Share

Judd Gregg Withdraws Commerce Secretary Nomination

by: David Espo  |  The Associated Press

photo
New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg. (Photo: Reuters)

    Washington - Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire abruptly withdrew his nomination as Commerce secretary Thursday, citing "irresolvable conflicts" with President Barack Obama's handling of the economic stimulus and 2010 census. "We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy," Gregg said in a statement released by his Senate office.

    Gregg, 61, is a former New Hampshire governor who previously served in the House. He has been in the Senate since 1993 and currently serves as the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, where he is known as a crusader against big spending.

    He was Obama's second choice to fill the Commerce portfolio.

    New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson withdrew several weeks ago in the wake of a grand jury investigation into alleged wrongdoing involving state contracts. He has not been implicated personally.

    In his statement, Gregg thanked Obama for the nomination, and said, "I especially admire his willingness to reach across the aisle."

    In citing the stimulus and census, he said, "Prior to accepting this post, we had discussed these and other potential differences, but unfortunately we did not adequately focus on these concerns. We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy."

    The unexpected withdrawal marked the latest setback for Obama in his attempt to build a Cabinet.

    Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was confirmed despite revelations that he had not paid some of his taxes on time, and former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle withdrew as nominee as health and human services secretary in a tax controversy.

    In his statement, Gregg said his withdrawal had nothing to do with the vetting into his past that Cabinet officials routinely undergo.

    Gregg's reference to the stimulus underscored the partisan divide over the centerpiece of Obama's economic recovery plan. Conservatives in both houses have been relentless critics of the plan, arguing it is filled with wasteful spending and won't create enough jobs. Gregg has refrained from voting on the bill - and on all other matters - while his nomination was pending.

    The Commerce Department has jurisdiction over the Census Bureau, and the administration recently took steps to assert greater control. Republicans have harshly criticized the decision, saying it was an attempt to politicize the once-in-a-decade event.

    The outcome of the census has deep political implications, since congressional districts are drawn based on population. Many federal funds are distributed on the basis of population, as well.

    Both of those factors mean there is a premium on counting as many residents as possible. Historically, the groups believed to be most undercounted are inner-city minorities, who tend to vote Democratic.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum. Β It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

In Congress and now in a

In Congress and now in a Cabinet nomination, Republicans have written themselves out of the script for American recovery after spawning the disaster in the first place. To hell with them, let's move forward.

Anything to undercut Obama's

Anything to undercut Obama's effort to right the economic disaster that was the Bush Administration. If Gregg thinks that those Bush policies were in any way correct, he doesn't belong in the Cabinet. Did Rush Limburger call him up and tell him to withdraw? The Republicans are held captive by the extreme right wing, and Limburger is the chief Whig, it seems. Obama needs no cheesy smell of decay in his Cabinet, so good riddance to bad rubbish. This is hardly a setback, but rather a gift. Gray Davis would make a good Secretary of Commerce, or Phil Angiledes, for that matter. Go back to the state governor pool.

This is a sneaky maneuver

This is a sneaky maneuver that backfired, since the Dems are not rubes or suckers. Gregg was offered up -- yes, he fronted the initial inquiry about the vacancy -- to be the fox in the henhouse, specifically in the cabinet position where the census is traditionally managed. As Secretary of Commerce he would have been in the catbird seat to manipulate a grand gerrymander in 2010, for which the Republicans are salivating. Once the census was administratively pulled from Commerce, there was no further point in giving up a countable Senate seat for a spot in a Cabinet in which he would have been a total misfit, so Gregg slunk off behind a stream of empty platitudes.

Thank you, Judd Gregg.

Thank you, Judd Gregg. Enough said.

It's really no surprise that

It's really no surprise that Judd Gregg pulled out. He's always put party loyalty first. He's also quite a hypocrite, since he had no problem strongly supporting spending $800 billion on the war in Iraq and giving $1.2 trillion in tax cuts to the wealthy while opposing Obama's stimulus package because it is "too wasteful". It's also possible that he used his nomination by Obama (which I understand Gregg himself first suggested) as a way to improve his "bipartisan" credentials in advance of a difficult reelection campaign in 2010.

