E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
From NBC's Ken Strickland:
Republican Sen. Judd Gregg, who withdrew as President Barack Obama's nominee for commerce secretary in early 2009, told NBC News that he “could have worked for the Clinton administration” but could “never be comfortable” with the Obama administration’s agenda.
Gregg says Clinton and his politics were "centrist." But after 18 months of interaction with the Obama administration, Gregg said that the current president’s brain trust has “an ideological purpose."
“If I had worked for this administration I would have been totally out of sync very quickly, because this administration has a very ideological purpose,” he said. “I respect that; it's their view. But I could never be comfortable with it and agree with it.”
(It’s worth noting that Gregg has not always spoken highly of the 42nd president. In a 1993 interview with New Hampshire’s Union Leader newspaper, for example, Gregg said Clinton’s economic plan would “reestablish government as the dominant force in the economy and in social policy,” labeled his tax program “class warfare,” and groused that the president “made no attempt to involve any Republicans” in its formulation. He also voted “guilty” during President Clinton’s impeachment trial in 1999.)
Asked what advice he would offer colleagues who considering working for an administration of the opposite party, Gregg noted that some cabinet jobs are less prone to partisan politics than others.
“There are certain jobs which it doesn't matter what your ideological issues are. Most of the foreign policy issues are not,” he said.
“You could put a real hard-core conservative -- as this president has, theoretically, in [Afghan war commander David] Petraeus and [Defense Secretary Robert] Gates - in positions that have nothing to do with politics, which are national defense or international issues,” Gregg added.
Read the whole transcript of Gregg’s conversation with NBC News here.
NBC's Ken Strickland sat down with nine senators departing the upper chamber this year. He asked Evan Bayh, Robert Bennett, Sam Brownback, Kit Bond, Jim Bunning, Chris Dodd, Byron Dorgan, Judd Gregg, and George Voinovich the same eight questions and a wildcard query. This excerpt was taken from the transcript of that interview. Additional reporting can be found on politics.msnbc.com.
Leave a Comment:
(It's worth noting that Gregg has not always spoken highly of the 42nd president. In a 1993 interview with New Hampshire's Union Leader newspaper, for example, Gregg said Clinton's economic plan would "reestablish government as the dominant force in the economy and in social policy," labeled his tax program "class warfare," and groused that the president "made no attempt to involve any Republicans" in its formulation. He also voted "guilty" during President Clinton's impeachment trial in 1999.)
But he could have worked for Clinton? lol
Unfortunately, it doesn't take much to rile up the uneducated. He just had to say "ideological purpose", which must be bad because each word contains more than four letters.
Also worth noting is that Gregg lobbied the Obama administration for the job he decided he really didn't want. More likely he was pressured by GOP senators; now he wants everyone to think he could have worked for Clinton. Guess Gregg thinks people won't see through this.
I wonder if he meant Hillary Clinton?
Steeler Fan-380417
I wonder if he meant Hillary Clinton?
Bingo!
Give that "fan" a cigar!!!
Judd Gregg said he could have worked for Clinton because Clinton is a "centerist". That is pure political nonsense! He could not have worked for Clinton nor could he have worked for President Obama. Both Clinton and Obama are centerists. Gregg was a square peg that would not fit in a round hole. Gregg was better suited on the outside looking in, like the rest of the neo-cons.
Ron Indiana
Gregg was better suited on the outside looking in, like the rest of the neo-cons.
NEO-CON? Judd Gregg?????
That says so much more about the person making the claim, YOU Ron, Than about Sen Gregg...lol
Gregg is a moderate by almsot anyone's standards...
In 2007, Gregg voted for the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007 (H.R. 6) and the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1639).
Crazy neocon
Gregg has a moderate record on social issues. In June 2006, he joined six of his fellow Republicans in voting against the Federal Marriage Amendment. In April 2007, he was among the breakaway Republicans to support the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. However, his record on the issue of abortion is a solidly pro-life one. Gregg has voted for some gun control measures and against others. He voted against the Brady Bill, but in recent years has voted for trigger control locks on firearms and in favor of the ban on assault weapons.
On December 17th, 2009, Gregg voted to extend Chairman Ben Bernanke's term.[21]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judd_Gregg
He's a real right wing extremist all right!...
