Will Obama appoint the 16th man to Cabinet to gain a Senate majority?
January 30, 2009
by Sheryl Lee
|Andrew Malcolm reports in the L.A. Times “Top of the Ticket” blog that Obama may be preparing to appoint New Hampshire GOP Senator Judd Gregg as Secretary of Commerce in order to open up his seat in Congress, which will allow NH Dem. Governor John Lynch to appoint a Dem. to replace Gregg, giving the Dems the magic number for their Senate majority.
If Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell can’t keep Gregg from leaving, that creates a Senate vacancy, right? And that means the replacement would be named by New Hampshire’s governor, right? His name is John Lynch. He’s a Democrat. What party candidate do you think he would nominate? Not likely a Libertarian.
Assuming comedian Al Franken’s narrow Senate lead in Minnesota is not one of his bad jokes, that would give Democratic Majority Leader Leader Harry Reid a Senate majority of — tah-dah — 60. The magic GOP filibuster-proof majority.
Women have been appointed to just 5 out of 21 cabinet positions, making women 24% of cabinet, when we’re 52% of the population. Obama did a great job with minority representation in cabinet, so what’s the problem with women?
This is not something we ought to let go without a fight.
UPDATE: fsteele, the first commenter, wisely points out that we could pressure the NH Governor to appoint a woman to Gregg’s vacant Senate seat if Obama goes ahead and appoints him to cabinet.
What do you think — is that a fair trade for another woman in cabinet? And what about waiting until after Ledbetter was signed to make the appointment — does that seem strategic?
Well, we could work to get the Governor to appoint a woman to Gregg’s Senate seat. Cabinet members come and go, but a qualified woman Senator once appointed, could hold the seat as long as she can gain re-election.
The MAJORITY New Hampshire’s state senate members are WOMEN! The governor has plenty of qualified women to choose from. Let’s make it happen!
My gut response is to say that I’d prefer a woman senator over woman Sec of Commerce.
Although it would not increase women in the cabinet, I’d prefer the 60 votes in the seat with a women being appointed senator.
We need Democratic women in the Senate (and the House) to support legislation beneficial for women and change the larger environment–sex education, available birth control info, i.e., programs are now in jeopardy, and to repair the damage done by restricting birth control and other such programs in other countries. Republicans tie these issues to much narrower demands that restrict women in many ways, and use the excuse that their constituencies back home support these demands. Perhaps it is less true than they would like us to believe. Legislation that benefits women, not only in areas of birth control (in the larger sense), but more educational opportunities for young women, real protection from domestic violence, jobs paying enough to allow women to make independent decisions will bring about more support for the Democratic party. More Democratic women in the House and Senate can only help.
I’m torn. I would like to see a Democratic majority on social issues, but not on fiscal issues. I see risk to women that way as well. On the other hand, having a Republican as Sec’y of Commerce might alleviate that concern.
Meanwhile, tomorrow Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir, a former union organizer, is expected to become Iceland’s first female Prime Minister and the first openly lesbian head of government anywhere in the world.
There’s a wonderful photo of her at Wikipedia and elsewhere online.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F.....rtrait.jpg
I definitely prefer another woman Senator to another female Cabinet member. The Senator could survive the Obama administration and boost our representation percentage.
I love that idea! Frankly, pressuring Obama won’t work. He told us long ago that he didn’t need our votes to win. But the governor of NH is another story.
Republicans will never allow Gregg to go for it. But if by some stretch they do then of course pressure for a woman to be appointed Senator. Also push for a woman to be appointed to the Secretary of Commerce. 51% is the minimum amt of women we should expect to see. And since men have made it clear that women do not need parity to be represented by their government then it is also true that men don’t need parity to represented by their government ….so I actually would not rule out women in more like 70% of all gov. positions until the obvious problems have been corrected.
In a magical and alternative, or may be just future, reality wouldn’t it be great if TNA, along with other women’s rights groups, and the Obama administration struck the deal on the Cabinet appointment of Gregg and choose him specifically because it presented the opportunity to:
1) Add another Democrat to gain a 60-vote filibuster proof Senate,
2) Add another women to the Senate because the majority of New Hampshire’s state senate members were women
3) Add another Republican to the administration to promote bipartisanship
And to enforce the deal, Obama lobbied the NH Governor side-by-side with TNA to get a women appointed to the Senate.
As a critical and constructive partner of the Administration, this type of reality is a sample of what I wish for TNA.
As a centrist who values the concept of balance of power, I don’t want a filibuster-proof Senate. also, how does a Democratic-controlled WH, Senate, and House (with a filibuster-proof Senate) serve the interests of bi-partisanship?
