This has not been a good couple of weeks for progressive Democrats. First, the appointment of a blue dog senator in the progressive state of New York by a Democratic governor whose budget cuts are gutting health care in New York and who refuses to entertain the possiblity of the alternative of a millionaires' surtax. Next came the rotting fish that is Tom Daschle, whose appointment makes a mockery of all of Obama's promises to change the culture of Washington. Now we have the appointment of right-wing Republican as Secretary of Commerce, bringing to three the number of Republicans in the cabinet. As opposed only one surefire progressive, Hilda Solis. (Chu and Holder are possibilities. People like Clinton, Salazar and Vilsack, uh, no).
Is the change we were promised? Bill Clinton's cabinet was arguably more progressive. Did we think we were supporting a progressive Democrat only to end up with a DLC Democrat?
But the issue in this diary is Gregg, and the wisdom of his appointment both substantively and politically.
And Chris Bowers nails it on both counts:
Now, the counter-argument to this is two-fold. First, that Gregg's replacement, Bonnie Newman, will probably vote like Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins. Second, that Newman won't run in 2010, thus making the seat easier to win. However, there is an easy rebuttal to those claims: we don't know how Newman will vote, and we might not win the seat in 2010 anyway. Essentially, we are handing over an entire federal department to a right-wing conservative in exchange for the possibility of an election victory in 2010 and one more vote on a few pieces of legislation in 2009-2010. So, we get possibilities, while a right-wing Republican gets a federal department.
That's a pretty crappy deal. Our ability to win elections in 2010 will be dependant on how effectively we govern in 2009-2010. If we govern like conservative Republicans, which we will now be doing in the Commerce department, we will probably get booted out of office, just like they were. And, when they get back in power, liberal Democrats won't be running the Departments of Defense, Commerce and Tranportation.
http://www.openleft.com/...
What's that saying, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Even worse, is that it is an idiotic appointment on substantive grounds:
The Census: Ten years ago, during a fight between the Census bureau and the Clinton administration about the use of statistical sampling in the Census (so as not to undercount poor urban areas), Gregg presided over the Senate subcommittee in charge of Census funding. While he did not release funds with as strongly anti-sampling restrictions as did the House, he did "include a prohibition against making "irreversible" plans for sampling." Hopefully, Gregg won't work to undercount low income urban areas in the 2010 census, too.
Broadband stimulus grants: The Commerce Secretary also presides over the National Telecommunication and Information Administration (NTIA). According to both the House and Senate stimulus packages, the NTIA will be in charge of distributing the majority of the grants. Right now, the debate is over whether these grants will go to local governments, or directly to telecommunication companies. Given Gregg's awesomely progressive record, it isn't hard to figure out that these grants are pretty much just going to turn into corporate welfare now.
The Commerce department is also involved with intellectual property law, trade deals, and environmental protection of the oceans. These are important things, and not simply to be brushed aside.
The census, trade deals? Nah, nothing important there. Besides, as Bowers points out, Democrats are notoriously incompetent when dealing with such matters as commerce and national defense. And the Gregg appointment will lead a slew of Republicans, in return, to support the administration on the stimulus and other policy matters.
Why do I hear a burst of laughter coming from the Republican side.