If that's your definition of a NEOCON; You sir are playing waaaayyy too deep in left field to be a reasonable judge of anyone's politics...
Dangerfield: You are becoming as credible as...No Jo.
From the data that Dangerfield provides it looks like Gregg is a center right person, not really a moderate. But if argued from the distortion of an extreme right position he gets labeled as a flaming liberal. From that extreme position the recent Health Care overhaul is socialist, even though it doesn't contain a single truly liberal idea. The liberal position on Health Care is single payer, which was never even discussed. Even the public option to compete with private insurance was dropped. It is essentialy the program first proposed by Republicans in the early 90s.
Our view of politics today is very distorted because the right has moved so far right that their next step is off the scale entirely.
In a 1993 interview with New Hampshire's Union Leader newspaper, for example, Gregg said Clinton's economic plan would "reestablish government as the dominant force in the economy and in social policy," labeled his tax program "class warfare," and groused that the president "made no attempt to involve any Republicans" in its formulation. He also voted "guilty" during President Clinton's impeachment trial in 1999...............blah, blah, blah, gregg and the republicans are still talking the same old sh*t 17 years after this newspaper interview, the story never changes, only the messengers.....blah, blah, blah, all talk and no action, EVER, except to pick the poor and middle class pockets!!
Ron Indiana
Dangerfield: You are becoming as credible as...No Jo.
__________________________________________________________________________________
A man would have said "thanks for the info, I stand corrected"
I don't think you are in any position to impugn anyone else's credibility when you have so little yourself in this instance.
Allow me to hoist you on your own petard, with help from a "friend"...what a pathetic reply to my factual reasonable and fully documented rebuke of your misstatement.
Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL
Well isn't this brilliant? Can't attack the message - so ATTACK the messengers...
When I first came here, you appeared to be a voice of reason, but it turns out that you're just another bully in the tiny "gang" who acts like this is their personal playground.
Clinton was guilty of lying under oath - an impeachable offense. Gregg was right to vote guilty.
He could have worked for a crook who gave us the repeal of Glass Stegeall Act-and -Nafta Cafta--who was not the real 'first black' President but was the one who played the republican game and helped get us here!
Our economic mess is on his head as well as the Newt congress! Glad they are all three gone!
That makes sense if you are a republican!
Some would argue he did work for Clinton in a manner of speaking! Goodbye, turn out the lights and lock the office door, you won't be back.
And, no doubt, the neocons who dominated the administration of George II had no ideological agenda.
We know The Messiah has a socialist agenda of re-distribution of wealth....given the choice of Americanism or socialism I'll take Americanism and our constitution
JIM shows how much easier it is to argue when you get to make up anything you want about the other side (and call them funny names).
JIM,
It's not called "Socialism" anymore. It's now called "Kenyan Anti-Colonialism".
I'd challenge that 56% that "knows" he's a socialist with the following...
Review the classic definition of Socialism and then point to a single policy that has been enacted that can be considered Socialism.
I bet you can't do it.
I'm still trying to figure out why 're-distribution of wealth' is bad when it is re-distributed downward, and bad when it's redistributed upward. Or to China, for that matter.
Da Noid
change your handle to Da Roid.
JIM -657002,
What the F*** is Americanism? you might want to define it before you let others define it for you~!
Is it the same thing as Bushism???
pwaa-waaa-wwaaaaahhhh~!!! BTW, do you want some cheese with that whine?
Danoid, how about you review the "classic definition" of Marxism and tell me why you think Obama's not a Marxist? I can give you plenty of reasons why he is a Marxist.
Keep fighting the good fight
@ H Stowell
Then you should try to support your ignorant claim. Please tell us what those "plenty of reasons" are.
Then perhaps you'd care to cite examples. Your failure to do so will only prove my point.
I've done so many times on this site. Go look for the information yourself. It's not hard to find. Skrekk, ignorance is being unaware and undeducated on the facts which you apparently are.
I searched the available history of comments you have made and I found nothing.
So, please, by all means, educate me.
Certainly he could copy and paste a few of his previous offerings together in about three minutes and post them again for us. Unless they never existed and he's just lying, again.
