About
Learn More about our progressive online community for the Granite State.

Create an account today (it's free and easy) and get started!
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


The Masthead
Managing Editors

Contributing Writers
elwood
Mike Hoefer
ActBlue Hampshire

The Roll, Etc.
NH Prog Blogs & Alumni
Betsy Devine
Blue News Tribune (MA)
Citizen Keene
Democracy for NH
Equality Press
Mike Caulfield
The Political Climate
Granite State Progress
Chaz Proulx
Susan the Bruce

NH Political Links
Capital Beat
Graniteprof
Granite Status
Kevin Landrigan
NH Political Capital
NH Political Info
Political Chowder
Portside with Burt Cohen

Campaigns, Et Alia.
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC

National
Bob Geiger
DailyKos
Digby
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talk Left
Talking Points Memo

50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
RSS Feed

Blue Hampshire RSS

Say What Now?

by: Dean Barker

Sun Feb 01, 2009 at 18:20:58 PM EST
Ben Smith:
The White House, I'm told, is still trying to get a gaurantee from Governor Lynch that he'll replace Senator Gregg with a Democrat.
I do believe that the first mention of any such talk in that party's direction.

One more reason why caution should rule the day.

Update: and of course, now that Chuck Todd has picked up on the Bonnie Newman rumors I've been hearing all day, and Political Wire linked to it without mentioning the unnamed sources who fed it, this true or untrue story will become the conventional wisdom. Oy.  
Dean Barker :: Say What Now?
Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Say What Now? | 32 comments
If this is President Obama's stimulus plan for New Hampshire political blogs, (4.00 / 4)
Epic success.
Appointments?!? (4.00 / 2)
Tramps like us, baby we were born to run!
"Word is that she may pledge not to (4.00 / 4)
run for re-election."  And word is that some Democrats would be foolish enough to rely on such a pledge.
Newman (0.00 / 0)
The Newman speculation for some reason seems right.  Damn -- a Reagonite! Here's a chance to secure a strong Obama term and we have to bow to a Reagonite so Judd Gregg can have his cake and eat it too.

Roll the clock back to Reagan. Just what we need! I don't care if she endorsed Lynch. She is still the politics of the past.  

Rasta, man... (0.00 / 0)
"Every little 'ting, gonna be alright..."

Just the price of bipartisanship, that's all.

screw bi-partisanship. (0.00 / 0)
Remind me, Digger - what good thing has Judd Gregg ever done for the country since he's been in the senate?  
[ Parent ]
Good To See You Back, Susan... (4.00 / 2)
Good to see you back, Susan --it's been tough in here!  I'm afraid too many Democrats are so hungry to get Gregg out of the state that they're jumping with joy about this.  

We forget that he's still a young man, politically speaking, and this may just be another step on his ladder.  Instead of "retiring him" to Commerce/Cabinet, which itself is a dangerous role to put him in, we might be lifting him to a higher level in 2012 or beyond.  

I don't see that we "win" anything in this -- a Senate of 60 Democrats, even if that happens, doesn't help us enough to make this tradeoff, and John E. Sununu as the Republican Senate nominee in 2010 can be as tough as a Judd Gregg would be -- maybe even tougher.  

Why are we doing this to ourselves?  

[ Parent ]
Screw bi-partisanship? (0.00 / 0)
I'll assume your attitude against bi-partisanship means you were against an Obama presidency?  And please, just because you're against bi-partisanship, don't expect all of us to have to be against it also.

Since Gregg hasn't done much for NH, all the more reason to get him out of the Senate and under the tight reins of a Democratic president that can fire him whenever he wishes.

Then we get a moderate Republican that WILL vote for things for New Hampshire.  Simple.


[ Parent ]
Bipartisanship? (0.00 / 0)
What happened to postpartisanship? We want the best man for the job (for me, regardless of party). Gregg is not that man.
[ Parent ]
Well... (0.00 / 0)
Apparently President Obama disagrees with you.

At this point, I'm giving my president the benefit of the doubt until he proves he doesn't deserve it.  

I don't think abandoning the leader of our party within one month of his inauguration is a great party strategy.  He said he was bi- or post- partisan, and he's acting as advertised.  No surprises there, until he actually does it and it shocks people.

[ Parent ]
Giving Bush (0.00 / 0)
the benefit of the doubt gave us the Iraq war.

We are the leaders of our party and of our country, and we've got to keep an eye on the guys we elect to represent us.

