If a census recording had occurred on George Bush’s watch, and he had the process bypass the Secretary of Commerce and report directly to Karl Rove, what would the New York Times have to say about it?
[Afternoon update]
Judd Gregg has withdrawn from being Commerce Secretary, according to Fox News, and will stay in the Senate. I guess he didn’t like the thought of being treated like chopped liver when it came to the census. Another black eye for the administration’s cabinet appointment process.
[Update a couple minutes later]
“I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the Census there are irresolvable conflicts for me.”
[Friday morning update]
The issue of the Census director reporting directly to the White House means that Gregg, as commerce secretary, would lose control of one of the major programs in the department. By, in effect, politicizing the Census, the Obama administration is throwing down the gauntlet and risking an all out war with congressional Republicans over the fruits of the national head count; redistricting the 535 congressional districts to reflect changes in population and the allocation of billions in federal spending. . . . Is this the real reason that Gregg decided to withdraw? Perhaps he felt he was being set up to be the front man for a Census that could cripple the Republican party for years to come and wanted no part of it. We may never know.
It doesn’t really matter. I’m just glad that he came to his senses.
[Bumped]
[A couple minutes later]
After he looked into it more, he said, ‘Whoa, this was a mistake.’” Plus this: “At the very least, the Census issue would have made for a very uncomfortable confirmation hearing. Gregg’s fellow Republicans on the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee would certainly have asked him what he thought of a plan that would move control of the Census from professionals in the Commerce Department to Rahm Emanuel, the hyper-partisan White House chief of staff. What would Gregg have said? It was the stimulus problem all over again; Gregg couldn’t have said what he believed, but he probably couldn’t have brought himself to support the president, either.
Still waiting for all the outrage in the press about politicizing the census. Not holding my breath, though.
If the current administration plans to gerrymander the census then I for on think we should all boycott it. Let’s see if a little civil disobedience curbs their enthusiasm for their new brand of open and honest government. And it would be fun to watch.
I wonder what other kinds of civil disobedience we can come up with to express our disagreement with the direction we’re going. Stamping “tax cheat” on Geitner’s signature on our money seems a little whimpy.
Tax revolts always sound good but no one ever does it unless he knows for certain everyone else is doing it, too.
Hmm….
This makes Gregg (my senator) look bad. He asked for the job, accepted it, and only then noticed who he’d be working for. Hopefully we can vote him out in 2010.
Looks like he won’t run for re-election, so we won’t have to vote him out. This bizarre interlude does make the seat a likely Dem pickup in 2010.
Well, Jim, imagine how the 53% of the voters who asked to work for Obama feel. Only now have they noticed that he didn’t mean any of that stuff in the debate about his determination to end the Bush-era deficits, end the Iraq War in 16 months, get tough with Iran, close Gitmo (instead of begin a year-long study of how to start to understand how to fairly soon close Gitmo), end rendition, et cetera.
I mean…maybe it was The Emperor who took off a few more bits of underwear, rather than Gregg who wasn’t paying any attention when he waltzed on stage.
I’m also not getting where if The Big Cheese invites someone to work for him, the Lucky Applicant says sure why not sounds good in principle, the Cheese then starts explaining in detail his new duties…shows him around the slaughterhouse a bit, tells him not to worry about the children chained to the dungeon walls…and then Lucky A. gets cold feet and says well maybe not…must spend more time with family — this all reflects badly on the applicant.
I mean, if you sign up with a new cell phone company because their slick ads with Scarlett Johanssen look good, and then after a month you cancel because the details of how the plan work kind of, well, suck — do you consider yourself a bonehead?
“Jim Says:
February 12th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Looks like he won’t run for re-election, so we won’t have to vote him out. This bizarre interlude does make the seat a likely Dem pickup in 2010.”
You will be lucky to elect a Dem dogcatcher in 2010. It is going to make 94 look like tea-time. You have sewn the wind, the time to reap the whirlwind is rapidly approaching.
With the exception of 2002 post-911, every year since at least 1970, the party out of power has made gains, sometimes significant, during the first national election into a President’s first term. Three pick-up elections in a row is virtually unheard of. Mathematically, Dem gains is almost impossible. After two years of the Kenyan, it will be fantasy.
