I’m trying to wrap my brain around Sen. Gregg’s sense of conflict-of-interest. It’s not like the people of New Hampshire got nominated to be Commerce secretary. Why should they be disenfranchised because he got a new job?

If he doesn’t think he can represent their interests while he awaits confirmation, isn’t the rather obvious answer that he should resign and let the governor appoint a new senator who can get to work now? This isn’t a Republican or Democrat thing — it’s a republican democracy thing. Presumably the Democrat who will replace him would would vote with the president. But that’s beside the point. That vote belongs to the people of New Hampshire; why should they be deprived of it just because Sen. Gregg doesn’t want to ruffle feathers before he starts his new gig?

Sen. Gregg may be telling himself he’s doing the ethical thing, but to me this seems the antithesis of public service. When they were running for president, Obama and McCain may have missed votes because they were campaigning, but they also showed up for some very important votes — I never remember hearing any suggestion that they should recuse themselves because one of them was going to be in the executive branch soon. And speaking of that, President Obama is certainly not recusing himself now — he is agitating wildly to affect the outcome. Why should a senator who has a vote and whose constituents have a stake in the outcome stay out of it?