.
My dad was CEO of his not-so-small credit union for many years. It expanded and never was tempted to step outside the security bubble a bank should stay inside. He’d gladly run BofA for $400K. You’ll respond that BofA is 100x larger than the credit union was, with the nations largest mortgage unit and an investment bank, and therefore he’s not qualified. I’ll respond that part of BofAs failure is that it was led to that size, and should be broken up into 20-50 stable regional banks, any one of which my dad would be qualified to run, and would gladly do for $400K per year, and the rest of BofA should be cast to the wind as it never should have existed in the first place, shareholders be damned.
Overall, it’s a fantastic idea, because part of the driving force behind all of this corporate consolidation is personal greed on the part of the executives. They didn’t make BofA to big to make it better, they made it too big to get richer. It needs to be made smaller, and a salary cap will help drive that.
Brian J
In what sense?
kay
@Paul L.:
I’m fine with appointing Senators, or not. I’d leave it up to the states, and that’s where it is now.
It’s a Big Issue because Obama left an empty seat and he emptied 3 others. It’s a fluke. I wouldn’t amend the Constitution to repair it.
The Pale Scot
@#25 Michael D.
I’m quite sure there are plenty of capable men and woman in S.E Asia who would jump at the chance to make 400G’s to run BoA. As a matter of fact, I guarantee there are plenty of savvy people working for BoA right now who could do it.
The Pale Scot
Exactly Martin,
Except I remember when Congress was being lobbied to change laws and regulations to allow bank mergers, the premise was that larger banks were needed to compete with the huge banks forming in Europe, what wasn’t mentioned was that Brussels is up their ass with a flashlight.
Brian J
Who is to say this person couldn’t stay on and receive a normal huge salary once any direct involvement with the government was over with? If the person(s) involved with the company in question felt that it was worth it to ride it out for a few years so that the stock shares they likely own in large numbers would rise in value and so they could return to a normal salary, then they’d take or keep occupying such a position. If not, they can choose to find another line of work.
This seems perfectly in line with the idea that any performance should be equated with appropriate levels of incentives as far as government assistance and salary options go. I believe it was a guy from the Chicago GSB, Raghuram Rajan, who suggested that the one major financial reform we need to see is incentives lining up with performance. Presumably, this means that if the shit hits the fan, you don’t get to walk away with tens of millions with the taxpayers on the line and countless others suffering. I don’t have time to check out his exact writings right now, but suffice to say that this guy, who I know very, very, very little about, seems to deserve more credibility than most, as he was subjected to professional ridicule for suggesting that financial innovation hadn’t necessarily made the world safer. See this Paul Krugman post, for starters.
Martin
And to McCain’s credit, that’s the basis of much of his crusade against earmarks, which I happen to agree with. See Duke Cunningham, and others.
cleek
but i never hear him sell it that way. the GOP’s anti-earmark mania is always sold as a way to lower wasteful government spending – which doesn’t make a lot of sense, given the amount of money involved. if they emphasized the link between earmarks and corruption, they’d probably get a lot more support.
and that makes me wonder why they don’t phrase it that way. fear of calling-out other members of congress, when pressed for examples, perhaps ?
Martin
No, it’s a big issue because of Blago, and because a soon-to-be-impeached governor was able to make that appointment and there was zero protection against it. That’s a massive point of failure for the country. Blago could have appointed Britney Spears as a big fuck-you to the state about to impeach him and what recourse would the Senate have? Burris did get seated because there really wasn’t any policy violation.
John S.
@Church Lady:
That shit is gonna happen if he takes the position ANYWAY, so what’s the difference? He has no future as a Republican, regardless.
You can’t negotiate with Lucy when you know she’s gonna yank the football no matter what. That’s who she is, that’s what she does.
ColoRambler
I’m no executive officer, but if I were, I’d quite happily run damn near any company for $400K a year. In percentage terms, that’s about as big a pay hike over my current job (which pays quite well, really) as my current salary compared to my grad school stipend — 12 years ago, not adjusting for inflation.
Zifnab
Mike. Do me a favor. Name 10 CEOs of Fortune 500 Companies without use of teh googles. Any 10. I’ll wait.
I’d also think it would be fair to ask if there is anyone worth his or her salt even in the financial community, period?