I also wonder if Judd Gregg would accept the cabinet post. During the first bailout crisis, Newt Gingrich called Gregg a “back-bencher”, so it’s possible he’s getting some enjoyment out of watching his fellow Repubs squirm, and that he’ll make use of the “will he or won’t he” situation as leverage to become a “front-bencher”.
Yeah right Kevin, Obama is going to do all that for women. Obama used the most vile sexist campaign tactics against both Hillary and Palin throwing the idea of women candidates back 50 years. The latest incident on Hardball is proof that sexist behavior has been normalized by liberal democrats. He dumped the Birth control help from the aid package for no gain, He appointed only 24% of cabinet positions to women. He took credit for the Lilly Ledbetter act when female law makers have been working it for ages. Don’t hold your breath dude. To team Obama women are just unimportant bodies to step over on his way to power.
Hey, I forgot, the team Obama is going to regift us the reproductive rights we already have when the court appointments start. Or…..is he? I wouldn’t hold my breath on that but I guess I am just not a very HOPEful person.
I can’t even wrap my brain around this one, so glad a lot of others are right now. But, KayJL, I agree with your post. And, if we push for Democratic power and control, how does that reflect on TNA’s vision to be a big tent, non-partisan org?
Phoenix – Good luck to her! Iceland’s economy and political system utterly collapsed. They are in serious serious trouble! (As if we’re not….)
Kevin – Very glad to see your posts pop up. I know you don’t necessarily comment every day, but I got concerned when I hadn’t seen your name for a couple of days.
Just in general, a filibuster-proof Senate is not to our advantage; swing voters like us get their clout where there is an insecure balance among the other powers.
fsteele – Yes! Exactly! Right on the money comment at 3:56 pm, above. An important and powerful point you raise.
General comment:
If one gives Sheryl’s post a careful reading, you might discover that she is not proposing that the New Agenda “push” Obama for a Democratic filibuster-proof majority. Rather, she is suggesting the New Agenda push for a female senatorial appointment, OR a female cabinet member. A putative filibuster-proof senate was not the topic of the post.
The New Agenda has been frequently criticized (equally, as nearly as I can tell), as a covert Republican and overt Democratic organization – it is neither. It’s members however (of course), are both.
Please do not assume that opinions that differ from yours represent anything more than the degree of underlying heterogeneity among the members, and please refrain from responding to politically neutral posts as though they are partisan.
Dr. K…I don’t think Sheryl’s post is in question. I can only speak for my own response, which was to Kevin’s comment.
ack, I should have been clearer…Kevin made a couple of comments in the thread. His second comment, where he refers to a filibuster-proof majority, is what I was responding to.
Dr. K – Point taken. I believe I am guilty of confusing messages in posts with those in comments as one in the same as if all reflects the views of TNA. Per your last statement, I think some posts are not politically neutral and some of us are resopnding to the content that may be politically aligned one way or another, which seems reasonable enough to me for a blog. But, to the first point, thanks for the reminder.
Anna, it’s my fault. I should have signified I was responding to Kevin’s comment with a “hi, Kevin”. I usually do that, too, and look what a mess I made the one time I didn’t.
KayJL and fsteele, can’t disagree with your comments stating that the collaboration I mentioned would not promote bi-partisanship. We would agree to disagree with whether a filibuster proof Senate aids or hurts promoting a Women’s Rights agenda. I believe it aids.
Constance, I did state “in a magical and alternative, or may be just future, reality;” a reality that might become more probable given how strategically TNA plays its cards.
Anna, thanks for the words of inclusion and invitation to continue commenting.
All, I would be careful regarding a self-fulfilling prophecy regarding Obama. If you can only envision Obama as a sexist obstructionist at worse and a take credit freeloader at best, that really leaves no hope or high probability for a constructively critical partnership that accelerates Women’s Rights.
I have always believed that truth typically lies in the middle of most people’s position. Most times, we only see reality from our own perspective and selectively pick behavior from another personal that confirms that perspective. Only on rare occasions is any one of us 90-100% right. Obama is not as pro Women’s Rights as some believe but he also probably isn’t as sexist as some believe. The challenge is finding the “constructively critical” position vis-à-vis Obama that TNA can take to be a partner of the President to foster women’s rights.
Kevin,
Maybe the same principle applies in the Senate and with Obama. In situations where Obama may be teetering between two actions, our influence might tilt the balance.
