Judd Gregg for President!
I’d like to start a movement: Judd Gregg for President in 2012.
Seriously.
The only problem is, I’m not at all sure Gregg wants the honor. He’s on record as intending to retire from the Senate in 2010, and hasn’t announced what he’s planning afterward. But he’s given absolutely no indication it’s got anything to do with a bid for the presidency. However, on thinking who I’d like to see run as the Republican nominee in 2012, I’ve decided we could do a lot worse than Gregg.
Still, although he’s one of New Hamphire’s senators, he’s hardly a household word, and lacks what you might call charisma. When he’s feeling intense, his voice sometimes goes into somewhat higher registers than that deep baritone resonance so many love to hear.
But maybe the public is ready for someone without a lot of flash, but with some substance instead. Take a look at this video, where Gregg challenges Peter Orszag:
To me, Gregg comes across as down-to-earth but at the same time sincerely outraged (rather than staging a show of fake outrage) at Orszag’s playing fast and loose with the American taxpayer’s money. The reason he is so incensed here is probably related to the fact that, in October of 2008, in the midst of the acute financial crisis, Gregg authored that protective language in the TARP bill that “required repaid funds be applied to reducing the debt,” the provision Orszag is suggesting be violated.
Gregg is a lifelong fiscal conservative and social moderate. He is intelligent and articulate. He’s neither academically above-it-all nor populist-folksy, but generally strikes a forthright tone somewhere in-between. There are no bells and whistles with Gregg, but no funny slick stuff either.
In fact, Holden Caulfield might say Gregg’s not a phony, unlike so many other politicians (or at least, he’s less of a phony then most).
Gregg’s got tons of experience, both legislative and executive—the latter especially important for the job of president. He served four terms in the House, three in the Senate, and two as New Hampshire’s governor in-between. What’s more, his academic chops are very similar to those of none other than—Barack Obama. Gregg is a graduate of Phillips Exeter Academy, Columbia undergrad, and then BU Law.
I was tremendously impressed when Gregg thought to sign on with the Obama administration as Secretary of Commerce but signed off just as quickly when he realized how far to the left Obama was. He appears to have integrity, something we don’t hear too much about any more (although he uses the word in his exchange with Orszag). And he’s also lucky; according to Wiki, Gregg won “more than $850,000 in 2005 after buying $20 worth of Powerball tickets at a Washington, D.C. convenience store.” We could use a little bit of luck.
I thought I might be first with this rather strange idea of Gregg in 2012. But when I Googled “Judd Gregg for President” I discovered that others have passed this way before me—back in March of 2009, to be exact. And here’s a Facebook page dedicated to drafting him for the race.
Here’s the Gregg website.
So, what do you think of the idea?
Anyone fiscally conservative and sober minded at this point would attract quite a following. Senators, however, have not made for good Presidents, but that may mostly stem from the “modern Presidency” (celebrity). Boring policy wonks aren’t generally popular. But we could use a good wonk about now who is serious about fiscal responsbility.
Holmes: did you read the piece? Gregg was a two-term governor as well.
A veritable renaissance man :-).
I’m still holding out for Mitch Daniels.
I started saying this a year ago, so I’m on board. Gregg is very solid. He served us well as governor and has an excellent voting record. He is an old-style conservationist and has been for years, before it was cool, so the environmental groups have given him some respect even when they’ve disagreed. That would vanish in a heartbeat in a national campaign, of course, as the cause is everything to greens. But he could point to previous endorsements, at least.
He’s a taxpayer friend, he can crunch numbers and make them understandable, he is moderate in personality while conservative in policy (sort of an anti-Huckabee in that way). He is not a fire-in-the-belly guy, which to me is a plus but could be national negative.
At one time I would have read no further since he’s a Republican. Now…seems like an interesting guy and I’ve seen much worse alternatives offered and I might well see myself voting for him.
I broke the habit of a lifetime and voted Republican for president in 2008 and I’m not entirely unsurprised that I have absolutely no guilt feelings about it.
uh – not so fast.
I like independent thinkers – but this makes me a little nervous:
http://healthcare.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmVjNjdkZjY2M2JlMmRhZDMwOWYwYTg2NjgzYTk2ZmE=
We could do a lot worse. In government as in medicine: first, do no harm. Current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, take note.