Okay, as a lay clinician,

Okay, as a lay clinician, let me explain this quite simply and directly, the President's "bipartisanship" overtures are symptomatic of a certain kind of bi-polar disorder. You cannot make nice with nazis, there can be no bipartisanship with the gingrich crowd.

I totally agree, to hell

I totally agree, to hell with them. Let's move on. It is the same theory anywhere, do not focus on the negative, move forward and focus on the people that do care! What a wimp Gregg is......his loss.

Right On, Ari. Negativity

Right On, Ari. Negativity is out. We want imagination, intelligence, good will, hard work to clean up the Republican mess.

What in the world was Obama

What in the world was Obama "thinking" to nominate this right-wing Republican? I actually respect the (ironically and) inherently unrespectable Republican who threw this position back into Obama's "bipartisan" face. I hope there is an absolute about-face with Obama's desire for "bipartisanship". He is dreaming of something that will never be. I want war between Democrats and Republicans. To get along with Republicans one must forfeit heart and soul and sell out to the Corporate World Order. This is very serious business and I am not sure that Obama understands what he's up against. These Republicans are trying to whack Obama in the knees so he falls and never gets up again. They are only thinking of how to win in 08 and their collective will will be to drag him into failure.

Clearly the Republicans know

Clearly the Republicans know how to conduct government affairs without bias or favoritism and attempt to further the interests of their party and so are in a position to criticize the Obama administration that has had nearly a month to get everything in order - something that Bush failed to do after 8 years.

I meant 2012 (not 2008) in

I meant 2012 (not 2008) in my post below. Sorry for the error.

These cabinet post offers

These cabinet post offers are working out extremely well. It is a great way to assure the political demise of the unfit members of this last most despicable congress when they run for the hills rather than assume any responsible post in Obama's cabinet. VOTERS: Please write down the names of all these "fouled' picks, both dem and repig, so you can be sure to remove them from office in 2010.

Another of Limbaugh's

Another of Limbaugh's Loonies shows his true colors. Gregg seems to have gone into this for party reasons - controlling the census - and is exiting because he would not have control of the census. I guess he was going to hold his nose while he drew new districts for the Pubes. Too bad his plan was foiled.

Both of those factors mean

Both of those factors mean there is a premium on counting as many residents as possible. Historically, the groups believed to be most undercounted are inner-city minorities, who tend to vote Democratic. boediger

I appreciate these comments,

I appreciate these comments, but they are from people who 'see' .. unfortunately so much of America is 'blind' .. so much of America has become neo-conservative fascists that only listen to their higher drug 'Rush' .. so much of America has the 'I' disease which preys on those who are 'R' inflicted. If only those who can 'see' would also speak out.

No one will ever be able to

No one will ever be able to say that Obama did not try to unite the factions. Happily..(in my opinion) the Bush era nutbars from the Republican party who caused all these problems in the first place..are showing us their true colours. As a result.. Obama will be better able to put people of value into the key positions these nutbar politicians continue to refuse. Frankly..I am thrilled that these politicians are showing their true colours..and making room for those with brains, integrity, and a true desire to act in the best interest of all Americans..something the Bush era Republicans consistently refused to do. Brava to Obama for continuing to be the better man...and..good riddance to those who by their partisan bad mannered actions refuse to be a part of the solution. I agree with the poster who sees this as a gift...and agree that 'the Republicans have chosen to write themselves out of the recovery script..after spawning the disaster in the first place'.

Judd's been in office since

Judd's been in office since 1993. He's "against big spending." So where's he been & what's he been doing since 2000? Or is he yet another member of the GOP who is against "big spending" only now that there's a Dem in office? And one for whom "big spending" means spending on social service projects, but endless spending is fine if it's for invasions & occupations based on lies, a useless (except for making the rich richer) "missile defense shield"? It amazes me that the MSM can print, without including /snark, any quote from a member of the GOP that suggests that person is "against big spending". To hear them talk, Congress didn't vote to raise the debt ceiling, what, 5 times during the Bush Administration. Or maybe more. That the Bushies didn't rack up a huge budget deficit with their tax cut & spend big time on huge money pits policies. Be nice to have some media that did true investigative journalism.