I'm persuaded by Andrew Sullivan on the Gregg withdrawal: it makes sense only as an act of partisan loyalty, which means in this case loyalty to partisans who have decided on a strategy of opposition and obstruction. The stimulus issue wasn't something that changed in the last few days; the census question is a canard.

But Gregg's stepping down is a losing move in a losing strategy. It's hard to see what Obama loses here, or what the Republicans (let alone Gregg) gain. Obama gets to appoint a Democrat and get full credit for bipartisanship anyway. The Republicans keep a Senate seat that they were going to keep for two years anyway, with no guarantees after that. And Gregg's vote won't change the stimulus package; losing 61-38 isn't different from losing 61-37. Gregg gets to be a minority Senator instead of Commerce Secretary, and if that were a better deal he would never have gone looking for a Cabinet gig.

There's been a lot of media spin about how well the Republicans are succeeding by being uncooperative, but I don't see it. Obama is getting to position himself as a cooperative bipartisan leader while the Republicans look like inflexible ingrates. (Taking a job from Obama and then quitting doesn't make Obama look bad.) And they end up cutting themselves out of the decisions. This isn't a strategy so much. It's more like a political suicide pact.