Thanks for the suggestion. I’ve had no real enthusiasm for any of those currently mentioned. Perhaps we will be ready for someone who has not nurtured presidential aspirations for years or someone who has celebrity status. I have no serious gripe about those in either category, but it seems to me we need a different approach.
The important thing here is to have some executive experience. Governors, CEO’s and military generals have this level. Please note that, excepting “accidental” presidents (Ford, LBJ, Truman), the only non-ex governors/military/ex-VP’s were Roosevelt, Kennedy and Obama (since 1930). I agree that Judd has the experience and temperament, but I need to read up more on his issues.
Gregg/Palin 2012?
I can hardly fathom a level headed guy actually working 12 hours a day in the oval office while steering clear of flashy tv appearances until warranted.
What the heck would we talk about?
Another muscular, savy conservative is Tim Pawlenty. Dennis Miller chatted with him yesterday on-air and it was most impressive. Dennis, whom I like alot for his balance, toughness and ‘reads’ of people, was very impressed with the man, as was I.
I’m open to anyone with common sense and executive experience. He seems to anticipate the dirty tricks that can occur with a poorly drafted law.
I expect Judd Gregg would be an excellent President. The problem, as noted, is getting elected on the national ballot. Unfortunately integrity, competence, and experience are no longer enough. Gotta have that pizazz that the media loves.
Sarah Palin remarked over the weekend that there are many impressive candidates on the radar. Pawlenty for one. Ryan for another.
I hope the GOP doesn’t try to recycle any of the same old names. Huckabee and Gingrich come immediately to mind.
The Repubs could do far, far worse than Gregg, though at this time I have no real favorite as it’s still way too early. Indiana’s Governor, Mitch Daniels, is another whose name has been bandied about.
But I agree with the premise of wanting executive experience in the next candidate, and definitely no American Idol wannabes.
I live in NH and I have always appreciated and trusted Gregg as a solid, honest public servant, without thinking (or worrying) too much about him.
My favorite part of the video: “This is the law. Let me tell you what the law says. Let me read it to you again because you don’t appear to understand the law. The law is very clear.”
It appears he has respect for the law.
He reads the law. “The monies from the TARP SHALL be paid into the general fund of the Treasury FOR the reduction of the public debt.”
Then he nails it, with his sort of quavery-voiced passion.
“It’s not for a piggy bank because you’re concerned about lending to small businesses and you want to get a political event when you go out and make a speech in Nashua, NH. That’s not what this money is for. It’s to reduce the debt of our children, that we’re passing on to our children, and you ought to at least have the integrity to be forthright about it and say that’s what you’re doing, you’re adding to the debt that our kids are gonna have to pay back WHEN you’re claiming at the same time that you’re being fiscally responsible.”
And then the weaselly Orszag and friends basically say, well, we’re just going to change the law. Argh!!
Impressive exchange.
Let’s see. Tons of legislative and executive experience, integrity, academic chops, and a no-#$%& American for a change. These are grievous but not fatal drawbacks that can be overcome.
Hair: present, but so-so. Voice: a little high. Drug use: None. Adulterous relationships: None. White trash tendencies: None. Obvious psychological flaws: None. Race: white. Sex: male. Sexual orientation: normal.
Uh-oh.
“Taxes – So, is the U.S. tax system regressive or progressive?”
kenhoma.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/taxes-so-is-the-us-tax-system-regressive-or-progressive/
The bottom line: all of the components are progressive: federal income taxes, estate taxes, payroll taxes. So, it logically follows that the combined program is progressive.
your not going to remove progressivism by putting in a new set of progressives.
i said, if you control both sides of an issue you control the whole issue. and the left puts meta tags OVER others. so progressive is an uber single party… just as femnism alone is uber alles over the parts below, contradictory or not.
in this way, all opposition is folded neatly into your back pocket and doesnt oppose you as you speak FOR them (as they pretend to battle for your attention and change of mind).
of course only time, the magazine that made putin man of the year, stalin man of the year, mao man of the year, hitler man of the year… etc. could asuage the harm of the progressives.
did you know that if it wasnt for them and the 16th amendment you wouldnt be paying a PROGRESSIVE tax? (and that this tax was supposed to stay at 1% for you and 7% on fat cats?)