@ H Stowell
So we're supposed to expend time & energy to prove your ignorant argument for you? Not bloody likely.
Sounds like you have no argument.
Sounds more to me like I'd be wasting my time. Most people are aware or becoming aware and some will never be aware. You are in the last category.
@ H Stowell
You've claimed you have evidence, so show it. Otherwise you're just an ignorant wingnut.
Look at my post below for a brief explanation. The problem with people like you is that you apparently refuse to educate yourself. The truth is that I can state my beliefs here and anyplace else I like without an obligation to show you and other liberal clowns anything. Evidence means little to somebody like you or you might have started looking and asking questions when your Messiah was on the campaign trail. The next time he's out campaigning people won't be so easily fooled. You just keep chanting "Yes we can" and most of America will continue to look for factual information.
So you now have to admit that you were lying when you said that you had posted your proof here many times before.
Why do you think that you need to lie to bolster your beliefs?
You seem to misunderstand the purpose of this comment space. Share ideas and beliefs and policy solutions to policy problems, share the facts which you base them upon. Why would you want to exclude the facts?...........Doing so only results in a discussion which boils down to both sides saying to the other, "I believe your beliefs are wrong and stupid." Kind of pointless, don't you think?
@ H Stowell
If you're referring to your post at #11.4, it's pretty clear you don't even understand what a Marxist is. You also seem unaware that TARP and the auto bailout started under Bush, not Obama. FYI, government loans to private industries isn't Marxism, and so far the American taxpayer has made a profit because of the repayment terms.
Sounds like you would have preferred that the economy completely collapse.
The rest of your post at #11.4 appears to be moronic smears and irrelevant guilt by association. We get it - Obama is black and it upsets you. I suggest you learn to deal with it for the next 6 years.
I think it is too easy to call Clinton a centrist when campared Obama. Clinton didn't have two wars and a horribly bad recession to deal with when he was in office. Many of the 'ideological' policies Obama has put forth I think stem directly from the dire times that we are in. Had Clinton been in office with similar circumstances I think he would have been perceived as much more liberal- just as Obama is. It is very easy to be 'centrist' when the country is chugging along. It is only when things start getting rough that one's political ideology really comes into focus because you're forced into making more drastic policy decisions.
Nothing Obama has done can be considered 'Socialist' in any sense of the word- try looking up Socialism in the dictionary. It is very easy to sit on the sidelines, like Republicans have done for the past two years, and pass judgement and criticize the things Obama has tried to do. It is entirely different actually having to work to get us out of this recession. Bush knows that all too well. A lot of the things he put in place at the end of his Presidency (the Bank Bailouts for example) were very much against most 'conservative' principles, but he knew damn well that it had to be done in order to stave off a complete financial meltdown. People can scream and bemoan all the 'socialism' that has gone on over the past two years, but what they usually fail to do before opening their mouths is to actually think through as to what would have happened if we didn't bail the banks out... How many more people would be unemployed had GM been allowed to go under... How many more people would be out of work without the stimulus bill. Most estimates point that number upwards of 12%, by the way. Out of one side of your mouth you scream and yell that Obama isn't doing anything to help the economy while at the same time scream and yell about the things he HAS done to help the economy. You can't have it both ways.
Hey Jeff, blah, blah, blah. Nobody is buying what you're selling. The only point you got right is your statement regarding Bush. Bush should have let them go under. That's the free market. Bush was a big spender who left conservative policies. Obama is taknig us to the poor house and placing us more and more under government control. Obama and his pals believe in collective responsibility while most Americans still believe in individual responsibility. Obama's more than a socialist, he's a Marxist with deep roots in that ideology.
Stowell: Blah, blah, blah, RE-peat-the-lie-to-the-PUBLIC-an.
What you Right extremists (ltjdangle and H Stowell) seem incapable of understanding is the most basic facts about politics and economics. There are intermediate options to absolute right and left. There are alternatives to absolute free-market capitalism other than absolute communism or absolute socialism ("Bush should have let them go under. That's the free market" ISN'T capitalism, it's anarchy, the option taken in Argentina in 2001, which was supported only by the extreme LEFT, ironically). The alternative to your brand of absolute capitalism -- the alternative supported by 99% of the world's people, is called "democracy". Of course, democracy is the absolute LAST thing you folks are interested in conjuring up, because that is EXACTLY what Barack Obama was elected on -- the promise to make America more democratic. And THAT is the bottom line.
