Quid Pro Quo?

I know this kind of deal making goes on all the time in Washington, but when a sitting Senator gets elevated to the next highest office and there are strings on his vacant seat how is this not shades of the whole Blago fiasco?

Because what we have here is a quid pro quo. I will give you (or do) this for that.

What I'm talking about is the impending decision of Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire to accept the position of commerce secretary in President Obama's Cabinet. Senator Gregg is a Republican, the Governor of New Hampshire, John Lynch, is a Democrat. Ergo, it follows that the person appointed to fill his seat would be a Democrat, giving the party the magic filibuster-proof number of 60 in the Senate. However, sources from both parties say that Lynch has given assurances that he will name a Republican and so leave the Senate balance unchanged.

But state political sources from both parties said Monday that Lynch will name Gregg's former chief of staff, Bonnie Newman, to replace him.

In a statement issued earlier Monday, Lynch said Gregg had told him he would not give up his seat "if it changed the balance in the Senate."

Just because it is being brokered at the highest levels and with the finesse and tact that Blagojevich so desperately lacked, doesn't mean that the essence of the thing has changed. Instead of trading for personal wealth and cash, the trade is for maintaining the balance of power in the Senate. Instead of a two way trade, we have a three way trade: Obama gets his commerce pick, Gregg gets the title, and the Republicans keep their bare hold on the filibuster.

If you ask me, it still stinks like three day old fish.