Progressive in this context bears no ideological freight. It simply means that if your income is higher, you pay a higher percentage of it in taxes. The only controversial point here for anybody who has looked at the data is on payroll taxes. Strictly speaking they’re not progressive: because Social Security only taxes the first $106,800 in annual earnings, those in the top income quintile pay a smaller percentage of their income in payroll taxes than those in the bottom four quintiles.
but as glenn beck so aptly pointed out by quoting the work of MELLON… the wealthy dont pay a PROGRESSIVE tax.. to steal glenn becks example. all those wealthy people in hollyweird are there SEASONALLY!!! or havent you noticed? their schedule makes sure that they dont live in the state long enough to pay taxes in that state!!!
so oprah who makes 100s of millions, doesnt pay a dime in progressive tax to calilfornia state. why? because she LIVES in texas or one of the states that does nto have income tax.
want to know why NY lost all that wealthy capital? because the wealthy have homes in CT, and CT doesnt have income tax. and the wall streeters buy homes there for just this purpose.
so invariably, when you go after them, they leave the building. (as they are dong now)… and they stay away and invest elswhere, becasue why wold they love a coutnry that treats them taht way just because they did well?
but note times arguments.
when someons starts a paragraph in an argument this way “Progressive in this context bears no ideological freight”
i know that they are saying the opposite
Homa’s argument is that because Social Security benefits are doled out according to a pretty progressive formula, the program works out to being progressive overall. I’m willing to buy that, up to a point. Somewhere in the top 10% or 5% of the income distribution things must turn regressive, as they do in the top 1% for income taxes and overall federal taxes. Still, on the whole he’s undeniably right: the federal tax system is progressive, albeit with a modest regressive kink at the very top of the income distribution.
anyone here remember that if he was actually the way yuor trying to think about him… then the argument would not be abotu which way the actions manipulate people (progressive, regressive, etc)..
but they would instead argue as the founding fathers did, and show that the constitution grants them no such powers to FASCISTICALLY control the means of production!!!!!!
Fascism is normalized till we delcare that it isnt even here. and the biggest deniers of it, focus on costumes and quirks, not methods, methodologies and proces.
all of this is a longwinded prelude to a Robert Reich blog post that Homa links to, in which Reich claims that:
Viewed as a whole, the current tax system is quite regressive.
a communist looking at the tax and noting that its not full and making a command ecnomy, by the rules of his ideology, has to declare it reactionary and so regressive for not being progressive enough. it’s a formula. (one does not need to understand to apply it. and so they apply it and dont understand, which is why outside the formulea that leads to power, they seem very incompetent. as incompetent as that failed painter who couldnt hold a job till he got into politics.
william tecumsa sherman was much the same. a neer do well alcoholic who couldnt get much right, becomes president of the US. going back to the GOALS of the COMMUNIST PARTY from the naked communist.
Congressional Record–Appendix, pp. A34-A35 January 10, 1963
you all should go over them and not only tick off which are completed but which ones we are following whiel ignoreing the build up of the other sides!!! so much on that list has been done and is now being cemented nito place. and other things inform you of strange stuff that makes no sense. until you read the GOALS.
like obama not pledging allegiance, or wearing pins. “Do away with all loyalty oaths”.
why appoint czars and not follow the structure of state? “Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus”
Why delegate powers unconstitutionally to CPS and family courts and such? why push mandatory drugs for kids making parental choices illegal? “Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].”
why try terrorists in regular court not military? “Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI. ”
why create a safe school czar who sources from gslen whose lineage goes back to weimar germany, and later bella kuhn state? why teach sex ed. gay lib studies. encourage promescuity, etc. “Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.”
“Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
“Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.”
“Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.”
why did obama go to reverend wrights church and pushes social justice. somethign the pope wrote against? “Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.” ”
why are the communist atheists acting like evangelical athiests and attacking every smidgeon of religion in school or state? “Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
why does obama say the things he does as to the founding fathers? “Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.”
“Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
”
and along with those above, why kill history before 1877? “Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over. ”
so 1877 is the start of when communism a la marx letters to engels and such, and its origin. MARX is the NEW BC AD marker…
why create a communications czar and such over the FCC and broadcast? “Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures. ”
how can so many newspapers and such tow the line for obama so much and not report things? “Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.”
why are students and scuh always used to make the change. like writing a small blue book that is known in other coutnries to get students out destroying property for the cause? Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack. Gain control of all student newspapers.
how come when we vote for our parties we never get somethign we want, but a variation of what we dont want? well, they control both sided of an issue, by controlling both parties under progressive label. “Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States. ”
the quote that neo edited out yesterday from bella dodd shows that the technique for how to fix elections a la acorn was the same back in teh 30s.
and why do they take kids away from parents so early? why do they wish to create youth camps to educate them as part of their civil service oblications… (inverting our relationshiop to the state!) Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents
why was protest and damage ok… when it was under pelosi control and instigation, and suddenly a horror when tea party does it? and why have we accepted the unspoken argument that there is no way to make change within the system so we have to violate the system and break it to get what we want? because thats how you get termites to do your dirty work and destroy the structure by refusing to use its framework, or even knwo how it works. smash is easy, repuiblican form of state is hard.
Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use [“]united force[“] to solve economic, political or social problems.
[no wonder we cant debate. i am 6’3” and 235… in the absence of such rules, i win debates easy]
of course if you dont know the history, the goals, the ideals, the writings, the musings, the pl;ans and such…then are you going to realize that almost ALL of the goals have been fulfilled under your nose as you still claim that nothign is happening? reminds me of woody allen holding the door for the men emptying his apartment. thats the kind of denial we have now!!
Gregg appears to be solid but doesn’t have an important intangible; the quality of Gravitas, he doesn’t exude “Presidential Timber”. He’s not a leader that other men will follow, he’s more the ‘wise elder’ that other men listen to carefully in council.
Gregg appeals to conservatives and those independents who value allegiance to principle. Most independents do not, indeed most people do not, and that is why an emotional/gut connection by a Presidential candidate is so important in winning.
He’s also perhaps not the sharpest knife in the drawer…which is not to say that he’s dull, more a case of being a bit gullible because he’s a straight shooter, tends to assume others are as well and, wants to work cooperatively with the opposition to get something done. I suspect he doesn’t fully appreciate what he’s dealing with..the determination and uncompromising attitude by Obama to have his way on Health Care.
I base that suspicion upon his response to the Presidential invitation to the upcoming Health Care meeting. It’s in the link that ethos provided and while necessarily incomplete, in no way does it indicate an awareness by Gregg that Obama is NOT inviting the Republicans to meet with him because he’s had a change of heart and now embraces bipartisanship.
Obama has stated that he’s still committed to getting the Health Care Reform Bill passed and implies that he’ll only accept Republican ‘modifications’ that essentially leave it intact.
I strongly suspect because I see no other explanation for Obama’s behavior…that the Republicans are walking into a trap designed to ‘prove’ that they’re ‘obstructionists’ and thus provide the rationale and political cover Obama and the Democrats will need when they ram through the Health Care Reform Bill.
Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents.
Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents
NurtureShock Cover Story for Newsweek — “Is Your Baby Racist?”
[and if so what would be teh cure? oh. take kids away from theparents and raise them by the state. htiler and stalin did that… take your pick which is worse, but sinc ethey are follwoing a single thing above them, does it matter?]
if it wasnt for communsits
their progressive polices of welfare and minimum wage their idea of exterminating the black man by visiting upon him such conditions that he aborts his children before being born, and of course make sure that there are a lot more clinics in those neighborhoods.
if alma lights off a nuclear bomb early
will that bring the mahdi?
if they collapse a capitalist state by doing anticapitlaist thing and calling it capitlaism.
does that make marx right, or seem right
and is seem right good enough for them
to work under temporarily till fixated
Amen, sister Neo. Every time I see Gregg on CNBC I’m very impressed with his insights. He knows budgets, and he can make sense without a teleprompter. It is possible that the biggest issue in the next couple of elections will be spending.
A similar candidate is Pawlenty. Neither guy is slick or good looking, but maybe the public will see what a con those qualities can be.
Thanks for the video, and I agree that Gregg is very impressive. It’s tremendously encouraging to see that the list of strong potential challengers to Obama has at least several names and is growing. May the best man rise to the top!
Kudlow frequently interviews Gregg on CNBC. He’s come up with a couple of witty one liners. He might not be so charismatic that he can hypnotize the country smply saying “hope and change”, but he’s also not as boring as a door knob.
He’s clearly a deficit hawk and understands the U.S. government’s finances are a national disaster waiting to happen if entitlements are not reformed very soon. He was for the “Deficit Commision” that unfortunately was shot down in the Senate.