Demlefty, what is your definition of democracy? We don't have that here in the United States, never did and likely never will unless Obama is willing to take us in that direction as the epitome of the change he was talking about. I doubt seriously if he would like one person one vote, it would mean he would have to stop what he's doing and ask the country to vote at least once an hour on key issues. The good news is that Congress would be neutered since there would be no need for a representative government, just think of all the money we could save.
What a tired argument. We all know that we don't live in a 'True Democracy'. We believe in democratically elected representatives, a Constitutional REPublic. What we are trying to avoid is an Idiocracy and a Plutocracy at the same time.
It's good that Gregg is quitting.
Hind sight is always 20/20.
No, it is not, 20/20.
Hindsight is only as good as the clearances that allow you to see the REDACTED history UNREDACTED. If you ain't got the clearances, you're blinded by the redacted fairytale.
I always find it amusing when republicans claim that Obama (Kerry, Kennedy, Gore, Clinton, insert any name) is the most liberal president, senator, representative--insert any title--ever. Last time I checked, democrats tend to vote for democratic ideas and republicans for conservative ideas. Hardly rocket science, dems could claim McConnell, DeMint, McCain the most conservative ever and be just as right.
"Last time I checked, democrats tend to vote for democratic ideas and republicans for conservative ideas."
I'm guessing you meant liberal instaed of democratic ideas, but either way, you are so right!
If you grasp this concept, so elusive and obfuscated in this forum, why is it so hard to understand that the reason why the opposition, be they on the left or right, doesn't try to thwart their opponent's agenda because they are evil, or stupid, or want to see them fail etc. but that they simply think the other guy's are wrong?
The National Journal lists the voting records of the members of the senate
http://search.nationaljournal.com/
No. The problem is that ltjangle doesn't comprehend the oxymoronic nature of the term "most liberal". How can one be "most moderate" or "most middle-of-the-road", and spin that into somehow being extreme? You see, your problem is, you don't know the meaning of words like "liberal". We progressives do, and that's why we're working to move America beyond liberal, to democratic.
My personal opinion is that Mr. Gregg just might be trying to "fool" somebody. I don't think he is being very honest. He should have had these feelings when he was asked by the President to join his administration, yet he opted to accept the offer. I think there is more going on here than what we are being told.
Do you think that just maybe this is another one of those republican tactics to deminish the President's agenda?
Didn't trust you then - don't trust you now.......didn't these people know their words were being recorded for "posterity"???? Or are they just empty heads for real for real?
Great he could work for a guy with no moral compass. Is this the guy that played the lottery and won $800k?
What a snake... sure, sure, I believe every word, Gregg... sure... sure... whatever you say, Gregg ...
That's because Clinton was a pragmatic liberal politician and Obama is a Marxist ideologue.
I rather like this Marxist ideologue. (As if anyone really knows what that is. Sounds big though.)
Then maybe you ought to look up those two words. They're both in the dictionary. What I suspect is that you rather like his Marxist ideas.
Marxism- the system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, esp. the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society.
Yeah, that sure does sound like what Obama is trying to impose on us. Get a clue.
Jeff, while not saying that's exactly what he wants to impose that's exactly what Obama is moving toward. Marxism in principle does in fact seek to create a classless society through redistribution of wealth and allegedly power. Of course it's never worked our that way because those in power want to retain both wealth and power. Marxism believes that government should control the economic engines of society to efficiently redistribute the wealth but once again where it has been attempted those in power distribute to those they see as acceptable.
1) Your pal Obama is on tape and video over and over again encouraging the redistribution of wealth. Not only in this country but throughout the world. Afterall, he is a "citizen of the world." Obama has even stated that the civil rights movement didn't go far enough because it cause the redistribution of wealth.
2) Read Obama's book. He refers to the "white man's greed" and proclaims that as a college student he sought out radicals and "Marxist professors."
