Games or worse?

Judd Gregg, a Republican US Senator from New Hampshire, has abruptly withdrawn from nomination to be Commerce Secretary. He claimed there were major conflicts with President Obama’s actions on the stimulus, conflicts which somehow or other he just didn’t notice when he first expressed interest in the job. He also spoke darkly about the 2010 US Census, which the Commerce Department oversees.

On the face of it, this looks like more Republican game playing. After all, he can’t seriously expect us to believe that he didn’t know how much he disagreed with the Administration’s stimulus plans when those plans were well-known before he accepted the nomination. So, he could be playing the Republican game of pretending to be responsible, or maybe he wants to embarrass the president.

It could also be a calculated political move looking toward the 2010 elections, in which the Republicans desperately want to regain control of Congress. Gregg said he wouldn’t accept the nomination unless the Democratic Governor of New Hampshire appointed a Republican to fill his seat, so as not to give the Democrats a “Super Majority” in the Senate. Although highly unusual, the Governor agreed and announced the appointment of a moderate Republican woman who said she would not run in 2010—giving the Democrats a clear shot at taking the seat. So, Gregg may have acted to keep the seat in Republican hands.

A third possibility is hinted at by his statement, in which he declared that the vetting process that all appointees go through had nothing to do with his decision. Why would that be a potential issue? The day after his appointment was announced, the AP reported that a former staffer, Kevin Koonce, was under criminal investigation in the Jack Abramoff corruption scandal. While working for Gregg, Koonce is alleged to have accepted sports tickets in exchange for legislative favours. Could there be more to this story and investigation?

Gregg may have meant what he said when quit the nomination for Commerce Secretary. But given the partisan games the Republicans are playing, that party’s fear of losing more seats in the 2010 election, Gregg’s own suspect history with the US Census (such as allegedly voting to cut funds so that minorities are undercounted) and given that he is closer to the Abramoff scandal than we knew, there could be something far darker going on here.

If the darker possibilities are true, good riddance. But if he was being genuine, however unlikely that may be, it’s all the better to be rid of him. Differing opinions are one thing, actively working to subvert the programmes of the president are another matter entirely. We’re all better off without him.