I like him alot. I’m pretty sure it was him who said in an interivew about a year ago that he has worked in government long enough and he wanted to find something to do in the private sector.
But then, the presidency isn’t like other government jobs. Maybe you can change his mind.
Gregg appears to be the understated Calvin Coolidge- type guy who takes budgets seriously. He is just the man of fiscal knowledge we need to get our budget situation in whack. I saw him on Greta the other night and was impressed. He strikes me as a man of integrity. I also appreciated the genuine outrage he registered toward slippery Peter Orszag in their confrontation on Capitol Hill.
Nice idea but can he handle O’Reilly and….John Stewart?
When was William T. Sherman President? I must have missed that event. Was he posing as Grant?
Peace, Brutha.
I see three impressive Repub candidates (potentially) right now; Judd, Pawlenty and Daniels, in no particular order. Per Occam’s Beard, they all have significant obstacles to overcome however. NeoConScum, I heard the same interview on Miller’s show and was very favorably impressed. Pawlenty and his entire family have a history in one of the most politically incorrect industries in America, meat packing. The Greens will love him.
Third Coast and NeoConScum, I, too, heard Dennis’s chat with Governor Pawlenty. I was very taken by the man and, full disclosure, had not paid him much attention until now. That changes immediately.
He seems like a solid candidate for us. But, please don’t try to impress us with his la-ti-da academic accomplishments. Even before the advent of our current Ivy-Leaguer-in-Chief, bragging about academic accomplishments says nothing but ‘I haven’t done anything in real life yet.’ Doing well in college is supposed to prove that you have the potential to do well in the real world. When running for higher office, we should be requiring proof that you can do well in the real world, not that you have potential to do well (cf the real-world failure currently inhabiting the White House).
A college degree should be a footnote in your list of accomplishments, maybe right next to the birth certificate?
Sorry for the venting.
Mark in Portland: I listed the academic accomplishments because I think they would inoculate him against the “stupid” charges from the opposition. Academic achievements are not necessarily meaningful in and of themselves when evaluating a candidate for office, but they impress the other side, and might attract a few crossovers (or at the very least, would serve not to repel them).
Of course, that said, Bush’s degrees didn’t stop anyone from calling him stupid. But I doubt anyone would level that charge at Gregg.
But I doubt anyone would level that charge at Gregg.
Sure they would, neo. They would have leveled it at Richard Feynman if he’d run for office as a Republican. Just like the thread re Sarah Palin over at PJM, they’d have characterized him as “intellectually incurious” about the world around him. After quantum electrodynamics, what? Zip, that’s what. QED. Incurious.
I just realized that QED was inadvertently a pun. Wish I could say I wrote that intentionally, but I’m too intellectually incurious to have thought of it.
Occam’s Beard: I disagree. They would find some other way to call him names—a bigot, an evil oppressor, that sort of thing. But not stupid.
Did they call William Buckley stupid? I don’t think so, although I can’t say I was paying a ton of attention back then. My guess is that they called him lots of other things. But not stupid.
I lived in NH back in the day when he was governor, and I liked him then. NHers are doughty folks, and I doubt he’s changed much.
Neo, you may be right. But on its face, you’d think it would have been difficult to disparage Bush with respect to Gore and Kerry, neither of whom outperformed Bush academically, but the left did so without batting an eyelash.
If the media are worth 15 percentage points to Dems at the polls, they must be worth about the same number of IQ points to Dems in trying to shape public perception.
For some reason I’ve never quite been able to put my finger on, I really don’t like Romney, and I get discouraged when people promote him. I like Gregg pretty well, for most of the same reasons Neo cites. I was, for example, quite impressed when he displayed the character and integrity required to change his mind about serving in Obama’s cabinet. It can’t have been easy, but he did it, and it doesn’t seem to have cost him politically.
But actually, I’m with Christopher: I like Mitch Daniels. He’s really a fresh face, and seems to have considerable self-confidence, and that mystical, magical gravitas so many people are so in love with and also, maybe, some of the distinctly un-Republican attribute of charisma. Well, at least it seems un-Republican post-Reagan!
I hope the devil doesn’t run against Obama in 2012. I would feel guilty voting for the devil.