3) Since Obama took office the government has seized control of much of the auto industry, banking, insurance, much of health care, and he wants to control the energy industry. He also dealt out the secured creditors in the auto industry in favor of the unions.
4) Obama was mentored by an avowed communist, Frank Marshall Davis, after his grandfather introduced them.
5) Obama's own father and mother were communists and his grandparents at least had communist connections.
6) Obama has installed people in his administration who are communists/socialists, people like Van Jones, and he has installed others that have openly espoused Marxist doctrine such as redistribution even though they haven't openly admitted to being Marxists. It's doubtful that they will. Would you if you were them?
7) Obama's church of 20 years where he was mentored and advised by Reverend Wright not only makes openly racist statements but preaches Black Liberation Theology. BLT is based in Marxism and is more political than religious. Look up the founder and his writings. James Cone. He has some very interesting things to say. I wonder why Obama chose this church?
8) Obama's latest spiritual advisor, James Wallace, is also an admitted Marxist who believes in redistribution. Again, I wonder why he picked this guy?
9) Obama reportedly ran as a New Party candidate in Illinois and the New Party is openly socialist. Obama denies this connection but there is evidence to suggest otherwise.
10) There are a lot of questions about this man and I'm not talking about his birth certificate. He hasn't realeased any of his school records nor any records from his days in the Illinois Senate. Is it just plain bad luck that Obama has such an assorted group of radicals like Bill Ayers in his past?
You may want to deny this evidence but this is only because you believe in his Marxist agenda or you are like one of many in a herd of sheep following him. I suggest it is you that needs to "get a clue" because apparently you don't have one.
Allow me to explain H. Stowell's problem with the English language. I once had a sociology professor who each year for a couple decades gave his first year students a quiz during his Intro to Sociology classes. The quiz included ten quotations from the US Declaration of Independence, and ten quotations from the Communist Manifesto and Das Capital. Over a more-than-decade period, the students were incapable of distinguishing the quotes on a basis that was even statistically significant. These students were not stupid, they were almost certainly representative of the US population at large. And my point is this, if you study history in any depth, you will discover that the objectives of the American revolutionaries and the Communist revolutionaries were also indistinguishable. They all fought long and hard for political, social, and economic democracy, independence and individual liberty. "Marxism", as Mr Stowell labels it, is a deep democratic tradition, because it is the same "ideology" as Jeffersonian democracy.
They were indistinguishable there Demlefty? Marxism is a deep democratic tradition? You must have lost your mind. Truly, if you went to college your money was wasted and Obama and Ayers types were likely your professors. You are correct about one thing. The majority of the students weren't stupid. Those that bought into whatever you bought into were. It's also obvious to me that you have never actually studied history. What you studied in "sociology" was a bunch of drivel without regard for accuracy. I just wish clowns like you could have a close up look (as I have) at communism (exactly like Marxism except there is no private property at all) and see what you call democracy in action. If you want Marxism (and you do) then step up and state your position.
Judd Gregg railed and stomped his feet against all things Clinton. His revisionist remark is all 'I coulda, shoulda, woulda' but the truth is Gregg worked for Gregg.
More fearmongering.
I'm just glad this fawning phony is leaving. So long you nothing.
Oh he's not leaving.... he's preparing for VP... or a VP position at a lobbying firm. They should ban senators from lobbying within 100 miles of the Capitol for 6 years. That includes Chris Dodd.
Obama's brain trust has an idealogical purpose????? What does this moran and the other Republicans have if not IDEALOGICAL???????
Dear Sen. Gregg,
Obama gave you a chance to be centrist. Obama actually tried to be centrist, but you declined it. You are pathetic.
I thank God each and every single day that Barack Obama is our President. There has never been a President in my lifetime that so reflects my values, opinions, and view of the world. The more you hateful people call him names and mischaracterize his ideas, the more deetermined I am to do everything in my power to get him re-elected. Anyone the Republicans nominate will be simply a mouthpiece for the anti-American ideas of Palin/Beck (unless they're dumb enough to actually nominate Palin/Beck). By the way, I am a white man, a registered voter in my mid 40's living in the swing state of Missouri, and I have never been called by a pollster.