However we need to beware of him using our statements as cover. For example, when criticized for not appointing enough women to Treasury positions, he went and found a strong Obama supporter (Romer iirc) who was inexperienced in the actual qualifications needed and justified the hire as ‘seeking a woman’.
Kevin, as someone who didn’t vote for Obama twice, I’ve already made a few favorable comments about him to various posts. I’ve said I appreciate that he seems to be governing from the center, I defended his appointment of Tim Kaine to head up the DNC, I’ve said I didn’t see a single hint that he’d tried to lean on Governor Paterson to appoint Caroline Kennedy, and I complimented him on not appointing Donna Brazile to a post in his administration. I’ve also said he hasn’t been vindictive toward his former rivals and has even appointed a few of them, and for that reason I don’t believe he’d be vindictive towards any person or any group who either disagreed with or criticized him. people have already been there, done that, and he’s gone on to work with them on shared concerns.
I’m not sure I get what you’re working toward here. Obama is not going to deny women rights because there are women here who criticize him. also, it’s not all about Obama. he’s the President of the United States, not the emperor. we have a House and a Senate, both currently controlled by Democrats, so even if Obama was unhappy that the women in this group aren’t saying “pretty please”, there are plenty of congressional leaders who will be listening to what women have to say (especially the ones running for election in 2010). so we are not solely dependent on President Obama.
KayJL,
At some times when some people would say ‘Obama’ I’m saying ‘the new administration’. I don’t like giving the individual named Obama all the credit or all the blame for various decisions that have been made lately. Actually I suspect there are several White House factions pulling his strings in different directions.
good idea, fsteele. at times it gets frustrating that something that’s supposed to be about women is suddenly about Obama–how to think of him, how to talk to him–sometimes it even feels like if we don’t use the right words we could find ourselves without any consideration at all. even I give the guy more credit than that.
I noticed upthread you and I have the same concern about checks and balances in our government. I can think of yet another reason why it would be bad to have a filibuster-proof Senate (to go along with one party control of the WH, the Senate, and the House)–it would be like handing over a blank check on these economic matters. we just had President Bush burn through a trillion dollar surplus. and now we have a guy who burned through 750 million on HIMSELF, including millions of dollars for the construction of Hollywood type stages and backdrops for his speeches at a time when Americans are losing their homes. It would be such a mistake to give a politician with that kind of burn-through record total control of the checkbook.
KayJL – “Anna, it’s my fault.” Oy. No it’s not. We’re all just having a dialogue. You are not responsible for anything beyond your own words. Now stop that rush to claim fault. Like the example I’ve posted before when someone walks into a crowded elevator and steps on a woman’s toes by accident, watch, you’ll notice the woman quickly smiles and says, “Oh, I’m so sorry.” ((((KayJL))))
Kevin – I thoroughly agree with your position that the truth often lies in the middle. And I also agree with your suggestion that (my words now) we should be careful not to demonize Obama, make him into a black and white figure (no pun intended).
Per KayJL’s comment that “it’s not all about Obama”, I also agree. However, I think some posts here send mixed messages on that front, while I also appreciate the fact that he is our President and a lot is going on right now as he forms his administration and addresses important issues before us.
ugh
KayJL,
Some person or persons certainly spent very extravagantly on Obama himself during the campaign and the inauguration — all money from donations (and/or bribes etc).
I’m sure there will be a lot of waste, pork for his Congressional supporters etc. But I’m leery of taking Obama’s personal image as real, or even if real, as indicative of what his administration will actually do. HIllary’s campaign spent pretty loosely at first (the helicopter etc) but her spending record in office has been fine.
Hi fsteele and Kay, agree with all your comments.
There are plenty of reasons why a fiillbuster proof senate is not desirable for me. this current stimulation package is pushed with panic creation. and only a small percentage of the spending would be available in the next two years. It looks to me like a huge initiative to widen democratic control in 4 years and shut any opposition out. 5 billions for ACORN is a concern to me as independent voter.
blago was impeached for abuse of power. the stimulus package voted for in the house contains a section (believe on page 14) that the state of Illinois would have no access to the package as long as they keep former governor blago. If this is not abuse of power, what then? and this administration who writes these bullying paragraphs in a stimulus package should be entrusted with a fillibuster proof majority in the senate, and the house?
so I am for sticking with the cabinet watch and push for a female secretary of commerce. don’t you think we need during these dire times a female secretary who may have some sense what happens to the female population with raising unemployment and so forth.
I also think we should not let go with our concern about funding birth control overseas and not taking care of poor families here. I listened to C-Span this morning. a male commentator had this to say: Obama shows that he is a man, by making an overture to the republicans and dropping the birth control from the package.