Occam’s Beard: some of the reasons they put Bush down were similar to the reasons they put Palin down. In her case, she doesn’t have the Ivy degrees, and she has the accent and the good ole’ boy (or in her case, good ole’ girl) swagger and style. Bush had the degrees, but they could ascribe that to Daddy’s influence, and he also had the swagger and the accent (a different accent than hers, to be sure, but one they also tend to correlate with stupidity).
Gregg has a generic accent, and not much swagger. Even his demeanor in the Orszag encounter (which is about as much swagger as I’ve ever seen him muster) was more Jimmy Stewart than John Wayne wannabee.
Of course, come to think of it, they could try to invalidate Gregg’s credentials on the basis of family, like Bush—his father had been the governor of NH in the 50s. But that’s not quite the same as having a father who was fabulously wealthy, and had been POTUS.
Enjoyable thread. Some good people have been advanced.
One of my favorite, “intellectually incurious” persons, who is currently in the national spotlight, has recently championed the idea of robust primary fights at all levels of the GOP. The idea is that, rather than picking the one whose turn is next, or the one with insider backing; let them compete and let the cream rise to the top. But what does she know?
I believe that Mark in Portland’s point is certainly valid. By the time a person is 35 or so, I think the college degree should be increasing irrelevant. (Except for Academics perhaps). The individual should have a track record of demonstrated competence in the fundamentals that are harbingers of success–in any field. And specific experience and competence that transfers to the new area of responsibility. Academic education is a good start, but is only one possible starting point. It does not substitute for demonstrated ability. We lose sight of this basic fact to our peril. (I do not intend to preach to the choir, because I know that readers of this blog understood this concept before November of 2008. There just were not enough of us.)
I may be obtuse, but I am really not clear how big a role intellectual curiosity plays in a President’s success.
I may be even more obtuse, but how does one assess “intellectual curiosity” at this remove?
Judd Gregg separated at birth from Mr. Smith?
I don’t want to rain on the parade, but I thought Gregg played right into Obama’s hands when he was offered the Commerce position. This was just after the election, before the Spector defection, and the Democrats were trying to pick off a Republican senator so they wouldn’t have to worry about cloture. In retrospect, does anybody believe Obama was offering the job to Gregg to bring about a new mood in Washington? I’m sure Gregg is a nice guy and all, but I want somebody who can see through these guys and who will fight.
LB100: the key phrase there is “in retrospect.” Gregg was willing to give the possibility of a moderate Obama a try at the very beginning. But he wasted no time at all in recognizing what he was dealing with, and never took the job. That shows an ability to size things up pretty quickly, I believe. In addition, he was well aware of the “pick off a Republican senator” possibility, and he got an agreement from New Hampshire’s Democratic Governor Lynch to appoint a Republican in his stead. I’m not sure what sort of guarantees he had, but I seem to recall that it was widely believed Lynch would actually do this.
As far as raining on the parade goes, if Gregg doesn’t answer the call, the parade won’t even start, rain or shine.
LB100,
Well, Gregg did come to his senses, see what was happening and how he was being used, and back out of the gig, didn’t he, and at the risk of considerable loss of face. As I said earlier, it can’t have been easy. Sometimes we learn a lot about a man by seeing him make that sort of mistake, rught it, and then stem the damage as best he can. Gregg strikes me as being unlikely to make a similar mistake again–and I include in that any temptation to be seduced a second time. I don’t doubt that he is stronger now than he was before it. Trial-by-fire, if you will.
I am simply encouraged that Republicans, including those conservatives who post here, are finally interested in looking beyond what may be called the Old Guard. There seems to be a genuine interest in moving on from the Reach-Across-the-Aisle crowd, a recognition that we are actually in a fight with people who want to use our own decency against us, and they are genuine enemies of the American Republic–not unlike the Muslim enemy, in some ways. I look at some of the Republican alleged Old Bulls of the Senate–Grassley, McCain, Graham, Alexander and the accommodating Ladies of Maine–and I think, “What dupes they are.” There are some Republican governors in the crowd, too–Schwarzenegger comes to mind–who are looking for ways to work with the enemy. It’s not what the people want now, if they ever wanted it before. The Democrats try to seduce where they can, and they have up until now had some considerable success. But when the seductions fail, they are ruthless. The problem is that, even when the seductions succeed, they are equally ruthless. We are seeing it now. Obama is attempting to seduce the congressional Republicans on health care, and yet we hear rumblings that the Democrats are planning a reconciliation ploy nevertheless. The Republicans will be skinned, and they will have been complicit in their own defeat, if this works.