Yeah Randy, because we disagree with his policies we must all be hateful but of course you're not when you disagree with conservative policies. Fortunately you are in the minority. Good luck getting this clown reelected. As far as the people you cite as being anti-American it's obvious you've never listened to them or you're a moron who doesn't understand what they're saying.
I can hear Mr. Gregg saying "I coulda been a contender!"
Marxist don't believe in God!
Neither do you, does that make you a Marxist?
No surprise there. BC was just the latest in a long line of corporate-owned and controlled Democrats, those from the non-democratic wing of the Democratic Party. And Obama? Well, we voted for him because he campaigned as the first post-liberal (post-"free-market" capitalist) Democrat for President. Too bad we didn't get what we voted for! Nader in 2012. Again.
Gregg is a f**king wimpy moron. Glad he will be gone soon.
Seriously, he labels Petraeus (who most describe as likely an Eisenhower Republican) and Gates, who is proposing billions in defense cuts, as hard ocre conservatives? And he says he could have worked for Clinton (who he apparently believed not only to be a closet socialist but also guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors against the United States)??
More proof the Republican Party has just, as a whole, gone completely insane.
This Jughead has no credibility left. He claims that he could have worked for Clinton despite evidence of his repeated, rabid criticisms during Clinton's presidency. He flip-flopped on the offer early during the Obama presidency after being pressured by the right. He is nothing more than one of a long list of Rethug exhibits that choose to pander to the low-info, low-tolerance, low IQ, low-lifes in the modern-day Republican party rather than work across the aisle to seek compromise. Either these people believe we are really that stupid or we are seeing the effects of wacky tea on their short-term memory.
Here's my post again Shrekk since it appears that the liberal community on this board chose to collapse my post. This collapsing by some in your group has caused me to think that I'm getting under your skin (not as much as the voters will in November) and that I need to just keep a cut and paste item for libs like you.
Jeff, while not saying that's exactly what he wants to impose that's exactly what Obama is moving toward. Marxism in principle does in fact seek to create a classless society through redistribution of wealth and allegedly power. Of course it's never worked our that way because those in power want to retain both wealth and power. Marxism believes that government should control the economic engines of society to efficiently redistribute the wealth but once again where it has been attempted those in power distribute to those they see as acceptable.
1) Your pal Obama is on tape and video over and over again encouraging the redistribution of wealth. Not only in this country but throughout the world. Afterall, he is a "citizen of the world." Obama has even stated that the civil rights movement didn't go far enough because it cause the redistribution of wealth.
2) Read Obama's book. He refers to the "white man's greed" and proclaims that as a college student he sought out radicals and "Marxist professors."
3) Since Obama took office the government has seized control of much of the auto industry, banking, insurance, much of health care, and he wants to control the energy industry. He also dealt out the secured creditors in the auto industry in favor of the unions.
4) Obama was mentored by an avowed communist, Frank Marshall Davis, after his grandfather introduced them.
5) Obama's own father and mother were communists and his grandparents at least had communist connections.
6) Obama has installed people in his administration who are communists/socialists, people like Van Jones, and he has installed others that have openly espoused Marxist doctrine such as redistribution even though they haven't openly admitted to being Marxists. It's doubtful that they will. Would you if you were them?
7) Obama's church of 20 years where he was mentored and advised by Reverend Wright not only makes openly racist statements but preaches Black Liberation Theology. BLT is based in Marxism and is more political than religious. Look up the founder and his writings. James Cone. He has some very interesting things to say. I wonder why Obama chose this church?
8) Obama's latest spiritual advisor, James Wallace, is also an admitted Marxist who believes in redistribution. Again, I wonder why he picked this guy?
9) Obama reportedly ran as a New Party candidate in Illinois and the New Party is openly socialist. Obama denies this connection but there is evidence to suggest otherwise.
10) There are a lot of questions about this man and I'm not talking about his birth certificate. He hasn't realeased any of his school records nor any records from his days in the Illinois Senate. Is it just plain bad luck that Obama has such an assorted group of radicals like Bill Ayers in his past?
You may want to deny this evidence but this is only because you believe in his Marxist agenda or you are like one of many in a herd of sheep following him. I suggest it is you that needs to "get a clue" because apparently you don't have one.