I think it was OK to keep on Robert Gates (at least for the time being), but I don't think it's OK to pick Judd Gregg. It has nothing to do with party, it has to do with suitability for the office. Obama doesn't disagree with me--he hasn't even asked my opinion--but, if he's picking Gregg, I'm not afraid to say I disagree with Obama.

[ Parent ]
No possible chance of confusing Bush with Obama (0.00 / 0)
True, but I think giving the benefit of the doubt to this president is just a little bit different from giving the benefit of the doubt to someone of the caliber of Georgie.  My faith in Obama's judgement has little to do with the blind faith that led us to Iraq.

I think this comes down to where exactly people are on the Democratic continuum; moderate Dems are going to be more likely to be OK with non-partisanship moves, more liberal Dems will have a greater struggle with them.

[ Parent ]
Obviously (4.00 / 1)
we learned totally different lessons from our experiences in the last eight years.
[ Parent ]
That Blind Trust... (4.00 / 1)
That "blind trust" might lead to this President, OUR President, getting us more into the hole with doubling our troop commitment in Afghanistan, where we have already lost almost 700 brave American soldiers, plus countless thousands of other really innocent people.  His advisors, military and otherwise, have already persuaded him to double our forces to over 60,000, with no end in sight.  We should get out of there, not send over more body bags to bring Americans home dead.  
[ Parent ]
Sticky, yes.... (0.00 / 0)
Yeah, Afghanistan is scary as heck.  No easy answers certainly.

I'm not sure just pulling out is the answer either.  If you're concerned about the "countless thousands of other really innocent people" (I would argue that the 700 US soldiers killed there were fairly innocent also), what's going to happen to the civilians when the Taliban splits the country in half and a civil war continues on a grander scale, killing tens of thousands more Afghanis?

Not that I see the expansion as the only approach, I confess that I don't know of a handy solution, especially since I've never been on the ground there.  But chaos certainly loves a vacuum.

[ Parent ]
We Can't Fight Everyone's Battles... (0.00 / 0)
...otherwise we'd be in North Korea, or China, or Syria, or Iran.  We can't kill everyone who hates us.  But we sure know how to make more people hate us.  Every day we're in Afghanistan, I think we're doing that.  
[ Parent ]
Not everyone's battles (0.00 / 0)
I believe we were originally in Afghanistan to rout the Taliban, who had provided safe havens for Al Qaeda to train and facilitate 9/11.  I don't think it was a "world's policeman" situation Jim.  As such, in my opinion it's not comparable to the other countries you mentioned.

The screw up was the lack of troops and follow-up when it counted, because we were too busy in Iraq.  I'm hoping we haven't passed the "no return" point there, though it's possible.  I think we have the responsibility since we're already there to at least ponder leaving and its consequences before we pack up and flee, not only for us, but also for the civilians you seemed concerned about it your first post.  Civil wars can be ugly, ask Rwanda, another place we avoided involvement in, resulting in pretty bleak results for a few hundred thousand human beings.

[ Parent ]
I don't think (0.00 / 0)
you grasp the fundamentals of Afghanistan and are treating it like any other conflict zone, you're parroting criticisms of the Iraq war which I don't think are applicable. The big failure in Afghanistan is think we're smarter than the Soviets  and not learning from their experiences, talking with them about it very much at all, and consequently making the same sort of mistakes.

If we went to Afghanistan for "revenge," then perhaps we already "won."

[ Parent ]
Please... (0.00 / 0)
Instead of acting so incredibly patronizing Alex, perhaps you should consider that I grasp them as well or even more surely than you do, but that I disagree with your flawed position.  Believe it or not, there are valid perspectives outside of your own, and you are unlikely to be right about everything.  I'm sorry you haven't learned that to this point in your life.

I'm all for people having confidence in their intellect and information, but when it becomes dependent on diminishing others' understanding to be proved, that's a bit sad.

[ Parent ]
You could be right (0.00 / 0)
but what your saying doesn't seem consistent with what I read.
[ Parent ]
Ugh.. (0.00 / 0)
"you're" not "your"
[ Parent ]
Selective reading choices can do that n/t (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
What should I be reading (0.00 / 0)
that I'm not?

I mean that sincerely, if you've got good sources, hook me up. I was half-seriously considering not too long ago about working in Afghanistan after I graduate...so, I've been following a pretty diverse set of media.

[ Parent ]
Easy... (0.00 / 0)
Harpers, the Atlantic for in-depth info, but remember to seek out primary sources that challenge your assumptions; people that rely only on those sources that agree with their preconceived notions end up with an incestuous set of facts (i.e. Bush).  Groupthink is fairly debilitating and ultimately useless, whether liberal or conservative.