Well, as the ancient curse has hoped for us, we live in interesting times.
And I still like Daniels.
Go, Betsy, go.
We must play to win.
Well said Betsy. I think your position agrees with that of my “intellectually incurious” heroine. Old Bull status be damned. Get in the arena (primaries) and convince us of why we should support you. Let the blood flow (figuratively) and the best man or woman take up the standard.
Certainly, Mitch Daniels should be on the roster of contenders.
Senator Gregg’s high school is also Ned Lamont’s high school, as well as Daniel Webster’s, not to mention Jay Rockefeller, Kent Conrad, and John Negroponte. Its mottoes are “non sibi” (“not for oneself”) and “finis origine pendet” (“the end depends upon the beginning”), plus a Calvinist-inspired phrase in Greek that is hard to render here. One might detect in these a certain old school ethos of public service, despite the presence of Lamonts and writers like Dan Brown, John Irving, and Gore Vidal among its alumni.
It would be nice to have some throwback politicians.
Oblio,
Interesting. BTW, I’ve been terribly disappointed in John Negroponte.
Fine words of the “non sibi and finis origine pendet sort always leave me bemused. They are not, as the list of names you cite confirms, predictors of anything useful. They give clues to excellent antecedents, but the outcomes remain variable.
The heritage remains much less of an indicator than the present actions. The question is, throwbacks to what?
betsy b., likes Daniels. I was always impressed by him when he worked for Bush. Very level headed and understood the ins and outs of the budget process. But I felt he lacked charisma. I hear he has done wonders for Indiana. I understand that under his leadership the state has achieved a AA credit rating. If he has ambitions for running for President, I would like to see him showing up on some of the Sunday talk shows. See if he has raised the level of his charisma.
I could care less about charisma. Candidates that are conservative and honest impress me much more than people like Obama and Clinton. (Both very charismatic.) But it’s the voting public. In this TV age it is almost all that many look at. (pace Obama’s election.) Even with all his problems Obama may still be tough to beat in 2012. (It’s the charisma!)
At this point there are several candidates (Gregg, Pawlenty, Daniels, Ryan, Barasso) who are fiscal conservatives with good policy ideas and seem to be square shooters. I like Sarah Palin’s and Old Flyer’s idea. Let’s have a tough primary and let the best man rise to the top.
For now though, I’m more focused on getting a Republican Congressman elected here in our district next November. We’ve got one good candidate so far (John Koster), but Larsen is not going to be easy to knock off. Let the primaries begin.
J.J., I quite agree with you. For now, we must focus on the more local levels. Congressmen are key–shoot, even dog-catchers. I’d like to see someone focus on getting party IDs re-inserted in local elections. In ours here, and I understand in others around the country, local elections have emphasized such things as “working for the local community” and “interested in family concerns,” and have eschewed party associations. This practice is not helpful. Anyone can make such claims; I want candidates to tell me with which set of governing principles they are aligned–it’s not as though there are no differences beyond what sounds nice. The rest isn’t useful to voters. Independence is nice, and no one wants to be thought of as a pawn, but it reminds me of the G(od) D(amned) I(ndependent) movement on college campuses that was designed to undermine the Greeks. There’s no real public office use in it, it’s just a way to obfuscate.
Like you, I don’t much care about charisma. But at the same time, we must recognize that it has power for the electorate and the GD media.
Incidentally, I understand that Daniels is an avid motorcycle rider. Could that not be the beginning of charisma?
I don’t know. I own property in NH and listen to the Howie Carr show frequently when I’m there. I’ve listen to Carr interview Gregg at least a couple of times and he (Gregg) comes across well overall. In fact, my impression is that he is an able legislator and very honorable and conscientious man. I deeply respect those qualities. But that doesn’t alleviate my concerns. One of those concerns is that Gregg’s narrative just does not have the appeal of a Brown, unfortunately. Call it a lack of charisma or a lack of charismatic energy on the part of Gregg. Brown was able to ignite a grass roots feeling that helped him undermine attacks of all kinds from the Mass liberal inertia and from the Obamites. I don’t think Gregg has the personality to do that outside of NH., a state where his understated personality is obviously appreciated. Brown represents the new. Gregg sorta represents the best of the not so new. My second concern is related to the first. I agree with a commenter above that Gregg appears to be from a different era of politics. I’m not convinced – despite Neo’s counter arguments – that he is as savvy as he needs to be in his dealings the Obamites; not as a Republican legislator nor a presidential Rep candidate. Maybe he can grow, but I don’t think so. In short, I’m concerned that he can be used and abused because of his essential, inherent goodness and his expectations of the same from others. But this isn’t Kansas anymore. That doesn’t work with the Obama crowd. Show me that he understands fully and can deal with vigor in a systematic way with the politics and tactics of the 21st century liberals. I want to believe.