So he shows he is a man, by stepping over women.
yes, Anna, that’s true–President Obama is the one making the appointments, so it is sometimes hard to separate his direct impact (which the appointments are) from the administration as a whole (as fsteele points out).
fsteele–I don’t want to revisit the election too much here (it’s done), only to say yes, that is true about Hillary’s campaign–my candidate Hillary gave fourteen million to Mark Penn and I think she should sue him for breach of contract. or something
and yes, I know that’s not going to happen
Marille, I’m also an independent voter. there’s a freshman Congressman from Colorado (posted here on the site) who–in just three weeks in office–put together a letter to the President pointing out that the jobs being created by the stimulus plan are very unlikely to help women in the workplace, and that this should be addressed.
I also read some encouraging reports today that Senator Nelson wants to pare down the stimulus bill, a lot of the pork that fsteele mentioned, and a lot of money that isn’t being directed toward the creation of jobs.
I also agree with you about ACORN money. heck, ACORN has lawsuits filed against them in several states–to me, giving them money is like the billions that went to the same CEO’s who had already mismanaged their companies into the position that forced them to seek federal bailout money. after that, why would our leaders even think of plugging money into an organization that’s already, obviously, deeply flawed (and that’s putting it nicely).
marille,
Pushing for a female Secretary of Commerce would considerably lower the chances of Obama picking a Republican Senator, as there are only four Republican females. ;-/ But I expect it’s a waste of time, and he’d pick a Pelosi or McCaskill type anyway.
Thank you for all of the incredibly insightful and thoughtful posts here at New Agenda!
In my opinion, it would be better to have another woman in the Cabinet.
And no, it is not accidental that it’s after ” Ledbetter” was signed.
This administration will make the Bush admin. look like novices, when it comes to the “coincidental” timing of events.
This is, after all, the Chicago-political-good-old-boys-machine we’re dealing with.
God help us.
kevin,
Another thought. Perhaps the issues we can have impact on are those where the outcome is teetering in the balance (such as a close vote in the Senate or a difficult decision by an official) — AND where OUR reaction can be seen as in the balance.
NOW and other organizations have lost their influence on Obama because he knows they will support him no matter what. If we show too much ‘respect’, he will class us along with them. Imo we’ll have most influence by continuing to be punchy and disrespectful, a thorn in his side — but occasionally throwing him a bone.
it’s true that Obama is very alert to criticism, even hypersensitive to it, and sometimes to his own detriment. just this past week he talked about Rush Limbaugh like RL was the leader of the Republican Party, which even had some Democratic pundits saying that had been “un-presidential” of him. this allowed RL to get what imo was actually a pretty interesting idea about bi-partisan distribution of the stimulus package into the Wall Street Journal.
also agree that a lot of people who worshipped at the altar ended up under the bus, like NOW (right now their endorsement isn’t looking too good, given the gender inequity in the cabinet). also John Kerry (who came out for him early and wanted to be SOS), Howard Dean (left out in the cold). Reverend Wright probably felt he could count on Obama’s partnership, as well. and though I personally applaud President Obama for not trying to exert influence on the New York Senate appointment, I wonder if the Kennedys expected more from him, because both Ted and Caroline partnered with him bigtime.
otoh, if you look at the people who played the “squeaky wheel” role to the well-oiled Obama campaign machine, most of them are doing pretty well–Biden and Hillary chief among that group. Charles Krauthammer, who refused to go into the media tank for him straight through to the end (Krauthammer’s final column before the election praised Obama’s temperament but questioned his character) has already been invited to dinner with the President, before the pres has been in office a full two weeks.
you could make a case that Obama has the ability to develop respect for his opponents (maybe because he wants them to respect him), and appears to develop less-lasting attachments to his sycophants. actually, his ability to hear his critics is one of the reasons I have hope for his presidency, even if his initial reason for hearing them is a hypersensitivity toward criticism–because the end result is that this quality makes him a good listener. it’s an interesting paradox, but the world of politics is full of them.
KayJL,
I wouldn’t even say that the appointments so far were of Obama’s own sole choosing. I like the theory that the Clintons’ campaigning for him (which escalated throughout the summer and fall) was in exchange for some strong concessions (about appointments) which Obama did later perform. So I can have some cautious hope for the administration, which hope does not rely on any positive view of Obama as an individual.