Looks like the Dodd seat in Conn is a likely Republican pick-up however.
“This makes Gregg (my senator) look bad. He asked for the job, accepted it, and only then noticed who he’d be working for.”
How about he saw the handwriting on the wall telling him he would be a figurehead and someone else would call the shots? If the One will violate the constitution regarding the census and move supervision of it to the White House, Gregg probably won’t get to make many decisions.
Gregg asked for the job, the White House made clear it would mean supporting the president’s agenda, and he agreed. According to his statements yesterday, nothing had changed about the job since then — he just finally got around to thinking about what he’d agreed to. As Gregg put it, referring to Obama, “I may have embarrassed myself but hopefully not him.”
There are two ways this could play. One is Carl’s slaughterhouse/dungeon fever dream. The other is that Obama has reached out to the GOP, only to have his hand slapped again and again. Given Obama’s approval ratings, you can guess which will be the more credible explanation for most voters. That gives Obama latitude to proceed with his agenda and paint the GOP as politically-obsessed obstructionists.
As for 2010, there are so many GOP senators retiring that the Dems could pick up seats even in a GOP year, and the Senate is the GOP’s last refuge.
I see that Jim is avoiding my question.
Rand, Jim is a libdem- they don’t HAVE a problem with unConstitutional and illegal partisan power grabs aimed at stifling all dissent and eliminating democracy in Ameica… as long as it’s THEIR side that gets to wear the jackboots.
Rand, the problem with answering your question is that you offer no proof that Obama was putting the Census Bureau under White House control. All I have seen is Republicans claiming that the White House was taking over the Census.
There is at least as much proof as there was in many episodes of media hysteria over supposed Bush atrocities (Korans down the toilet, anyone?). A cabinet nominee just stepped down over the issue. So what does the Gray Lady have to say about it? The question stands.
And, Chris, if it turns out to be true, will you then defend the White House?
All I have seen is Republicans claiming that the White House was taking over the Census.
It’s that selective blindness, Rand. They refuse to see fault.
For eight years, Bush Derangement Syndrome has been the delusion that Bush could do no right. Now we’ll have four years of Obama Derangement Syndrome, the delusion that The One can do no wrong.
If it’s true, I will not defend it.
John Irving – Obama is not perfect. However, I am willing to give the man some benefit of the doubt four weeks into his administration.
I extended the same benefit of the doubt to his predecessor.
Chris,
I’m not calling you on whether Bush got a pass from you or not, I don’t know.
What’s at issue, is a major change to HOW / WHO the census is reported, and how the NY Slimes would have had a field day with bashing Bush, had this been even an accusation. So far, the MSM, as a whole, is still drooling over their Messiah. I expect it will continue for some time.
Phoo, I don’t care if the Census Bureau reports directly to Rahm. It’s not like if it goes through the Commerce Secretary first, The One doesn’t have just exactly as much influence. The entire Executive Branch is his bitch, they’re supposed to do exactly what he says, and that’s the way Madison wanted it. This is why the election matters.
The Democrats have long pushed a notion that the career bureaucrats in Washington have some kind of sacred status, and should be trusted more than mere “political” appointees. But that’s pure self-interest. Career bureaucrats are overwhelmingly Democrats, so in a Democratic Administration they’re going to be doing what the political appointees want anyway — harmony! — and in a Republican Administration, the Democrats want obstruction and turmoil.
Although he was a — nay, the original! — Democrat, I agree with King Andrew Jackson and his to the victor go the spoils system. Pretenses at “bipartisanship” — e.g. the utterly laughable notion of Obama “reaching out” to Republicans by…er…not ordering the CIA to assassinate them, or something equivalent — are always mere political Kabuki, designed to cynically discredit the other side for foolish partisans, dreamers and idiots. I find them nauseating. I would rather my enemy attempt to kill me from the front, in plain sight, than that he slip a stiletto in my back while pretending to embrace me. Blech.
Steve – no, what’s at issue is an accusation that Obama is trying to change the way the Census is ran. The accusation is unsubstanciated, and, near as I can tell, seems to have started in Boehner’s office.
Jim, I have heard both versions – that Gregg asked for the job and that he was asked. Do you have evidence either way? Admittedly, things like this can be an elaborate dance in DC, with no clear answer at the end.