Some people here would attack someone for seeking info from people we might disagree with; I think it's key for getting a well-rounded picture of issues, and I think our current President agrees with that sentiment.  

[ Parent ]
riiiiiiiight (0.00 / 0)
In other words, bipartisanship - in your definition - means Obama or Lynch appointing Republicans, as if there were no Democrats out there who could do better.

This isn't the kind of change I believe in.  

[ Parent ]
That's the change you voted for (0.00 / 0)
In other words, bipartisanship - in your definition - means Obama or Lynch appointing Republicans, as if there were no Democrats out there who could do better

Perhaps our new President sees that a Senator, very well thought of throughout the GOP caucus but willing to serve a Democrat, can get more done than a Democrat having your approval?  

I'm sure you noticed that not a single Republican voted for the stimulus plan in the house, riiiiiight?  Maybe Obama see's a limited future for legislation if he can't get more Republicans on board.  Sure, some would rather just see us try to ram a long awaited Dem agenda down the Republican's throat, but I think that's a shortsighted strategy, and not very beneficial for the country as a whole.  Revenge can be nice, but let's not hold the whole country hostage while we do it.

Have a little faith...or perhaps more appropriately, have a little Hope.

And yes, it does mean appointing a more moderate Republican which will:

1.)  Likely weaken the GOP caucus
2.)  Make taking the seat in 2010 more likely
3.)  Get a nice favor for NH from the White House
4.)  Make passing some social program or type of (education) funding more possible, helping the poor or other vulnerable constituency create a better life

Such a deal...

[ Parent ]
what a peppy little cheerleader you are (0.00 / 1)
I can't decide if you're optomistic, naive, or paid to present a viewpoint.

I'm sure you noticed that not a single Republican voted for the stimulus plan in the house, riiiiiight?

Why yes, I did. In spite of all the GOP ass Obama's been kissing, he's failed to win any of them over. Apparently appointing a far right conservative to the cabinet is his next move. And if that fails? What else can he give the Republicans to win them over?

I guess it hasn't occurred to you that this could backfire, and that appointing a moderate Republican will:

1. Strengthen the GOP caucus - after all, Obama likes them so much he's filled his cabinet with them!  Now they have a new Senator that isn't tainted with anything related to Bush!!

2. Make taking the seat in 2010 even harder - Obama LOVES Republicans, and the aforementioned moderate has no dirty Bush record. Yay!!!

3. If this is indicative of  the kind of favors we're getting from Obama, I'd prefer he bestow his favor on some other state.

4. Making passing any kind of funding for social programs damned unlikely. The way to get that kind of funding is to NOT elect/appoint Republicans.


[ Parent ]
Doppleganger? (0.00 / 1)
Did you ever notice that people like Rush Limbaugh are just such complete tools, and one of the symptoms of that toolishness is their inability to appreciate anything outside of their own narrow perspective?  It leads to their big ugly blind spot of being unable to appreciate any bipartisan effort, and their God-like quality of thinking a good idea is incapable of coming from anyone but themselves.

Let's leave all that vitriol, hatred and a deafness to new ideas to the GOP so that they can continue to fall into irrellevence.  I don't think we want to follow your way of thinking into sewing the seeds of a Democratic decline just yet.  

[ Parent ]
well (0.00 / 0)
when one can't or won't defend one's position, there's always the choice to go on the attack, and accuse your target of being a tool, and "sewing" discord. That's the kind of thing paid shills and sock puppets do when they show up at forums.

I don't sew, dude. Ask my husband.  

[ Parent ]
Waaah (0.00 / 1)
You provoke an response with snarky comments like "riiiiight" and "what a peppy little cheerleader you are", and then you whine about the attack? I didn't say anything rude before those responses, I just said something you disagreed with.

Are you six years old?

[ Parent ]
get over yourself, socky (0.00 / 1)
There's no whine there. Just pointing out the fact that you didn't bother to even defend your own position - you just went on  the attack. I didn't fall of the turnip truck yesterday - your behavior here is typical of a paid shill or sock puppet. Complete with the new faux outrage.

Not only that, you are too much of a dullard to even pick up on your error in use of the term "sewing."

Now that the issue you were sent here to post on is resolved, I expect we've seen the last of you.  

[ Parent ]
And who sent me, the black UN helicopter people? (0.00 / 1)
How long are you supposed to be able to provoke someone before they are allowed to attack in defense of themselves?  Or do you operate by a special set of rules that allows you to be rude?

Regarding the paranoia, it is not a symptom to be taken likely; seek help.

[ Parent ]
Say What Now? | 32 comments
Powered by: SoapBlox