KayJL,
I agree with everything you’ve said at 6.22, except that I don’t put it in terms of personal character. I do agree that it’s the strongest critics, and/or squeaking wheels, that get the most cooperation and concessions from the Obama camp. It may be, that the LESS respect we show, the more concessions we will get. (Of course that would hit diminishing returns; groups too extreme, who never throw a bone, will be written off by the media at least.)
fsteele, it’s Krauthammer who questioned Obama’s character, though I don’t necessarily disagree with him. the trouble is, Americans elected a president they don’t know a lot about, so none of us really know who Obama is.
but if I’m reading you right, it sounds like you’ve taken an approach of de-personalizing. that’s a really good idea, I think, because emotions ran so high during the election that de-personalizing the political landscape can go a long way toward restoring equilibrium and staying focused on the issues.
I don’t get the impression the Clintons bargained for cabinet appointments in exchange for their active support during the general election. I didn’t come to Hillary’s campaign as a lifelong Hillary supporter, so I’ve gotten most of my “Hillary education” just in the past year, which may be not enough to get an accurate take, but to me it looks like she’s a staunch Democrat who gave her word to support Obama if he became the nominee, and that she kept her word to her party. I’ve also gotten the impression that Hillary may have long ago come to terms with someone else (which may even be interchangeable with “some guy”) taking credit for her hard work, and somewhere along the way may have adopted the belief that the important thing is that the work get done, not who has the title or who gets the credit.
I was flat out amazed how she was able to put aside any resentment over having her campaign positions ripped off by the Obama team, and how she was able to put any personal ego issues aside to immediately change course from getting herself elected to getting someone else elected.
kayJL,
As for Hillary wanting to get the job done, regardless of who gets the credit, I’ve heard there was a similar story in her book LIVING HISTORY. She and a boy ran for class president, he won, she did the work and he got the credit — and she didn’t mind.
As I said, I LIKE the theory that she and Bill gave their support in exchange for concessions, becoming powers behind the throne. I’m not convinced of it, but as a longtime Clintonista and HIllary supporter, I’d rather (absent further evidence) adopt it as a working theory than believe that Hillary would whiplash her supporters without a really good, practical reason.
The main pieces of evidence for it are that the Clintons’ support slowly increased from June to November, as it would if they were getting more and more concessions as Obama’s need increased; and that some appointments were made that did appear as a ‘Clinton Restoration’, angering Obama’s supporters.
Of course imo it’s unrealistic to think there is only one reason, or one main reason, for the actions of effective people. I’m sure all these factors were involved all along.
fsteele–ha, that’s really something about Hillary’s bio–that quality is really visible in her.
also found your “whiplash” comment interesting. my first reaction was to disagree, because with regard to the election it seems to me that Hillary was doing exactly what she promised to do. but on second thought I do think there was a whiplash effect, but I wonder if that comes from the escalating rhetoric of politicians during the heat of a campaign. what I have noticed about the immediate “kiss and make up” they do is that it’s like they do it by rote–that, starting out, it’s already understood that the losing candidate has to do this. problem is, we voters haven’t been schooled in the procedure, and our anger (as whipped up by the pols) tends to last longer. I do remember Hillary on one of the morning shows saying she was “disappointed” in the supporters who weren’t following her lead and had chosen to vote McCain, and at the time thinking she had no reason to be disappointed in any of her supporters, no matter who they voted for, because we’re still the same people who made calls, blogged the net on her behalf in an extremely hostile cyber-environment, and a lot of the same people even maxed out their credit cards trying to help her pay her debt.
so I do remember being not too jazzed about hearing her use the word “disappointment” with regard to her supporters, and thinking that if pols in general didn’t ratchet up their rhetoric to a degree that polarized voters, then maybe everyone would be able to throw down their swords and shields a lot sooner.
KayJL,
I agree. As for Hillary’s ‘disappointed’ comment, I did not hear her say she was ‘disappointed in them’ ie the supporters who went Puma. The context did call for that, and maybe the words were cut, but I noted at the time that it could have been parsed ‘I’m disappointed that I didn’t make myself more clear’ or something like that.
Really, there were a lot of us who strained our time and money and emotions — just to be told it didn’t matter anyway and we should happily support Obama. That wasn’t the Hillary we’d campaigned for. I like to think now that she had the Clinton Restoration in mind since June, as it seems to be turning out better than we expected an Obama administration to.
Leave your Response Want an avatar? Get a gravatar!
Community Room
February 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm
January 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm
January 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm
January 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm
January 15, 2012 at 11:37 am
January 9, 2012 at 6:36 pm
January 7, 2012 at 10:10 pm
January 5, 2012 at 9:31 am
BUILD your NETWORK
Our Network of College Women
Protecting our Teenage Girls
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Pioneer Mentors
Blogroll
Find us Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...