Why Judd Gregg? A Wacky Idea...

As half policy wonk and half progressive strategist, I have found it absolutely fascinating to try and figure out why the hell Barack Obama does half of the stuff he does. Like a master chess player, he seems to be consistently thinking a few steps ahead of the conventional wisdom, so some of his decisions make little sense unless you try to understand his ultimate goal.

The Judd Gregg pick as the new Commerce secretary is one such head-scratching move. Of course, there is the obvious play of trying to look bipartisan. Sure, we know Obama's made a concerted effort to do that, but Gregg is far from a natural choice when reaching across the aisle. He actually has quite a partisan record and is a renowned government-shrinking budget hawk. Like his former NH-Sen colleague John Sununu, Gregg has remained a relatively reliable Republican vote while his state has lurched hard to the left since 2004. For cryin' out loud, a few years ago Gregg even voted to eliminate the very Commerce Department he is now set to lead! A much better choice for this purpose would be Olympia Snowe or former Sen. Lincoln Chafee. So that probably isn't President Obama's ultimate motive.

Another obvious option is that Democrats want to pick up that all-important 60th senate seat. New Hampshire has a (at least nominally) Democratic governor who gets to appoint Gregg's successor, so it seems like a smart move, right? Well, not so fast. As you all know by now, Gregg made clear that unless Gov. Lynch picks another Republican to replace him, he will not take the cabinet position. So the pick turns out to be placeholder moderate Republican J. Bonnie Newman, who has never held public office. So much for picking up that extra seat (although it will create an open seat in 2010 that looks good for progressive Rep. Paul Hodes). While there is some modest benefit to Obama's political fortunes here, it's not a viable explanation for adding an anti-government Republican to his cabinet.

So here's my theory, which for the record I haven't heard anywhere else. Notice that Gregg voted in 1995 to eliminate the Commerce Department. Notice that the Obama Administration recently announced that the 2010 Census, traditionally under the jurisdiction of Commerce, will instead be reporting directly to the White House. Notice that President Obama has consistently talked about streamlining government and cutting out the waste. So with all this in mind, I believe that Obama picked Judd Gregg because he would be the best guy to dismantle the Commerce Department.

I mean, what does Commerce really do that couldn't be done in any other way?

• Bureau of Industry and Security - move to Dept. of Homeland Security
• Bureau of Economic Analysis - spin off into independent agency like BLS, or incorporate into Treasury
  
• Economic Development Administration & Minority Business Development Agency - move to HUD
  
• Int'l Trade Administration - move to Dept. of State
  
• Nat'l Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration - move to Interior or a new Dept. of Science & Technology
  
• Nat'l Telecom & Information Administration - spin off into independent agency, move to Dept. of Interior or to a new Dept. of Science & Technology
  
• Patent & Trademark Office - spin off into independent agency
  
• Nat'l Institute of Standards & Technology - move into Dept. of Education or move to new Dept. of Science & Technology
  
• National Technical Information Service - spin off into independent agency or move to new Dept. of Science & Technology

Is this a feasible idea, or am I just high on cold medicine? Anyone who works in the Commerce Department, please feel free to flame away in the comments.

Where's That Forest Again? I Can't See Through All These Trees...

From today's Roll Call($):

President Barack Obama drove to Capitol Hill on Tuesday for meetings with House and Senate Republicans, but his bipartisan outreach appeared to hit a speed bump. Still, the reason may have more to do with philosophical differences than partisan politics or “the old ways of Washington.”

Well gee, perhaps philosophical differences directly cause partisan politics?! But...but...that Darrell Issa is so nice to my Roll Call reporter friends at the cocktail parties. He couldn't possibly really believe all the bat$#!+ crazy stuff he says on the House floor!

Sometimes, the purveyors of Beltway conventional wisdom drive me to wonder if they even try to make logical sense.

Salutations - and elections recap/open thread

Hi fellow Hippos! I will be posting here quite a bit over the course of the year, so I thought I'd introduce myself. I go by "optimo" in blog land, but elsewhere you can call me Jeremy. I'm a first year MPP student and an Associate Editor for this year's Policy Perspectives.

So I am hoping we can rev up some lively discussion over here the course of the year and beyond. This is such an exciting time to be in Washington, having lived through an election that deserves a full chapter in the American history books and is yet to be fully completed.

There will be much time to talk about 2009 and the coming Obama presidency, but it feels right to start off with a recap of the election.

Obviously we know Obama won, and decisively so. He definitely has amassed 364 EVs and still could end up with 376 (Missouri and the single Omaha district remain too close to call). He outperformed John Kerry in just about every demographic group you can imagine. Check out the details, they're pretty striking. Obama won the 18-29 age group by an astounding 2-to-1 margin. Regionally, major gains were made in the coastal South, upper Midwest, Northeast and non-Mormon areas of the Mountain West. It's hard to see these gains fading away anytime soon if Democrats manage to deliver on at least some of their promises over the next few years.

In Congress, Republicans actually did a little better than expected. Although a few races in both chambers are still yet to be decided, they lost ground but managed to avoid a major landslide. As of now, the count stands at 22 seats flipping from R to D, 4 '06 D pickups flipping back to R, and eight still yet to be decided. If the eight remaining seats split 4-4, the final count will be 258-177.

The Senate saw at least six Democratic pickups in a very tough year for Republicans, while 3 races involving R incumbents remain too close to call. AK is waiting for all mail-in ballots to be counted, MN will go to a recount, and GA will go to a runoff election. If the D challenger wins in all three (which is very unlikely), then Democrats reach that supposedly magical 60 mark. Georgia would really be a shocker, and both sides will be throwing a ton of resources into the special December 2nd runoff election. My best guess for the final tally is 57-43: Franken wins in Minnesota and Lieberman bolts to the GOP. Again, both houses see non-negligible Dem majorities, but not large enough for the center-left governing coalition within the party to easily get legislation through.

The state level elections produced few surprises and was much more even. Democrats picked up the Missouri governorship which will impact policy there, but all other governor races stayed the same. Democrats picked up 5 state legislative chambers, including the NY Senate (as expected) for the first time in over a century, and Republicans surprisingly picked up both chambers in Tennessee along with 2 other bodies. New Hampshire now has the first majority-female legislative body in the country's history. Ballot initiatives were a very mixed bag. I won't bother with the details, but some nonpartisan review can be found here.

So, let's discuss. What specific thing are you most excited or upset about regarding the 2008 election results?