Neo: I think the “in retrospect” qualification was a mistake. It was obvious at the time, and I would have a hard time getting behind anybody who could be bamboozled by such a transparent, dangerous phony. During the last campaign, I had no doubt that this country was on the verge of making an epochal mistake, and I’m under the impression you had a similar reaction. This was clearly not a man we could “work with,” and, barring some very convincing explanation, I would would have suspicions about Gregg’s understanding of what this country is up against. And call me cynical (I am), but I had no confidence whatsoever that the Lynch appointee would be any stronger, faithful or resolute than Spector or Dede Scozzafava. You simply cannot trust these guys.
Betsybounds: Yes, it’s to Gregg’s credit that he came to his senses. But the fact of the matter is that he came close to making what I believe could have been a catastrophic choice, one that would have made Scott Brown the 39th de facto Republican senator. I agree that he is probably more astute than those whom you deem the Old Guard, and I think he’s probably a very good and honorable man. However, I want somebody who is even more perceptive and, as I said earlier, who will fight.
I just hope its not like 2008. I turned away from the news for a few days to discover John McCain went from relative obscurity to “our man”. Reminded me that if politics were a game of blackjack the republicans just said “i’ll stick” at 14.
Betsy, I didn’t mean to suggest that a certain heritage causes certain outcomes. That would be silly.
I would like a throwback not to politicians as they were–they have always been wretched–but to the expectation that our leadership as a group would know the classical principles and at least show a familiarity with unfashionable knowledge and our cultural and intellectual heritage, including a decent respect for religion. It would be great if at least some of them tried to apply these precepts in practice: for example, non sibi sed patriae (“not for self, but for country”) is inscribed over the entrance to the chapel at the US Naval Academy.
As it is, Exeter is one of the great nurseries of the liberal, meritocratic elite. The Manchester Union Leader once referred to it at “the Little Red Schoolhouse.” If Gregg passed through it and then Columbia without losing his bearings, then it speaks well for the independence of his mind from an early age.
Occam’s Beard – “intellectually curious” = wants to try socialism. Happy to clear that up for you.
Loved the comment about Feynman, BTW.
Gregg is being interviewed on fox as i type. I’m not too keen on his idea to revive health care. This issue has become radioactive. I don’t think he understands that an ovewhelming majority of Americans don’t think Washington should, or is even capable, of affecting positive changes to healthcare.
How about we have healthcare summits with healthcare professionals and don’t invite a single govt official….Wow, what a concept…Solving problems without the input of politicians who are running our society into the ground.
SteveH,
Now THERE’S a thought. I like it. I like it a lot.
I don’t understand why the Republicans are so skittish about being called the party of “No.” The American people are screaming “NO!” so loudly that it would take a deaf man not to hear it. Some brave soul needs to take them up on it. Shoot, it shouldn’t even take that much courage, just ambition ought to do it.
I want candidates to tell me with which set of governing principles they are aligned—it’s not as though there are no differences beyond what sounds nice.
Quick shibboleth: look at the endorsements. Not to outsource one’s thinking by subscribing to them, but using them to sniff out the Reds. Their endorsements invariably include some such as “American LGBT Mothers United for Peace, Social Justice, Fighting Income Inequality, and Saving Polar Bears.” Bingo. Saves a lot of reading, and never fails.
Like you I was surprised to find that there are so many others who feel as we do…Gregg for President! From afar, he appears to have the experience, philosophy and character to make a great president. What a relief it would be to have someone in the top job who actually thinks about what is needed to put the country on a fiscally sane path instead of just pandering to certain groups.
Other than this website are you doing anything else to encourage Gregg? Any ideas?