The Gregg Gambit, Part 2

More evidence this morning that if Republican Judd Gregg is appointed as Commerce Secretary, his replacement to the Senate by Democrat John Lynch will in fact be a Republican.

U.S. Sen. Judd Gregg won't take the job of commerce secretary in the Obama administration if his appointment would tip the Senate balance of power in favor of Democrats, the chamber's Republican leader said Sunday.

"He's indicated to me that he would not accept this appointment if he believed it would lead to a change in the current makeup of the Senate," Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, told reporters.

An administration official told CNN on Saturday that Gregg, a third-term Republican known for being fiscally conservative, is the leading candidate to head the Commerce Department. Gregg, of New Hampshire, said in a written statement Friday that he was among those being considered for the post, and White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said no final decision has been made.

If Gregg moves to the Cabinet, New Hampshire's Democratic governor would appoint a replacement. That could give Democrats the 60-seat majority needed to overcome Republican attempts to use filibusters to block legislation.

But McConnell told CBS' "Face the Nation" on Sunday that "whoever is appointed to replace him would caucus with Senate Republicans," indicating his belief that a Republican would be named.

"I think it would have no impact on the balance of power in the Senate," he said.

Is this completely wishful thinking on the part of the GOP, or have they outsmarted Obama and cut a deal with Gov. Lynch? Ol' Mitch here seems confident that Gregg's replacement will caucus with the Republicans, so why do it?

Aren't there qualified Democrats who could fill the position? Why not get one and take yet another opportunity away from a Democratic governor to do something embarrassing and/or stupid in appointing somebody? Haven't the Dems learned after Blago and Paterson that these things can go horribly wrong?

Finally, if Lynch really is going to appoint either a Republican or an Independent who will caucus with the GOP, why the hell is Obama bothering to do this in the first place? Is Judd Gregg that dangerous to Obama's agenda in the Senate that he has to bring him on board as a Cabinet member?

What's going on here?

[UPDATE] Researching this, the word around Lynch is that he plans to name University of New Hampshire president J. Bonnie Newman as Gregg's replacement.

Newman served as assistant secretary of Commerce for economic development in the Reagan administration. She was in charge of administrative operations for the George H.W. Bush White House.

She was chief of staff to Gregg when he was a congressman in the 1980s, and she was one of the first Republicans to publicly endorse Lynch in his 2004 challenge of then-Republican Governor Craig Benson, and co-chaired Republicans for Lynch.

This keeps getting stranger and makes less and less sense from Obama's political perspective the more I think about it. Newman is certainly a Republican. If Lynch is going to be running for Gregg's seat in 2010, he'd have a much easier time running in blue New Hampshire against the conservative Gregg than the moderate Newman, unless the deal is Newman is not going to run in 2010, making her a placeholder.

But if Newman's not running in 2010 and you need a placeholder, why not find a placeholder from your own party? Even Blago managed to get that right. Lynch certainly owes Newman a favor, but this seems to be a hell of a way to repay it.

What makes even less sense is appointing Gregg in the first place. Obama had no problems finding Clinton-era folks to fill his Cabinet. Surely there's got to be somebody from Commerce during the Clinton years who he can appoint. Why Judd Gregg? If Obama's that good of friends with the guy, Gregg's repaying that friendship badly by voting against much of the early legislation Obama has signed into law. If Lynch is going to appoint a Republican, Obama doesn't gain anything from it. Heck, he's actually putting Lynch in a hell of a bind, assuring Lynch has to find somebody who is qualified but doesn't want the job so he can run for it in 2010.

Finally, Gregg doesn't seem like the right person for the progressive Obama administration. Why would he take the job anyway? If Gregg's re-election is that much in doubt, why is Obama doing him such a huge favor by giving him a Cabinet job? Obama certainly doesn't gain a reliable vote in the Senate as a result. Newman would be under tremendous pressure to vote party line against Obama at every turn. Lynch would run and probably win in 2010 anyway. If Gregg was the most qualified person for the position, why didn't you take him in the first place rather than Bill Richardson?

None of this makes any sense at all. There's still some crucial information missing here.