I mean, at this point can you show me a CEO that’s been doing anything right? I don’t even know what a competent CEO does anymore.
Shygetz
@Brien Jackson:
Yeah, but I couldn’t think of a recent restriction on lobbying tied to receipt of Federal funds, so I went with recent restrictions on speech. Seeing as, you know, they’re in the same f*cking Amendment. If Congress can condition one right based on receipt of Federal funds, they can condition the other.
Larime the Gimp
@Paul L.: As opposed to the GOP, where it’s, "If a vote goes against the Republicans, then the Republicans try and get rid of the vote."
The Silent Fiddle of Nero
Idiocy perhaps? Repubs have their fair share of corrupt members, and corruption doesn’t bother them anywhere near as much as wasteful government (federal) spending does.
kay
@Martin:
Well, we disagree. I leave electing Blago-like governors up to states, too. Ignore your state government at your peril. They make 90% of the laws that impact people directly. Criminal law, family law, regulation of insurance, probate, property, it goes on and on.
I’m not harping on Illinois. There are plenty of corrupt governors that never make cable news.
I don’t think a federal fix is the right solution.
The Silent Fiddle of Nero
Competent CEO’s care about the business surviving instead of just attending a few meetings so they can collect lots of money and go shopping for 14k gold bathroom accessories.
excathedra88
@Kay: Obama likes ‘appointed’ Senators…
Exactly, and it sure seems likely that he wants 60 Dems in the Senate, regardless of how he gets it, rightwing outrage be damned. He is POTUS, and can likely find some ways to convince Lynch that it is to his State’s ( career’s) advantage to play along,no?
Richard S
Didn’t some guy out in the midwest just loose a governorship for putting preconditions a price on a senatorial appointment? So now the repubs have a quid in search of a pro quo.
Xenos
@Martin:
That is such a cool idea! Here in Massachusetts we could have a choice of strong regional banks, carefully regulated by our own government! We could give them nice, locally significant names, like Shawmut, BayBank, Bank of Boston, Fleet Bank… Like in the old days ten years ago, when we had a wide choice of well run, profitable banks.
kay
@excathedra88:
I didn’t mean that Obama likes Senators to be appointed, although that’s what I wrote.
I meant he hires Senators. Which isn’t surprising, because he was one. Maybe he just likes THESE Senators. I don’t know.
I can see the "Obama plot" potential, though.
Let’s start it. Go to a Right wing site and start posting "Obama is remaking the Senate!!!" over and over.
Put "breaking" in front of it.
les
Maybe Obama just likes Gregg in the slot, and doesn’t really care about the magic 60. These are f’n Democrats, remember–they’re not likely to just fall in line like the Limbaughicans, ya know. To say nothing of counting on Joementum. A New England Republican could be as trustworthy as a southern Dem.
Comrade Darkness
arg, make joe (officially that is) ambassador to israel. problem solved.
excathedra88
@ Kay:
No need(nor interest) in starting such, as I’m sure it has, or will shortly generate itself in the wingnut blogosphere. Sorry to misconstrue your original post; albeit, I’m afraid I do think Obama and allies are looking to remake the Senate into a Dem supermajority. And why should they not? As he pointed out to the ‘Cantor’, he won, has a real mandate, and is willing to be gracious to the loyal opposition ( far more than could be said for his predecessor). Bottom line, it’s still the economy: folks can rail on about socialism, etc. , all they want, but if Obama and his Dems can even just staunch the bleeding and ease the pain of the next two years, they will be politically golden for some time to come.
lysias
Obama was and Gregg still is a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Obama was and Gregg still is on the Children & Families Subcommittee of that committee.
So they’ve had a chance to work together. I wonder if they’ve cosponsored any bills.
lysias
It made very little difference to the future of Republican members of FDR’s cabinet like Harold Ickes and Henry Wallace that Republicans in Congress were mad at them.
lysias
And Henry Wallace was Secretary of Commerce!
tam1MI
Am I alone in thinking it’s not a coincidence that the House Repubs vote en masse against Obama’s stimulus bill and then the very next day we hear this interesting little tidbit about Senator Gregg? I am thinking one or all of three things happened here:
1. A kind of "punishment" for the Repubs for not playing nice in the sandbox. They screw around with the stimulus bill, they face a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
2. Forcing the news cycle to cover the Gregg story instead of the "House Republicans Vote Down the Stimulus Package" story. Creating the public perception that the Republicans are on the back foot.