As to the census, the change in who the Census Bureau reports to was reported by Akers in the Washington Post. The Chicago Daily Observer expands on this: “As usual, the reality is a bit more complicated: The brigades of Census Bureau managers will not be moving into the West Wing or any wing of the White House; instead the Director of the Census Bureau will report not to the Commerce Secretary, but directly to a designee—feared by Republicans to be Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel– in Obama’s White House.”
As for Rand’s question, I have no idea what the NY Times would have said. Rove had a track record of injecting politics into everything (e.g. Justice Dept. hiring, U.S. Attorney prosecution priorities), so I imagine the NYT would have been suspicious.
As for the census, traditionally the GOP wants it to count everyone who’s easy to count, so they cut the budget and insist on a literal headcount. The Dems want to count everyone, so they push for more funding and use of statistical sampling. Both sides know that the people who are hardest to count are disproportionately poor and non-white, and tend to vote for the Democrats. The stakes are high, so I expect the 2010 census would be controversial regardless of who was in office and who was running it.
On the bright side for the right, it gives them a new wacky conspiracy theory to add to ACORN, the Fairness Doctrine, CRA, and all the other reasons why white males are actually unfortunate victims of poor minorities and their representatives.
Re. Gregg, Gregg says he was approached by a third-party, and indicated that he was interested. The White House says they were approached. So it may have started with a third-party matchmaker, but it was Gregg’s idea before it was Obama’s.
Beyond that, Gregg accepted the job, and said he’d support the administration. Then he changed his mind. Obama’s agenda didn’t change between those two events.
It’s interesting to hear Gregg praised by his GOP Senate colleagues for turning the job down. On the one hand, they say that Obama hasn’t reached out to them. On the other, they don’t want anyone in the GOP serving in Obama’s cabinet. They really aren’t comfortable saying anything but no.
Rove had a track record of injecting politics into everything (e.g. Justice Dept. hiring, U.S. Attorney prosecution priorities)
Yes, but Rahm Emmanuel never does that…
<rolling eyes>
Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously when you write this kind of nonsense?
“As for 2010, there are so many GOP senators retiring that the Dems could pick up seats even in a GOP year, and the Senate is the GOP’s last refuge.”
Uhhhh….Jim, I know this is going to come as a shock to you but the entire house is up for election.
I suspect the dems will be damn lucky if they end up with a narrow majority in the house in four years.
I live ina blue dog district with a rep of 26 years and I can tell you that a family friend of mine who know him tells me he is scared shitless about 2010.
He endorsed Obama last year and it looks like he will have a strong opponent this go around. Obama didnt carry more that 35% of the district and not but a single county that includes a major university. He is cursing himself for not endorsing Hillary now according to him. If most McCain supporters turn on him, he is toast.
Make that narrow majority in two, not four years.
To secure their chances, maybe the GOP can release a “whitey tape!” Oh, wait, never mind.
Bob, is that kind of like “White People’s Greed Runs a World In Need”?
Or more like “God Damn Amerika!”
Or is it more of a “…bitter, clinging to their guns and religon…”
…I’ll understand if you don’t want to answer.
But, y’know, after one of Obama’s musical guests at his almost $200-million inauguration referred to himself and Obama as ‘niggers’, I though that racism was accceptable again. After all, the President approved of it at his own swearing in…
“To secure their chances, maybe the GOP can release a “whitey tape!” Oh, wait, never mind.”
Bob, Obama IS the Whitey tape. Thanks for buying it.
Mike, your confident electoral predictions have a track record that Democrats should find reassuring.
Considering I have been wrong once in thirty years you can take comfort at your own risk.
As for me, I will take those odds.
But I encourage you, please enjoy your Pyrric victory!
> As for the census, traditionally the GOP wants it to count everyone who’s easy to count, so they cut the budget and insist on a literal headcount. The Dems want to count everyone, so they push for more funding and use of statistical sampling.
Statistical sampling doesn’t have the properties assumed by the above.
The advantage of “literal headcount” is that it counts actual people as opposed to ones invented (or removed) by the sampling.
Besides, statistical sampling is unconstutional. The census has to be an actual enumeration, not an approximation.