3. Making sure the Senate Republicans don’t repeat the performance of the House Republicans. The Senate Republicans are now going to have to seriously woo Gregg to stick around. Gregg represents a blue state that has a very favorable opinion of the stimulus. If they employ the kind of arm-twisitng that the House leadership did to keep their caucus in line, Gregg will walk.
Just my $.02.
gex
@KG: Not to mention that Republicans generally benefit from special elections. Lower turnout makes it easier for them to win, which is why they are such big fans of voter caging and other forms of suppressing the vote.
crack
What if they just didn’t fill it until a special election ? How would that work?
tripletee
Give me a rock, a tree, and about 30 seconds, and I’ll produce a heavily-concussed squirrel who will do it for free. Based on current evidence, he’d be more than qualified.
Pro tip, Mike: the notion that CEOs of large companies are deserving of compensation thousands of times that of average salary-drones is probably not a winner in our current economic situation.
kay
@excathedra88:
I’m amazed haven’t read it yet. "Unprecedented Obama power grab" would be the headline.
I agree 100%, on the economy. If Obama staunches the bleeding, he’ll be golden. For 6 months.
Wile E. Quixote
@Paul L.
Oh no, you’re on to us. Do you know what we’re going to do once we take over Paul? We’re going to castrate all of the Republicans like you. Every single one of you is going to lose his cock and balls and after you’ve had a few months to plump up then we’re going to have deranged plastic surgeons create new orifices in your body, pull all of your teeth out of your sweet little mouth and force you to work in a gay brothel where every one of those sweet new orifices, along with the ones you already have will be viciously and repeatedly used by gay men and strap on wielding lesbians who look like Janet Reno.
geg6
Well, Mike seems you think you know more about me and my professional abilities than I do. Jeebus. But for those of us who live in the real world, it’s not the hardest thing in the world to be solely responsible for large sums of money and do it for a sensible amount of money and with efficiency and responsibility. Which is a hell of a lot better than the Masters of the Universe seem to be doing.
Brian J
I don’t even know if you want to go into whether or not someone is competent.
Perhaps it’s better to think of the problems in the financial industry as the result a lot of powerful people who made bets that turned out to be bad bets. But instead of suffering for this, they seem to be doing fine. Even if they don’t find further employment right away, they are sitting pretty on huge fortunes. Is that fair? Not really, at least not when there are plenty of other people suffering.
But as far as other CEOs go, I’m not sure who you have in mind as far as incompetent executives go outside of the financial markets.
Martin
I don’t ignore the state government. Have the state legislature vote on a replacement, that’s fine. But the governor makes precisely 0% of the laws for a state and he/she has a legislature to impeach their ass if they fuck up.
There’s no check/balance against an appointment to the Senate. None. And it’s in the hands of one individual. We just don’t do that in this country.
Zuzu's Petals
@KG:
I’m not so sure. There have been restrictions for years at the state level (for instance) on lobbying for a certain amount of time after being a govt employee. I’ve never heard of a reasonable restriction being successfully challenged under the 1st Amdt.
Not to say I think this idea is a good one. There are plenty of legitimate reasons a recipient should be able to lobby the govt.
kay
@Martin:
I think it’s misguided to attack corruption with a constitutional amendment.
Now you’re making Feingold’s argument, that Senators should be elected, always, because that’s directly democratic. Like it or not, Blago was elected. No one bypassed process. I can make your same argument for any Blago appointee, right? He appointed state-level. He could have appointed Britney Spears. He probably DID appoint Britney Spears.
But, it’s an okay argument. Why not make it to a state legislature?
Zuzu's Petals
Re: lobbying by bailout $ recipients.
I see that Geithner is proposing limitations on lobbying by recipients on how the bailout money is used:
I’m not sure I agree with Volokh’s take on it, though without knowing more I guess it’s safest to frame the rules in terms of Treasury contacts with lobbyists rather than vice versa.
kommrade reproductive vigor
Because affirmative action is [only] OKiYaR!
Just wait. After the next Senate election cycle the GOP will demand protection under the Endangered Species Act.
Ecks
Nate Silver thinks that appointing a left-leaning R who doesn’t want to run in 2010 might not be the worst solution: