• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Only Democrats have agency, apparently.

All your base are belong to Tunch.

Accused of treason; bitches about the ratings. I am in awe.

I’ve spoken to my cat about this, but it doesn’t seem to do any good.

This really is a full service blog.

Let me eat cake. The rest of you could stand to lose some weight, frankly.

Wow, you are pre-disappointed. How surprising.

I’d hate to be the candidate who lost to this guy.

“But what about the lurkers?”

An almost top 10,000 blog!

Meanwhile over at truth Social, the former president is busy confessing to crimes.

… pundit janitors mopping up after the GOP

We cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation.

Nancy smash is sick of your bullshit.

Something needs to be done about our bogus SCOTUS.

T R E 4 5 O N

When someone says they “love freedom”, rest assured they don’t mean yours.

Bark louder, little dog.

I was promised a recession.

The cruelty is the point; the law be damned.

Putin must be throwing ketchup at the walls.

Republicans in disarray!

The poor and middle-class pay taxes, the rich pay accountants, the wealthy pay politicians.

A democracy can’t function when people can’t distinguish facts from lies.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / About the Census

About the Census

by John Cole|  February 12, 20096:16 pm| 176 Comments

This post is in: Politics

FacebookTweetEmail

Since Judd Gregg is listing it as one of the issues that he is stepping aside (if he is not running again in 2010, I would bet there are some other reasons he is stepping aside), can anyone explain why the census would be moved to control of the White House, and would not remain under control of Commerce where it normally is? I honestly don’t know, as there is just too much going on to pay attention to all of this stuff.

There may be good reasons for this move, but I know what the reaction would be if the Bush White House moved control of the census to anywhere near Karl Rove (and I am aware the comparison between Rove and Emmanuel is not perfect)- a not insignificant portion of the commentariat here (translation- 99% or higher) would be, as I noted in the comments to another thread, “shitting a pink twinkie.” As I often asked Republicans the last few years when they expanded Bush/Cheney’s authority to the point that it meant doing whatever the frack they want (DWTFTW), “How would you feel about President Hillary Clinton with this authority?”

So, Juicers- why move the census to White House control? And how would you feel if the Bush administration had done this?

*** Update ***

Sully calls it a canard. I am inclined to agree.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « How many Washington wise men does it take to screw an administration?
Next Post: Republican Math »

Reader Interactions

176Comments

  1. 1.

    Rhoda

    February 12, 2009 at 6:19 pm

    Marc Ambinder laid this out in a post: the WH has control of the census in the sense that everyone reports back to the president through the CoS, Rahm in this case.

    Gregg wasn’t being looped out of this at all; the WH was just (ineptly to be real) telling Hispanics and Blacks that they have final say and won’t let them down.

    Gregg admits at his presser this was all on him. He lobbied for the job, realized he was working for a liberal, had all his GOP friends back home insult him, he pulled out.

    He says he isn’t running in 2010.

    I’d like him to just to point and laugh at him and McCain (who will also I think go down in defeat in 2010).

  2. 2.

    DougJ

    February 12, 2009 at 6:19 pm

    He’s not running again.

    There’s no way this is the census.

  3. 3.

    Zzyzx

    February 12, 2009 at 6:20 pm

    I have no clue why it was moved and – to use a term I hate – the optics look horrid.

  4. 4.

    Shygetz

    February 12, 2009 at 6:20 pm

    I’m again’ it.

  5. 5.

    JR

    February 12, 2009 at 6:22 pm

    That’s an easy one: the continued expansion of Executive Powers. The new Boss is looking very much like the old Boss, but with a grasp of the English Language. We are sooo screwed. Same as it ever was.

  6. 6.

    DougJ

    February 12, 2009 at 6:23 pm

    And as for Rove moving it to the WH, I wouldn’t care, he’d run the thing officially or unofficially.

    That said, I hope Obama runs a fair one and I wouldn’t be comfortable with his WH running it. There needs to be some independence. I would expect none from Rove, but I hope for some from Obama.

  7. 7.

    John Cole

    February 12, 2009 at 6:23 pm

    @Zzyzx: All I know is I saw Darrell Issa whinging about it last night on Lou Dobbs, thought he had a strong case, and then felt the urge to shower.

  8. 8.

    Doug

    February 12, 2009 at 6:23 pm

    It must have part of the prospective deal that in the event Gregg was going to be commerce secretary, it would not be tenable to test his divided loyalty in exercising any power he would have over the census. There is always some political tension over the method of census as there are good reasons for a variety of methods and the parties tend to support the methods that magnifies their voters. I think that is to be expected so long as the method chosen is in the realm of reasonable statistics and not totally conjured up.

  9. 9.

    Bubblegum Tate

    February 12, 2009 at 6:25 pm

    Frankly, I’m stumped as to why the census would move. I’m not screamingly mad about this, but this whole "let’s expand the powers and control the executive branch can assert!" thing absolutely rubs me the wrong way.

    ALSO: The Joe the Plumber banner ad at the top of the site = [teh stoopid]/[teh awesome]

  10. 10.

    TenguPhule

    February 12, 2009 at 6:26 pm

    can anyone explain why the census would be moved to control of the White House, and would not remain under control of Commerce where it normally is?

    Any Democratic Executive who let a Fucking Republican control the Census is Too Stupid to Live.

  11. 11.

    Thom

    February 12, 2009 at 6:26 pm

    First, do you know that the "WH moved control" of the census to the WH? That’s not how they put it. They said the Census director would report to both the WH and Commerce.

    And do you know how Clinton, HW Bush, and Carter did these things? (I don’t.)

  12. 12.

    Thom

    February 12, 2009 at 6:28 pm

    You’re getting had, perhaps:

    "This administration has not proposed removing the Census from the Department of Commerce and the same Congressional committees that had oversight during the previous administration will retain that authority.”

  13. 13.

    Steve

    February 12, 2009 at 6:28 pm

    There is a legitimate ideological difference between Democrats and Republicans that has nothing to do with dirty tricks or ratfucking, although I’m sure it’s no coincidence that each party’s ideological position happens to line up with its political interests.

    Generally speaking, Republicans believe in counting everyone the census takers can locate and leaving it at that. Democrats prefer to use "sampling" techniques so that the final numbers give a more accurate picture of groups that are systematically underrepresented by the usual techniques, such as minorities and the homeless. Of course if you’re a Republican you think this is just a big Democratic voter fraud plot, yadda yadda.

    So when Gregg was nominated for Commerce, a bunch of Democrats went apeshit because they were like, hey, you better not let this conservative Republican run the census according to how the Republicans prefer to do it! And so the White House reassured those freaked-out constituents by announcing that they would be handling it instead.

    Of course no good Democrat would trust Karl Rove near the census or anything else. But just because members of the opposing party don’t trust the White House, that doesn’t mean that the White House isn’t allowed to do anything at all. When the Republicans are in power, they want Bush to be allowed to do anything he wants by virtue of the unitary executive; when they’re out of power, of course they want Obama to be forced to delegate everything to faceless bureaucrats who might be nonpartisan.

    But seriously, if you’re afraid the Obama White House will run the census in some dishonest partisan Democratic way, would you really have been comfortable that no partisanship would enter into it if Bill Richardson’s Commerce Department were in charge? The real question is whether we should or shouldn’t use sampling, and that’s a political question that you can’t just sweep under the rug.

  14. 14.

    gopher2b

    February 12, 2009 at 6:30 pm

    I’m still trying to wrap my head around this one because I don’t understand the issues here. My first thought was stimulus…bullshit (people have known about htat for weeks). My second thought Census…bullshit…(who the fuck cares…if the Obama WH wants to count people differently and in a way that benefits Dems then it is better to stay and fight from the inside then eat maple syrup in NH all winter). But, if the White House was moving the Census Bureau from teh Commerce Dept. to the White House then I would quit too. You can’t appoint a guy, claim its an act of bipartisanship, and then neuter the agency.

    (I reserve my right to retract this comment should additional fact come out….so blow me).

  15. 15.

    MikeJ

    February 12, 2009 at 6:31 pm

    It’s an executive branch function, and therefore ultimately reports to the White House, even if Commerce is in direct control. Obama is going to take the blame and priase for anything the census does. Saying "it was all Commerce’s fault" won’t get you anywhere, and that being the case it’s best to make sure they follow the policies you want.

  16. 16.

    justcorbly

    February 12, 2009 at 6:31 pm

    Gregg may have found himself unable to support and administer Obama’s plans for the census without tacitly admitting to GOP sins re: the census.

    E.g., you can’t vow to assure that the Census Bureau accurately counts Hispanics and African-Americans, or is not subject to political pressure, without acknowledging that might not have been the case for the last 8 years.

  17. 17.

    Zach

    February 12, 2009 at 6:32 pm

    No one wanted to move the census. Obama just says that the census will use statistical adjustment if it proves more accurate rather than dismissing it out of hand like the GOP would prefer. Rahm’s not going to be pouring over the possible results and rejiggering the model. Obama’s in charge; that’s what he does. He makes the policy and the cabinet secretaries execute; if they don’t like it, they resign (or withdraw in this case).

  18. 18.

    Thom

    February 12, 2009 at 6:33 pm

    Oh, too much. From the same article I linked before:

    But Kenneth Prewitt, who served as Census director from 1998 to 2001, said he worked with White House staff during the 2000 Census on budgeting, advertising and outreach efforts. In an e-mail, Prewitt said he never met with anyone "more senior than a deputy chief of staff, except once when I met with the entire cabinet on how each member could assist in the large outreach effort then underway.

    Other former Census directors agreed that coordination with the White House on budgeting and outreach was appropriate while data collection and analysis should be kept separate.

    As for potential political interference, “It’s virtually impossible to do something wrong without someone finding out about it,” said Vincent P. Barabba, who ran the 1980 Census. “It’s about as transparent an agency that exists.”

    Barbara Everitt Bryant, who served as director during the 1990 Census, said: "I would have liked a little of the bully pulpit help, because one of the big things is just to get everyone to answer the questionnaire. The president would have a lot more clout on that than anything we could have done at the Census bureau

    ."

  19. 19.

    Frank

    February 12, 2009 at 6:33 pm

    The last time I looked, the Dept. of Commerce was part of the executive branch.

    I smell smokescreen.

  20. 20.

    Josh Hueco

    February 12, 2009 at 6:34 pm

    Easy. Amend the Constitution to count white people as 3/5 of a person.

    /ducks and runs

  21. 21.

    Adrienne

    February 12, 2009 at 6:35 pm

    can anyone explain why the census would be moved to control of the White House, and would not remain under control of Commerce where it normally is?

    As boring as you would think the Census is, it is actually a pretty explosive issue. Republicans favor a strict head count, meaning, if you don’t come to the door when the Census takers knock you aren’t counted. Democrats, on the other hand, favor sampling in more densely populated areas – those more likely to have people with an interest in avoiding government officials – to create the official numbers.

    The issue is that whites, more likely to be Republican, in rural areas tend to be overcounted while minorities, more likely to vote Democratic, and the homeless, and illegals, etc in urban areas tend to be undercounted for the reasons named above. Doing it the Dems way would actually be cheaper AND give a more accurate number. But, since representation in government on all levels is determined by population as measured by the Census, it’s kinda big deal.

  22. 22.

    Mr Furious

    February 12, 2009 at 6:35 pm

    It wasn’t as if The White House would be tallying the numbers…I took it as a sign that Obama wasn’t willingly and blindly handing the census over to a Republican to control—that the White House would still be in control to prevent any bullshit with the numbers.

  23. 23.

    gopher2b

    February 12, 2009 at 6:36 pm

    @gopher2b:

    that being said, Gregg has handled this one like a complete assfuck

  24. 24.

    Mr Furious

    February 12, 2009 at 6:37 pm

    What Frank said.

  25. 25.

    Thom

    February 12, 2009 at 6:37 pm

    @Thom:

    The last three paragraphs of my last comment should be in blockquote. I don’t know what happened.

  26. 26.

    Laertes

    February 12, 2009 at 6:37 pm

    Why move it to the WH: That’s a real good question, and I just can’t imagine. SoCommerce reports to the WH anyway, so the WH was ultimately in control anyway.

    How would you have felt if Bush had done it: I’d have assumed he was Up To Something, and I’d have been right. That said, I’d expect him to corrupt the census either way. Whether Census Bureau reports to the WHCoS or to SoCommerce makes little difference to me.

  27. 27.

    Brien Jackson

    February 12, 2009 at 6:38 pm

    I don’t really see what sort of effect moving the duties around the executive branch is really going to have. As CoS, Emmanuel can just as easily insert himself into the Commerce Department as anything else and, as one commentor above pointed out, I think a lot of this "Rahm is running the census" stuff is largely wingnut agitprop designed to scare the white people in Real America.

    I mean really, if you were the White House Chief of Staff would you really want to spend your time on the fucking census?

  28. 28.

    Broken

    February 12, 2009 at 6:39 pm

    Jeez. The Whitehouse said THEY WERE NOT GOING TO MOVE CENSUS.

    They said they wanted the census run consistently with their political philosophy. I believe every President has done exeactly the same thing.

    Yet another turd of misinformation tossed by the wingers. Did you know Pelosi wanted millions of dollars for a mouse habitat? It’s true!

  29. 29.

    demimondian

    February 12, 2009 at 6:40 pm

    @Adrienne has it exactly right — this has to do with whether we use the more accurate, cheaper, and pro-Democratic sampling method or the clumsier, more expensive, pro-Republican (and, by the by, Constitutionally mandated) direct count method.

    Needless to say, I support using the less accurate method.

  30. 30.

    DougJ

    February 12, 2009 at 6:40 pm

    @Broken

    You’re going to argue with a Congressional legend like Darrell Issa?

    Fuck you, shrill libtard.

  31. 31.

    Zach

    February 12, 2009 at 6:42 pm

    @Steve: "Sampling" is not the right description. Commerce has calculated statistical adjustments to its head count in the past and then chosen whether to certify the adjusted or unadjusted results; I believe 1990 and 2000 were both using the headcounts and not the adjusted numbers.

    "Sampling" implies knowingly getting an incomplete sample and using it to model the true makeup of the population. The actual alternative is trying just as hard to count everybody and then estimating and correcting for the undercount.

  32. 32.

    Stuck

    February 12, 2009 at 6:45 pm

    So, Juicers- why move the census to White House control? And how would you feel if the Bush administration had done this?

    First off, the Commerce Department, last time I checked, is part of the White House and Obama is the Boss of it. I’m guessing he wanted Gregg for his economic chops and another notch in the bipartisan belt. Not to apply GOP principles for the Census.

    The Census, or how it’s done, is critical in deciding voting districts and seats in congress. I have no doubt that Rove had his fat little partisan finger in that pie at some point, whether it was in the CD or the WH. It’s a political operation to a degree, and historically has been, as I understand it. And luckily, there has been enough back and forth of dem and repubs in the WH to even things out some on how the census is done and interpreted. Now it’s the Dems turn.

  33. 33.

    Xecklothxayyquou Gilchrist

    February 12, 2009 at 6:46 pm

    Census?

    I think the Republicans are calling it the Porkus these days.

  34. 34.

    Joshua Norton

    February 12, 2009 at 6:46 pm

    And how would you feel if the Bush administration had done this?

    You mean after ChimpCo privatized it and farmed it out Haliburton on a no-bid contract?

  35. 35.

    phil

    February 12, 2009 at 6:47 pm

    The President can control the census all the same if it’s left in the Commerce Department.

  36. 36.

    demkat620

    February 12, 2009 at 6:48 pm

    @TenguPhule: And jobs. The census hires alot of people.

  37. 37.

    John PM

    February 12, 2009 at 6:51 pm

    So, Juicers…

    I would like to say for the record that I have never Juiced…

    OK, I did use something called "The Clear," but I thought it was flaxseed oil…

    OK, actually, I did Juice, but only for a little bit…

    Ok, actually, I Juiced for five years, but I was young and stupid…

    Everyone else was doing it! Canseco made me do it! He and Clemens held me down and shot the steroids into my ass and then made me f-ck Madonna. I just wanted to play ball!

    Can I have the rest of my $200 million and my bust in the Hall of Fame now?

  38. 38.

    whinger

    February 12, 2009 at 6:51 pm

    Yeah, what exactly is the thesis here? That if the Census was directly under the Bush White House, the process might have been corrupted, but that his appointed Commerce Secretary, the Baron Vladimir Harkonnen, would have kept the taint of politics away?

    The Bushies managed to politicize most of DOJ without redrawing any org charts.

  39. 39.

    demkat620

    February 12, 2009 at 6:51 pm

    @demimondian: Yes but the constitution also mandates that certain people be counted as "3/5’s"

    And if I remember correctly from enumerator school, the constitution doesn’t stipulate method only that it must be done every ten years.

  40. 40.

    jake 4 that 1

    February 12, 2009 at 6:53 pm

    If you consider the high levels of pooch screwing (complete with multi-million dollar equipment fail) that went on over there and this:

    "This administration has not proposed removing the Census from the Department of Commerce and the same Congressional committees that had oversight during the previous administration will retain that authority.”

    is true. I’d say it’s a good thing to have an extra layer of accountability.

  41. 41.

    Jim

    February 12, 2009 at 6:55 pm

    This really does strike me as tempest in a teapot. If anything it shows the President putting himself in a position of taking all the flak if something fishy happens. The Commerce Department is part of the Executive Branch, so it isn’t like the WH is stealing some legislative function. I’m much more worried about Tim Geitner (sp) being a clueless bastard than this. Gregg bailing is, as Sully says, a sign the Republicans are out to kneecap Obama before he can gain any traction.

  42. 42.

    mak

    February 12, 2009 at 6:57 pm

    With reference to JCole’s Open Left Abramoff link, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Gregg were pushed, rather than jumped. As with Daschle, Richardson, Powers, that chief-operations-or-whatever undersecretary with the nanny problem, and who knows how many unknown others, Obama’s demonstrated an itchy trigger finger when it comes to undisclosed skeletons in the closet. (Geithner being the exception, of course, but his rapid confirmation was kinda universally acknowledged to be necessary given the ongoing econo-shitstorm). No Drama, and all that.

    Notwithstanding the anonymous dem staffer’s claim that the WH was blindsided, this would be consistent with both Gregg’s statement that he’s not running in 2010 and the timing of his petulant presser.

  43. 43.

    Adrienne

    February 12, 2009 at 6:58 pm

    The actual alternative is trying just as hard to count everybody and then estimating and correcting for the undercount.

    Which basically amounts to what? Say it with me: SAMPLING. Granted, the "samples" would be rather large, but that only brings DOWN the margin of error to a rather statistically insignificant number.

  44. 44.

    The Grand Panjandrum

    February 12, 2009 at 7:03 pm

    May I point out the obvious: the Commerce Department IS PART of the Executive Branch. Why move the census to the WH? It wasn’t moved to the WH. Final decisions were securely (and rightfully) placed at the feet of the President. Most of the process remains at Commerce. So what’s the big deal if the President wants to ensure it is done with a methodology that he approves of?

    Your Rove/Emmanuel comparison is nonsense. Rove was a purely political operative. Emmanuel is the CofS. Ask me how I would have felt if Andy Card had that same authority and then you have a question that makes sense. I won’t speculate on what might have been because that is pure speculation. This sort of speculation is just mental masturbation, no?

  45. 45.

    Steve

    February 12, 2009 at 7:06 pm

    Assuming that the Obama administration will be using some form of sampling in the census (or that thing that I’ve been told isn’t technically sampling but I don’t know a better word for it), there will surely be a court challenge on whether the Constitution requires that nothing other than a direct headcount be used.

    I mean, not to question demi’s status as final arbiter of the Constitution, but I’m not aware that the courts have definitively resolved this one yet.

  46. 46.

    The Populist

    February 12, 2009 at 7:10 pm

    Gregg is pro-stimulus so that can’t be it.

  47. 47.

    amorphous

    February 12, 2009 at 7:12 pm

    doing whatever the frack they want (DWTFTW)

    And all this time I thought it was "doing what they fucking want to whenever." Now I realize that was reading acronyms fail.

  48. 48.

    TheFountainHead

    February 12, 2009 at 7:13 pm

    You’re asking the wrong question here, John. The White House has always been in control of the Census on some level, and it has never been conducted in a truly partisan matter. There is legitimate debate whether or not to use modern sampling techniques to attempt to create a more accurate picture of the citizenry. Republicans don’t want it for obvious "Brown people are scary and don’t vote for us!" reasons. Democrats want it because it would have some serious political ramifications in many states, not to mention that it would be wildly more accurate than the current system. I actually have a friend who works for the Census Bureau, and he’s walked me through both sides of this argument. Long story short, nothing was going to be done differently in 2010 ANYWAY.

  49. 49.

    joe from Lowell

    February 12, 2009 at 7:17 pm

    John,

    If you’re really interested in this subject, I’d recommend a book titled "Who Counts?" about the census.

    What we have here is a classic example of Republicans vs. science. The statisticians and other professional, civil service people in the Census bureau have figured out how to use statistical methods to correct for undercounts. Undercounts, as one would expect, tend to be most concentrated among poor, immigrant, minority, and non-Spanish speaking populations, particularly in big cities and very rural areas.

    So of course, the Republicans want to forbid the scientists from using their professional knowledge to correct the inevitable errors from the count – because it benefits them to have a less-accurate count.

    Obama wanted to take the census away from Gregg because Gregg would have made sure that the census workers didn’t use modern, scientific methods to achieve the most accurate enumeration possible.

  50. 50.

    NonWonderDog

    February 12, 2009 at 7:18 pm

    The idea that the commerce secretary is supposed to be some kind of check on the president is one of the stupider things you’ve said (all right, implied) on this blog, John. The census is part of the executive, so it really doesn’t fucking matter how many layers of bureaucracy lay between it and the president–especially if the president can fire the head of one of those layers at will.

    I actually kind of assumed Gregg was going to be brought in to dissolve the Commerce Department. There’s really nothing that they oversee other than the census that wouldn’t fit just as well in another department, and the census can stand on its own.

  51. 51.

    joe from Lowell

    February 12, 2009 at 7:22 pm

    Steve and Adrienne talk about this in terms of "the Democrats support this, the Republicans support that," but that isn’t the important distinction.

    The statisticians and professionals support the use of corrected numbers. It’s like global warming, or evolution: there is a right answer, that the researchers and professionals who know the most about the question overwhelmingly agree on.

  52. 52.

    The Grand Panjandrum

    February 12, 2009 at 7:23 pm

    I just heard some fat twelve sandwich eating loud mouth Republican say "strategist" that the Republicans want to "count every person" and the the Democrats want to guess at how many people live here. What a disingenuous ratfucker.

  53. 53.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    February 12, 2009 at 7:24 pm

    Maybe Gregg sought the Commerce job so he could control the census for Republicans and when he found out President Obama and aides were too smart to let him do that, he decided he didn’t want the job.

    I dunno and really don’t care either. Christ John, your wingnut-fu is strong. Did you ever say one goddamned thing about the Bush adminstration politicizing every fucking branch of gov’t while you were drinking the koolaid? Because those folks actually did a bunch of crazy extra-constitutional stuff for which there are still ongoing investigations, subpoenas and shit.

    Meanwhile, the Obama administration hasn’t actually done anything at all and you’re already pearl clutching.

    Edit: Shoot me now.

  54. 54.

    Rome Again

    February 12, 2009 at 7:29 pm

    Personally, I think the sins of the gerrymandering fathers of the GOP would have come out eventually and the GOP is scared of being found out. I think the GOP laid into Gregg to not be a part of it.

    I agree with TheFountainHead.

  55. 55.

    John Cole

    February 12, 2009 at 7:31 pm

    ATTN: Rocket Scientists

    I am aware that Commerce is part of the god damned executive branch. I’m asking what this move means, as I DON’T KNOW, AS I CLEARLY STATED IN THE POST.

    The idea that the commerce secretary is supposed to be some kind of check on the president is one of the stupider things you’ve said (all right, implied) on this blog, John.

    Care to tell me what else I have implied? For fuck’s sake. I asked a question, and asserted, quite accurately, I think, that if this had happened in the Bush administration you people would have freaked out. And, if you notice the comments here, some people actually took the time to explain what they were doing. How dare I?!oneeleven!

    Christ John, your wingnut-fu is strong. Did you ever say one goddamned thing about the Bush adminstration politicizing every fucking branch of gov’t while you were drinking the koolaid?

    Wouldn’t drinking the kool-aid kind of mean you WOULDN’T question this sort of thing? And I’m the stupid one here? And since I left them, wouldn’t that kind of mean that I did ask those questions, and then got turned off by the answers?

    Again, here is the question I asked:

    “can anyone explain why the census would be moved to control of the White House, and would not remain under control of Commerce where it normally is? I honestly don’t know, as there is just too much going on to pay attention to all of this stuff.

    Threatening and wingnutty stuff, there, amirite?

    Assholes.

  56. 56.

    Adrienne

    February 12, 2009 at 7:33 pm

    Steve and Adrienne talk about this in terms of "the Democrats support this, the Republicans support that," but that isn’t the important distinction.

    Ummm, this is POLITICS so it IS an important distinction. It is important to point out that it is DEMOCRATS who support doing it the way that statisticians and other experts believe will get us better numbers AND spend less money.

    This is one of those times where the facts have a liberal bias. But, John asked why it would be done, so we answered in the context of WHY it would be important. With a Republican at Commerce, given the partisan differences on the issue, you can’t leave politics out of the discussion.

  57. 57.

    mannemalon

    February 12, 2009 at 7:33 pm

    As I said in the previous thread about this: implausible scenario.

    The fundamental difference: no way would Bush/Cheney/Rove appointed a liberal Democrat to the Commerce position.

    There are some fundamental differences in how Democrats/Republicans view the census, and Republicans, similar to voters’ rights, take an extremely rigid, exclusionary approach, for electoral reasons.

    Ultimately, what it means is that you can’t really appoint politicians with strongly opposing economic philosophies to the Commerce position.

  58. 58.

    MeDrewNotYou

    February 12, 2009 at 7:34 pm

    Okay, I’m lost here. I have no idea how politics plays into counting heads.
    Could someone answer the following?

    1.) How is the census conducted now and how would having the WH in charge change it?

    2.) Why should I care? (If the answer to the first question doesn’t make it obvious.)

    3.) What does politics have to do with this? I can see where re-districting is a heated debate, but just the counting?

  59. 59.

    TheFountainHead

    February 12, 2009 at 7:35 pm

    Again, for fuck’s sake, here is the question I asked:

    Yeah, but we’re trying to figure out why you asked it since no one has ever suggested that that’s what Obama (or anyone else) wanted to do.

  60. 60.

    bvac

    February 12, 2009 at 7:35 pm

    The census is how Obama will finally activate his terrorist sleeper cells and complete the American Caliphate, or something.

    [Update: Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd.]

  61. 61.

    r€nato

    February 12, 2009 at 7:37 pm

    “How would you feel about President Hillary Clinton with this authority?”

    You know, I asked that question of Bush supporters numerous times over the past few years.

    I can’t recall a single thoughtful response. 100% of them, as far as I can remember, figured they could eat their cake and have it too.

  62. 62.

    John Cole

    February 12, 2009 at 7:37 pm

    Yeah, but we’re trying to figure out why you asked it since no one has ever suggested that that’s what Obama (or anyone else) wanted to do.

    ORLY? Remember, I read the wingnuts, I have heard them rumbling about it for days, so I was asking what exactly is going on. And for that the praetorian guard freaks out.

  63. 63.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    February 12, 2009 at 7:37 pm

    @John Cole: Yeah, now that the barn doors have been blown off and the horses kidnapped and raped, yer the fucking expert on farm security.

    I’m this close to throwing yer ungrateful ass out of the Democratic party.

  64. 64.

    Rome Again

    February 12, 2009 at 7:38 pm

    Question: so if Republicans want to count every person, does this mean gerrymandering doesn’t exist?

  65. 65.

    Stuck

    February 12, 2009 at 7:38 pm

    Assholes.

    The census on that is yea. Or, Assholes of a flock flock together. Flocking shame but not untrues/

  66. 66.

    amorphous

    February 12, 2009 at 7:38 pm

    Fox News has the villagers all in a tizzy. They start right off with the comedy.

    House Republican leaders said Thursday they’re ready to go to court against President Obama if he doesn’t scuttle his plan to move the census into the purview of the Oval Office, saying it’s an unconstitutional abuse of power.

    I’m not going to say anything. It’s too easy at this point. John could quit blogging and just link Fox News all day. They make it so easy. If only they didn’t represent about a third of the electorate, I’d have a good ol’ laugh.

    The

  67. 67.

    John Cole

    February 12, 2009 at 7:41 pm

    @amorphous: What is that, Amorphous? I was reliably informed that no one was asking about the census.

  68. 68.

    The Other Steve

    February 12, 2009 at 7:42 pm

    The Census has been involved in a multi-billion dollar boondoggle using PDAs to collect records or something. So there is obviously some need of closer oversight.

    That, and they probably didn’t want the census under the control of a Republican. :-)

  69. 69.

    Rome Again

    February 12, 2009 at 7:43 pm

    Care to tell me what else I have implied? For fuck’s sake. I asked a question, and asserted, quite accurately, I think, that if this had happened in the Bush administration you people would have freaked out. And, if you notice the comments here, some people actually took the time to explain what they were doing. How dare I?

    Not really. The Bushies did what they wanted anyway, even if Commerce was handling the census, (see Tom DeLay, Texas redistricting). It was already happening, nothing Bush would have done by putting the census directly under the WH would have changed it much.

  70. 70.

    The Other Steve

    February 12, 2009 at 7:43 pm

    The Republicans complaining about this leads me to believe they did something in the Census Dept they don’t want found out.

  71. 71.

    John Cole

    February 12, 2009 at 7:44 pm

    Look at this. Byron York NOT asking questions:

    Rep. Darrell Issa is not working from a position of strength. As the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Issa wants to exercise some, well, oversight when it comes to the Obama administration’s controversial decision to transfer control of the Census Bureau from professionals at the Commerce Department to political aides in the White House. But as a member of the minority party on Capitol Hill, Issa doesn’t have the power to compel the administration to do anything.

    Clearly, no one has suggested Obama is up to no good. I just imagined it all.

  72. 72.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    February 12, 2009 at 7:44 pm

    John, I’m just going to be brutally honest and put it out there: I don’t think our bromance is working.

  73. 73.

    J Royce

    February 12, 2009 at 7:45 pm

    Maybe Gregg sought the Commerce job so he could control the census for Republicans and when he found out President Obama and aides were too smart to let him do that, he decided he didn’t want the job.

    This is my take as well. Obama is making the traitors–oh, and they ARE traitors, make no mistake–quite upset. I think Gregg went to be a mole and found out he couldn’t, so he did his best to inflict maximum damage.

    As for John Cole, he is a dry winger who still hears the call but resists because he has enough of a mind to hate teh stoopid. Once in a while he reverts, ala his idiocy in joining in the staged downfall of Spitzer. That’s where I realized Cole is not really getting the big picture after all. Nice pet pics, though.

    America is already beyond screwed and the Right is ginning up for a real Civil War 2.0. It’s interesting to watch traitors in action. The tree of liberty they chopped down is going to fall on all of us, though, and I am enjoying the thought of flattened wingnut.

  74. 74.

    Rome Again

    February 12, 2009 at 7:45 pm

    @The Other Steve:

    Exactly!

  75. 75.

    Stuck

    February 12, 2009 at 7:48 pm

    @Rome Again:

    It’s actually a double dip of mischief that both parties over the years have taken full advantage. But there have been some gentlemens rules, like not redrawing maps in the middle of the decade when a particular state has a party change in their legislature. And we saw Rove/Delay and other states where wingnuts took over, redraw maps during the past 8 years, therefore breaking tradition. I would expect dems to return the favor, but we shall see. And also the whacked out overdrawing of districts, out did anything dems have ever done. Or having districts in states that have little or no geographic continuity.

    But the biggie for the actual census is the statistical models dems want to use to count folks who don’t or can’t report their existence and goopers not wanting that.

  76. 76.

    John Cole

    February 12, 2009 at 7:50 pm

    Cole is a dry winger, he still hears the call but resists because he has enough of a mind to hate teh stoopid. Once in a while he reverts, ala his idiocy in joining in the staged downfall of Spitzer. That’s where I realized Cole is not really getting the big picture after all.

    More like I know how they think, and I have seen this census thing bubbling up the last few days. Issa on Lou Dobbs was the tipping point for me, when I knew it would be an issue.

    If I really were a winger, I would have heard this stuff, and accused team Obama of doing something evil and awful. instead, I asked you all to explain what is going on, because i haven’t had the time to explore the issue. Some of you did, like Steve in comment #13:

    Generally speaking, Republicans believe in counting everyone the census takers can locate and leaving it at that. Democrats prefer to use “sampling” techniques so that the final numbers give a more accurate picture of groups that are systematically underrepresented by the usual techniques, such as minorities and the homeless. Of course if you’re a Republican you think this is just a big Democratic voter fraud plot, yadda yadda.

    Others decided this means I have displayed insufficient fealty to the Democratic cause. See Just Some Fuckhead, although he is probably just pissy about his losing ass Ravens getting owned three times in one season by my Steelers. I can understand that, considering they even broke Ben’s ribs in a late hit and lost anyway. I would be pissy if my team sucked that bad.

  77. 77.

    Stuck

    February 12, 2009 at 7:51 pm

    @John Cole:

    I don’t know who has been saying it’s to "political aides" in the WH, other than the assorted usual suspect wingnuts, though I might have just not seen it.

  78. 78.

    Thom

    February 12, 2009 at 7:52 pm

    @John Cole: Well, to be fair, you asked about rumblings but you then went along with it, by asking "What would us idjits do it Bush had done this?"

    I don’t think you’re parroting RW talking points, but I think the issue is RW nonsense. I had several back and forths with the NRO writer about this just now. Here’s what she said:

    The Census chain of command was changed to cut the secretary out of the loop and bring it within White House control. That’s a ridiculous move that would have gotten us murdered in the Bush admin.

    That appears to be flat out wrong. (Same link as before.)

  79. 79.

    JL

    February 12, 2009 at 7:53 pm

    When you watch Gregg’s interview, he is definitely hurting about having to withdraw. Gibb’s statement indicates that it was not Obama that forced him to withdraw. What do the repubs have on him?
    John, give up on the census stuff, please.

  80. 80.

    greg

    February 12, 2009 at 7:54 pm

    It’s an exaggeration to say it was being taken over by the White House – but there was no question about oversight.

    Democrats and Republicans have considerable differences of opinion over sampling methodology and most minorities feel that GOP methodology undercounts them, which matters since that’s how representation is scored. If memory serves, Gregg was one of the GOP cheerleaders against statistical sampling for the 2000 census, and his oversight of the census in an Obama administration would be as much a slap in the face to blacks and hispanics as Obama’s preacher problems were a slap in the face to gays.

  81. 81.

    kay

    February 12, 2009 at 7:54 pm

    It sounds like liberals v conservatives, voting rights v voter fraud.
    You can split a room right down the middle on voting. No common ground. It’s like we speak a different language. I had no idea there was a L/R rift over the census.

  82. 82.

    Arachnae

    February 12, 2009 at 7:55 pm

    The way I remember hearing it – IF a Republican were to take Commerce, THEN the census would be redacted from their control. That is, the move was contingent upon Gregg taking the position. More an appearance thing than for any other reason.

    And interestingly, if not allowed free rein over the Census, the Republican says ‘eh, then it’s not worth it’. Which kind of makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

  83. 83.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    February 12, 2009 at 7:55 pm

    @John Cole: Bitch, I hypothesized a damn good reason, one that J Royce agreed with, you’ll recall.

    And yes, I also provided a certain measure of irritability but it was in no way related to football.

  84. 84.

    JL

    February 12, 2009 at 7:57 pm

    Judd Gregg looked as though someone had his family hostage. Something is up and I don’t think it is from the Obama camp. Just watch the first minute of his speech.

  85. 85.

    Stuck

    February 12, 2009 at 7:57 pm

    @JL:

    To late for that I fear. The gauntlet has been thrown down for another patented Cole V Fuckhead pissing match over football or whatever.

  86. 86.

    Montysano

    February 12, 2009 at 7:59 pm

    The Census canard is just too easy; a quick Google and you know it’s bullshit. I think Sully is right

    This much is now clear. Their clear and open intent is to do all they can, however they can, to sabotage the new administration (and the economy to boot). They want failure. Even now. Even after the last eight years. Even in a recession as steeply dangerous as this one.

    :

    This is the begininning of the "Taliban-like insurgency". These fuckers had Congress for 14 of the last 16 years, and the White House for the last 8, and the reality of losing power has made them batshit insane. Add to that the fact that the President is an smartass black dude with a mean counterpunch.

    Bring it on?

  87. 87.

    demimondian

    February 12, 2009 at 7:59 pm

    @joe from Lowell, @demkat620: The constitutional employed term is "enumeration". (14th Amendment, clause 2.) There’s no question what that means.

    In this case, by the way, I’m work with one of the statisticians who was a part of the original lawsuit. The Constitutional language is unfortunate, but really inevitable.

  88. 88.

    kay

    February 12, 2009 at 8:00 pm

    If it’s important, the census, and they’re that far apart, then I go back to the question I had the day he was announced.

    Why him?

  89. 89.

    amorphous

    February 12, 2009 at 8:01 pm

    @Montysano: this

  90. 90.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    February 12, 2009 at 8:01 pm

    @Stuck: I’ve moved on. Daytona 500 this weekend, March Madness on the horizon. I’m comfortable with my favorite NFL team finishing in third place out of 32 teams with a rookie quarterback, rookie coach and a murderer on the rosteran old beat up defense.

  91. 91.

    Broken

    February 12, 2009 at 8:02 pm

    Sullivan thinks all the repubs want is total war. I don’t know, but they do seem to put a stick in the spokes at every opportunity.

    Obama just isn’t being bipartisan enough. Republicans have no choice but to entrench on the remotest of right-wing mountain tops.

  92. 92.

    Rome Again

    February 12, 2009 at 8:02 pm

    And we saw Rove/Delay and other states where wingnuts took over, redraw maps during the past 8 years, therefore breaking tradition. I would expect dems to return the favor, but we shall see. And also the whacked out overdrawing of districts, out did anything dems have ever done. Or having districts in states that have little or no geographic continuity.

    My take on this: gerrymandering is a problem that has been going on for ages, but, only in recent years do we have widespread availability of information via websites like fairvote.org.

    Republicans need any thread to stay alive that they can grasp, and if the sins of the gerrymandering of the last decade were to become common knowledge, they would lose seats and wake up in a dense jungle instead of the wilderness.

  93. 93.

    Martin

    February 12, 2009 at 8:02 pm

    BTW, this is another spitball the GOP is throwing to suggest that Obama is going to do some affirmative action move with the census. There’s nothing going on – the GOP is just setting the stage for Hannity and Beck to start screaming fresh anew about how white people need to wake up and see that they’re about to be repressed. Again.

    Don’t fall for it, John. This is like Kling’s stimulus == reparations bullshit, just more subtle.

  94. 94.

    Andre

    February 12, 2009 at 8:02 pm

    Maybe we could use cats to run the census, too?

  95. 95.

    Rome Again

    February 12, 2009 at 8:04 pm

    I do not have permission to edit my last post? Hmmmmm.

    You do not have permission to edit this comment – Close

    Wussup with that?

  96. 96.

    JL

    February 12, 2009 at 8:06 pm

    @Stuck: Nah, John is way to smart to get into that kind of pissing match. Maybe a Ray Lewis one (I live in Atlanta), but not who is holding Gregg’s family hostage. By the way, I do love you fuckhead, we just have a difference of opinion on Lewis.

  97. 97.

    Rome Again

    February 12, 2009 at 8:07 pm

    @Martin:

    So the GOP is projecting again? Makes sense.

  98. 98.

    Laura W

    February 12, 2009 at 8:08 pm

    @Stuck: Is there any room left on your bench for me? I’m packin’ a flask!

  99. 99.

    JL

    February 12, 2009 at 8:12 pm

    @Rome Again: Tomorrow Joe the Plumber will talk about Gregg’s assets and how Gregg could not in good conscience work for a socialist. I’m not sure whether or not Joe will sleep in a holiday inn express before he spews this bullshit but I guess it doesn’t matter, afterall IOKIYAR.

  100. 100.

    Thom

    February 12, 2009 at 8:13 pm

    Jeez. We all called it a canard.

    No respect, I tell ya.

  101. 101.

    MeDrewNotYou

    February 12, 2009 at 8:13 pm

    Let me make sure I’ve got this right. In the past, we sent out people to knock on doors and count heads. If you don’t answer, you don’t exist. This is bad for people who don’t trust the government for whatever reason. This method also undercounts people in large cities- traditional Dem strongholds.

    If the WH takes over the census, we’ll still count heads, but we’ll also use our best statistical methods to estimate those that we didn’t count. The use of these statistical methods is well established and supported by academics and professionals with experience in this sort of thing.

    Is this the case? And if so, I think joe from Lowell is dead-on with the Republican’s reason for opposing it: it uses evil science and counts people they’d rather not be counted.

  102. 102.

    LM

    February 12, 2009 at 8:13 pm

    The NYT put it well: "Mr. Gregg was never a friend of the census. As chairman of the Senate committee that oversees the Commerce Department’s budget, he frequently tried to cut the bureau’s financing. In 1999, he opposed emergency funds for the 2000 census requested by President Bill Clinton and the Republican-controlled House."
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/opinion/05thu3.html?ref=opinion
    Congressional apportionment depends on census results, and Dems and Reps have different views of who should be counted and how, as expressed in comments above. But this sums up why it would have been moved out of Commerce’s–i.e. Judd’s– purview:
    "The director of the Census Bureau will report directly to the White House and not the secretary of Commerce, according to a senior White House official.
    The decision came after black and Hispanic leaders raised questions about Commerce Secretary nominee Judd Gregg’s commitment to funding the census.
    Gregg, New Hampshire’s senior senator, voted in committee and on the floor for a 1995 Republican budget that envisioned the elimination of the Commerce Department. Of even more concern to black and Hispanic leaders, Gregg battled President Clinton over a request for “emergency” funding for the 2000 census."
    http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docid=news-000003024858

  103. 103.

    low-tech cyclist

    February 12, 2009 at 8:14 pm

    We’re less than 14 months from the next Census, and there is no mechanism set up to do sampling as a component of the count.

    Which means it ain’t gonna happen: Congress would need to appropriate money for the staff to plan it, the Census staff would need to plan it, and they’d need to get money appropriated to hire all the field staff to actually go out and do the sampling operation, and then they’d need to hire and train the field staff, and conduct the operation. No way all that’s happening in 13 months.

    Which means the question of sampling in the 2010 Census was effectively decided on Election Day, 2004, not by whether or not Judd Gregg was going to be Secretary of Commerce.

  104. 104.

    MeDrewNotYou

    February 12, 2009 at 8:17 pm

    @demimondian: Is there anything that supports your claim that ‘enumeration’ means door-to-door head counts, no statistical sampling?

    It isn’t that I doubt you, its that I’m a little lost in this whole debate. :)

  105. 105.

    Stuck

    February 12, 2009 at 8:19 pm

    @JL:

    Nah, John is way to smart to get into that kind of pissing match

    Maybe you missed the pilot earlier in the season. And don’t get me wrong, I enjoy pissing matches, especially the ones I’m not in. Then it’s just fun to sit on my bench and enjoy.

    And yes there’s room LauraW, just don’t bogart that flask.

  106. 106.

    TheFountainHead

    February 12, 2009 at 8:19 pm

    Remember, I read the wingnuts, I have heard them rumbling about it for days, so I was asking what exactly is going on.

    I rest my case?

    Or, rather, I should have been more clear. No one with two ounces of legitimacy is actually accusing the Obama administration of playing fast and loose with the Census. This is about as legitimate as the question regarding Obama’s citizenship.

  107. 107.

    Fencedude

    February 12, 2009 at 8:19 pm

    Judd Gregg looked as though someone had his family hostage. Something is up and I don’t think it is from the Obama camp. Just watch the first minute of his speech.

    North Hollow Files.

    If you follow my drift (and have read the books in question…)

  108. 108.

    JL

    February 12, 2009 at 8:20 pm

    I’m caught in the moderation trap and I can not figure out why. I did not say the sh*e word but I did say the social*st word. I also said bu*lsh*t and I said Joe the ******** and it’s okay if you are a repub. wtf

  109. 109.

    TheFountainHead

    February 12, 2009 at 8:20 pm

    @low-tech cyclist: All absolutely true, also.

  110. 110.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    February 12, 2009 at 8:22 pm

    John, I think the real problem here is yer watching that fat racist sack of shit Dobbs. Garbage in, garbage out.

  111. 111.

    KG

    February 12, 2009 at 8:22 pm

    I really hate all the bullshit that goes into the census. Count the number of people in each State and figure out how many representatives the States get in the House.

    That’s all that needs to be done. All the other data is a waste of time and resources, as far as I’m concerned. And most all of it can be collected from other sources, anyway.

    Also, on a slightly related rant: why do people tolerate the unconstitutional limit of 435 members of the House, other than ignorance? Why should some States lose representatives because they haven’t grown as fast as other States?

    (And yes, I know I capitalized "States" though out, that’s the way it’s suppose to be done).

  112. 112.

    JL

    February 12, 2009 at 8:22 pm

    @JL: fyi If I ever come out of moderation, my comment is at 99. I would just like some advice about what was the magic word that sent me to purgatory.

  113. 113.

    JL

    February 12, 2009 at 8:24 pm

    @KG: One party would prefer not to count everyone.

  114. 114.

    John Cole

    February 12, 2009 at 8:25 pm

    @Thom: Cripes. Why the ruckus here folks? All I said was Canadian beer sucks.

  115. 115.

    TheFountainHead

    February 12, 2009 at 8:26 pm

    @JL: You had c i a l i s in your post.

  116. 116.

    Stuck

    February 12, 2009 at 8:26 pm

    @JL:

    Happens to me all the time. Just one of those things you have to accept not knowing. though I did run an experiment here the other day. The results were that "penis enhancement" is a go for moderation. So don’t use those words fer sure.

  117. 117.

    Stuck

    February 12, 2009 at 8:27 pm

    And I’m so dumb as to expect it to go thru this time.

    Knucklehead Stuck

    **this will make sense a little later

  118. 118.

    Dr. Rockso

    February 12, 2009 at 8:27 pm

    In a statement announcing his withdrawal, Gregg cited the administration’s Census decision as one of two “irresolvable conflicts for me” that he said were not adequately discussed before he accepted Obama’s nomination. “We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy,” Gregg said. Later during a news conference with reporters, Gregg said “The Census was only a slight catalyzing issue. It was not a major issue.”

    What was the major issue?

  119. 119.

    KG

    February 12, 2009 at 8:27 pm

    @ JL: I understand that, and it annoys the hell out of me (especially since I am, marginally, a member of that party). My question is, though, does sampling affect the final tally or just the percentages thereof?

  120. 120.

    gnomedad

    February 12, 2009 at 8:28 pm

    As I’ve said before, I’m somewhat defensive of the "messiah" meme, but I just can’t get excited when there is some suggestion the Obama has done something sleazy or stupid. I just wait for the rest of the story to surface. Which is not to say he’s a saint; he’s just too smart for this stuff.

  121. 121.

    gnomedad

    February 12, 2009 at 8:30 pm

    @John Cole:

    All I said was Canadian beer sucks.

    It’s the mice.

  122. 122.

    Comrade Jake

    February 12, 2009 at 8:33 pm

    FWIW, Ambers and Sully have a pretty good discussion up on all this nonsense.

  123. 123.

    amorphous

    February 12, 2009 at 8:34 pm

    @TheFountainHead:

    No one with two ounces of legitimacy is actually accusing the Obama administration of playing fast and loose with the Census.

    Yet. Then the traditional media let’s the Drudge effect kick in as the wingnuts dictate the news cycle, this shit spreads like fucking Panama disease, and it’s everywhere because – as we all know – reporters are too fucking lazy to fact check and too fucking eager to get caught up in the Outrage o’ the Day mindset. Obviously, you could argue that these people still would be without legitimacy, I’ve watched CNN before, but too many people don’t do the legwork to separate facts from reporting.

    And to all of you calling statistics "science": Fuck off. It’s not even real mathematics.

    Sincerely,
    A scientist

  124. 124.

    demkat620

    February 12, 2009 at 8:35 pm

    @demimondian: Yes, you are right on enumeration.
    I really think the argument is how and who.
    In 2000 we were told, if they are here and alive on April 1st, they are counted.
    The Bureau didn’t care about citizenship. This is controversial. But that is not the only sticking point.
    College students were another. Where do you count them?
    Their parents wanted them counted at home, the college towns at the college. In 2000 it was at the college. This affects the house districts.
    Then you have all the transient populations and these are not just limited to the homeless.

  125. 125.

    Thom

    February 12, 2009 at 8:35 pm

    @gnomedad: It’s the moose. In the hoose, you understand.

  126. 126.

    Incertus

    February 12, 2009 at 8:35 pm

    @demimondian:

    The constitutional employed term is "enumeration". (14th Amendment, clause 2.) There’s no question what that means.

    Are you sure your citation is correct? Because the version I’m saying reads thusly:

    2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

    Nothing about enumeration in there, though it did amend Section 2 of Article 2, which does mention enumeration. And now I get to be pedantic–another defintion of enumerate is "to determine the number of," which doesn’t necessarily mean the same as "count one by one." One might successfully argue that using sampling methods is a more accurate way of enumerating than actually counting, given the inevitable errors that come with a person by person count. In other words, what "enumerate" means is very much at question here, and if one subscribes to almost any theory other than the ludicrous one known as original intent, I think that the samplers have quite a case.

  127. 127.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    February 12, 2009 at 8:36 pm

    @Dr. Rockso: Five prayers a day?

  128. 128.

    Bostondreams

    February 12, 2009 at 8:37 pm

    Not sure if anyone else mentioned this, but Rush Limbaugh has finally demonstrated that he does not care about anything but power; American principles are meaningless. This is what he said on the air:

    The left — you people, you Democrats — you are creating a monster that you will not be able to control forever [just as, I interject, George W. Bush did, which now the Democrats are exploiting]. You will ultimately regret what you are doing just like the media will ultimately regret its sacrifice of reason, its abandonment of its primary purpose. The day is coming when the media will actually investigate a Democrat and find some problems and nobody’s going to believe them because they’ve lost all credibility. . . . We are taking names. We are taking names now. We are monitoring who on the left is going to deserve payback, and it’s going to be hell. This much I promise you. This is just getting out of hand.

    We’re gonna come after the left’s favorite corporations. We’re going to come after your favorite political constituents. We’re going to come after your favorite media outlets. You want to try the Fairness Doctrine? Fine. We’ll impose it on network television. We’ll impose it on newspapers. You want to try censorship? Fine! We will censor you when we get the control of the government back. We will reapportion districts using the Census to help conservatives. We’re going to turn the power of government against the Democrats and the left and weaken and you break you into little pieces. Because, my friends, the day has passed when we can become passive and be passive about what they are doing. We will use the political and the legal system as they have and are, and we will use it to promote our party and to diminish theirs. We will use the power of government and legal system to promote our movement and our agenda, just as they are.

    (h/t: Stooksbury and Tennant)

    When will Red State attack him for such an obvious display of fascist sentiment? Incredible. How is this guy a ‘leader’?

  129. 129.

    deadrody

    February 12, 2009 at 8:37 pm

    Wow. Two things. First, gerrymandering to stack congressional districts to favor Democrats. Imagine that.

    Second, you link Andrew Sullivan as a credible source of anything ?

    Amazing conclusion to an actual thought provoking question.

  130. 130.

    amorphous

    February 12, 2009 at 8:37 pm

    @Comrade Jake: Do all bloggers sound like Muppets? Big Media Matt, Insanepundit, Malkin actually sounds like Beaker…

    John, record your voice and upload it. I NEED to know.

  131. 131.

    JL

    February 12, 2009 at 8:37 pm

    @KG: There are concerns that it could redraw the lines. IMO, count everyone to the best of one’s ability.
    Gregg said that the census was not the reason he withdrew his nomination.

  132. 132.

    Rome Again

    February 12, 2009 at 8:37 pm

    To get past the "See-Alice" problem, just spell it "soshulist" or "soshulism" – phonix makes the problem go away. ;)

  133. 133.

    Comrade Jake

    February 12, 2009 at 8:39 pm

    @Dr. Rockso:

    What was the major issue?

    In reviewing his documents for the confirmation hearings, Gregg discovered he was an asshole a Republican.

  134. 134.

    JL

    February 12, 2009 at 8:39 pm

    Although at this point in time, I would not mind if the House were 100% Dem, realistically what would a few house seats do?

  135. 135.

    ThymeZoneThePlumber

    February 12, 2009 at 8:40 pm

    OMFG, did you all just hear Barack make that joke about the Commerce secretary thing?

    How in the world did we get so lucky? This guy is once in a lifetime.

  136. 136.

    Incertus

    February 12, 2009 at 8:41 pm

    @JL: Potentially consign Republicans to an even smaller proportion in the House. Of course, given the Democratic party’s predilection for foot-shooting, I wouldn’t be surprised to see it backfire on us.

  137. 137.

    Comrade Jake

    February 12, 2009 at 8:42 pm

    @ThymeZoneThePlumber:

    What did he say?

  138. 138.

    Xecklothxayyquou Gilchrist

    February 12, 2009 at 8:43 pm

    @Bostondreams: We will use the power of government and legal system to promote our movement and our agenda, just as they are.

    Damn, that is a good solid fascist rant.

    Pity you had the absolute power and pissed it away, Rushbo! You likely will have heart-attacked out or OD’ed by the next time the Pubbies are in charge of everything – even if that happens in 2012.

  139. 139.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    February 12, 2009 at 8:46 pm

    @JL: Are you insane? Can you imagine the gridlock if the House was 100% Democratic?

  140. 140.

    John Cole

    February 12, 2009 at 8:46 pm

    @amorphous: Someone tell me how to convert an audacity file to something useful and I will upload one.

  141. 141.

    TheFountainHead

    February 12, 2009 at 8:47 pm

    @deadrody: Huh?

  142. 142.

    Dr. Rockso

    February 12, 2009 at 8:48 pm

    So, no one knows why he got pasturized?

    So, Juicers- why move the census to White House control? And how would you feel if the Bush administration had done this?

    (a) Because Gregg is a Republican and would likely have a difference of opinion about the methodology of the census, but reports to a Democratic President (2) I would have shit a pink twinkie, personally. Except that Bush would have just appointed a absurdly partisan guy specifically for the census for Secretary o’ Commerce.

  143. 143.

    ThymeZoneThePlumber

    February 12, 2009 at 8:48 pm

    @Comrade Jake:

    I missed the exact lead-in, he quoted Lincoln’s response to some favor-seeker who claimed that he had helped make Lincoln president; Lincoln replied, well, this is a fine mess you have gotten me into, but I forgive you. Then he went on and was cracking wise about how being president was daunting, and …. some guy might call you up and want to be Commerce secretary. The crowd roared, and Obama could barely keep from roaring with laughter himself.

    The man is clearly just better than his adversaries. That’s why I don’t worry when trouble comes his way.

  144. 144.

    Shawn in ShowMe

    February 12, 2009 at 8:49 pm

    We will censor you when we get the control of the government back. We will reapportion districts using the Census to help conservatives. We’re going to turn the power of government against the Democrats and the left and weaken and you break you into little pieces. Because, my friends, the day has passed when we can become passive and be passive about what they are doing. We will use the political and the legal system as they have and are, and we will use it to promote our party and to diminish theirs. We will use the power of government and legal system to promote our movement and our agenda, just as they are.

    Geez, the Grand Ol’ Pricks have been doing this since 1994. Truly the ramblings of a drug-addled mind.

  145. 145.

    JL

    February 12, 2009 at 8:51 pm

    @Just Some Fuckhead: In a good way

  146. 146.

    Rome Again

    February 12, 2009 at 8:55 pm

    @ThymeZoneThePlumber:

    Aren’t you glad I turned you on to him now? ;)

  147. 147.

    amorphous

    February 12, 2009 at 8:58 pm

    @John Cole: SOMEONE HELP THE MAN! I HAVE TO KNOW IF HE SOUNDS LIKE GROVER!

    This is near! This is the faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar right!

    Edit: There’s a link in the ALL CAPS BUT I FORGOT THAT WHEN YOU WHEN YOU UNLEASH THE FUCKING FURY YOU LOSE THE BLUE HIGHLIGHTING. CLEARLY, I AM NOT PRO ENOUGH FOR CAPS LOCK.

  148. 148.

    JL

    February 12, 2009 at 9:00 pm

    The repubs obviously have something on Gregg, probably Abramoff, cause why would he praise Obama, while Obama dissed him.

  149. 149.

    shawn214

    February 12, 2009 at 9:00 pm

    @John Cole:

    Unibroue makes some great beers.

  150. 150.

    ThymeZoneThePlumber

    February 12, 2009 at 9:01 pm

    @Rome Again: tyvm

  151. 151.

    amorphous

    February 12, 2009 at 9:01 pm

    @Just Some Fuckhead: Who would they back down to?

  152. 152.

    Francis

    February 12, 2009 at 9:02 pm

    when in doubt, look it up. Try "Department of Commerce v. US House of Representatives", [Findlaw doesn’t have the legal citation numbers, but it’s case no. 98-404, decided in 1999].

    According to the Supremes, Commerce may not use statistical sampling for the purposes of Congressional appointment, because the Constitution requires an "actual enumeration".

    So, the method by which Commerce will actually send out census-takers to count heads is going to be absolutely critical.

    Just mail? Mail plus telephone? Mail plus telephone plus door-knocking? Should resources be dedicated to Texas, NY or Illinois? Rural or city? Multi-lingual or English-speaking only? What about counting illegal immigrants?

    The Secretary of Commerce will have a great deal of discretion in overseeing that process. That’s my belief as to why Obama wanted to keep control of the census away from Gregg, and that’s the reason that Gregg ultimately walked.

    (yes, i’m a lawyer. no this isn’t legal advice. I haven’t looked up how the law changed after the case and I don’t plan on doing so. Do your own damn research.)

  153. 153.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    February 12, 2009 at 9:07 pm

    @amorphous: Themselves. Imagine the carnage when half the House bows in the defeat to the other half who already threw in the towel.

  154. 154.

    Rome Again

    February 12, 2009 at 9:09 pm

    Just mail? Mail plus telephone? Mail plus telephone plus door-knocking? Should resources be dedicated to Texas, NY or Illinois? Rural or city? Multi-lingual or English-speaking only? What about counting illegal immigrants?

    That’s the problem. Repubs don’t want all American heads counted either. Neither party’s counting tactics satisfy the true result. Personally I don’t think illegal immigrants should be counted, but all others should be. It is my hope that while Obama wants to be considered a non-partisan that he will insist on counting all legal American’s heads.

  155. 155.

    MeDrewNotYou

    February 12, 2009 at 9:09 pm

    @Francis: Thanks! That pretty much answered my questions. If you were standing next to me, I’d buy you a shot. :)

  156. 156.

    Rome Again

    February 12, 2009 at 9:10 pm

    @ThymeZoneThePlumber:

    ywvm ;)

    Is it as good for you as it is for me? :p

  157. 157.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    February 12, 2009 at 9:12 pm

    Don’t come a-knockin’ when the thread is a-rockin’.

  158. 158.

    Shawn in ShowMe

    February 12, 2009 at 9:13 pm

    Early mention of Abramoff

    A day after Gregg’s nomination had been announced, the AP reported that a former staffer was under criminal investigation for allegedly taking baseball and hockey tickets from a lobbyist in exchange for legislative favors while working for Gregg.

    The former staffer, Kevin Koonce, has been identified in court papers only as "Staffer F" in the sprawling corruption probe stemming from disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.Gregg said at the time that he had been told he was neither a subject nor target of the investigation, and would cooperate fully.

    Maybe Koonce ratted out Gregg?

  159. 159.

    amorphous

    February 12, 2009 at 9:14 pm

    @Just Some Fuckhead: I lol’d… then I cringed… then I cried.

  160. 160.

    Church Lady

    February 12, 2009 at 9:23 pm

    @#101 – First they mail out a census form to every address. Only if the completed form is not returned in the proscribed time does a census worker show up at your door.
    If you are home, you answer the questions and are counted. If not, I have no idea what happens.

  161. 161.

    Laura W

    February 12, 2009 at 9:32 pm

    @Just Some Fuckhead: Damn you. I have to change my bed sheets now.
    Edit: I mean ‘cuz I wet them, of course. Sheesh.

  162. 162.

    MeDrewNotYou

    February 12, 2009 at 9:38 pm

    @Church Lady: Thanks. This’ll be my first census where I actually get to participate, so everything is so shiny and new!

    And somewhat confusing. :o

  163. 163.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    February 12, 2009 at 9:42 pm

    @Laura W: lolz

  164. 164.

    Laura W

    February 12, 2009 at 9:45 pm

    @Just Some Fuckhead: Speaking of rocking threads…you need a suit like this.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF7f4SSV6ms

  165. 165.

    Francis

    February 12, 2009 at 9:52 pm

    [in case anyone’s still reading this thread, please substitute “apportionment” for “appointment” in my post @152. duh.]

  166. 166.

    AnneLaurie

    February 12, 2009 at 9:53 pm

    America is already beyond screwed and the Right is ginning up for a real Civil War 2.0. It’s interesting to watch traitors in action. The tree of liberty they chopped down is going to fall on all of us, though, and I am enjoying the thought of flattened wingnut.

    Think J. Royce has the gist of it, although I would enjoy it more if only that tree were not about to land on a lot of people who *didn’t* cheer on the axmen. This is looking to be one of those years when the most optimistic thing I can say will be "I’m glad I never had kids."

    I’m also starting to believe the meme that the skeletons in Gregg’s political closet started rattling. The man’s got enough of his own money that he doesn’t need a government pension, but the NH Rethuglicans have been outa-control-crazy since Sununu the First was flying to stamp conventions on Air Force One during the original Bush dynasty. From push-polling to robo-calling to plain vote theft, if it’s politically illegitimate it’s been stress-tested in the Granite State. And, since there’s no in-state political funding to speak of, all the serious dirty money to finance these shenanigans has had to have come from out of state… which means federal investigations… hmm, is the Commerce Department still in charge of that "interstate commerce" RICO stuff?

  167. 167.

    BP in MN

    February 12, 2009 at 9:54 pm

    @Rome Again:

    While I think all people should be counted based on principle, I think there’s a much bigger practical argument that trying to use the Census to determine citizenship and legal residency would result in much less accurate results. If the Census forms and Census-takers are asking about citizenship, I think even many legal immigrants would be disinclined to answer. And since it’s self-reported anyway, I don’t know how you could get an accurate measure of who is and isn’t a citizen or legal immigrant.

  168. 168.

    Just Some Fuckhead

    February 12, 2009 at 10:10 pm

    @Laura W: I really dig the suit and turtleneck. But how would it look with my 80s hair?

  169. 169.

    Laura W

    February 12, 2009 at 10:25 pm

    @Just Some Fuckhead: Sorry, had to listen to that whole song and then a Hall and Oates that was about $10 in production costs, tops.

    Something has really thrown me off my link war game tonight, Fuckhead, so I’ll leave you with this. Because I love it.

  170. 170.

    Conservatively Liberal

    February 12, 2009 at 10:53 pm

    Easy. Amend the Constitution to count white people racist rednecks as 3/5 of a person.

    /ducks and runs

    Fixed.

    So, Juicers- why move the census to White House control? And how would you feel if the Bush administration had done this?

    If it had been announced at the start of Bush’s first term? I would have wondered why he was doing it and I would have kept an eye (and ear) out for problems. If it had come later, after it was clear that Bush couldn’t be trusted to wipe his own ass, then I would have been bitching about it. So I will handle this the same way.

    With what Thom added here about it, it sounds like much ado about nothing which is SOP for the Mighty Rushublican Wurlitzer of Perpetual Outrage.

    Speaking of that, El Rushbo (from above):

    "We’re gonna come after the left’s favorite corporations." Already done.
    "We’re going to come after your favorite political constituents." Already done.
    "We’re going to come after your favorite media outlets." Already done.
    "You want to try the Fairness Doctrine? Fine. We’ll impose it on network television. We’ll impose it on newspapers." Imaginary issue.
    "You want to try censorship? Fine! We will censor you when we get the control of the government back." Already done.
    "We will reapportion districts using the Census to help conservatives." Already done.
    "We’re going to turn the power of government against the Democrats and the left and weaken and you break you into little pieces." Already done.
    "Because, my friends, the day has passed when we can become passive and be passive about what they are doing." Hot air.
    "We will use the political and the legal system as they have and are, and we will use it to promote our party and to diminish theirs." Already done.
    "We will use the power of government and legal system to promote our movement and our agenda, just as they are." Already done.

    The only thing that has changed is that he is now openly voicing what they have been doing. IOW:

    We have been censoring you while we had control of the government. We have been reapportioning districts using the Census to help conservatives. We’re have been turning the power of government against the Democrats and the left in an attempt to weaken and break them into little pieces. Because, my hated enemies, we are the party of the rich and powerful and that allows us to control the media. We have been using the political and the legal system to promote our party and to diminish theirs. We have been using the power of government and legal system to promote our movement and our agenda, and will continue to do so.

     
    WOLVERINES!

    Fixed.

  171. 171.

    joe from Lowell

    February 12, 2009 at 11:13 pm

    demimondian,

    The constitutional employed term is "enumeration". (14th Amendment, clause 2.) There’s no question what that means.

    Yeah, crystal clear: if you miss people, you haven’t enumerated them.

    Don’t give me this "absolutely clear" stuff. The Renquist Court voted on exactly the same party lines, 5-4, that the did in Bush v. Gore. Doesn’t sound terribly clear to me.

    I think it’s beyond implausible to claim that the Constitution doesn’t require the most accurate census possible.

  172. 172.

    joe from Lowell

    February 12, 2009 at 11:22 pm

    Ooh, nice use of "Wolverines."

  173. 173.

    Conservatively Liberal

    February 13, 2009 at 1:14 am

    @joe from Lowell:

    I ‘fixed’ it, posted it and realized that Rush forgot to sign off with his rebel ‘without a clue’ yell.

    He has to keep the troops spirits up. Ubetcha, also.

  174. 174.

    Steeplejack

    February 13, 2009 at 1:50 am

    @Thom:

    The last three paragraphs of my last comment should be in blockquote. I don’t know what happened.

    Because it’s late and I have nothing better to do than read this blog . . .

    Here’s what you want (braces substituted for angle brackets so as not to trigger formatting):

    {blockquote}{p}First quoted paragraph.{/p}

    {p}Second quoted paragraph.{/p}

    {p}Third quoted paragraph (or as many as you want).{/p}{/blockquote}

    {p}Your scintillating commentary here.{/p}

    I put paragraph codes–{p} and {/p}, but with angle brackets–around all my paragraphs to be on the safe side. It seems to help with the line spacing. And in a block quote it prevents the text from being displayed in bold. But I have that OCD techno-weenie thing going on.

  175. 175.

    Steve

    February 13, 2009 at 2:31 am

    Francis may be a lawyer, but he is mistaken about what that case says. The Supremes did not say that the use of statistical sampling violates the Constitution; they said it violates the Census Act, which is only a statute. In other words, sampling is illegal under the law as it exists today, but Congress can change the statute if it likes. The Supreme Court expressly declined to delve into the constitutional issue, so who knows what they would say.

  176. 176.

    Conservatively Liberal

    February 13, 2009 at 2:37 am

    @Steeplejack:

    That is what you do to turn off bolding in a blockquote. To use more than one paragraph in a blockquote, be sure to put three dots/periods (ellipses) on each blank line between the paragraphs, or put:

    & nbsp;

    but remove the space between the ‘&’ and the ‘n’ to enable it. The blockquote treats a blank line as the end of the blockquote, regardless of where you have the closing tag. Put something on that line that is invisible and then blockquote will ‘tie’ them all together as one.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

2023 Pet Calendars

Pet Calendar Preview: A
Pet Calendar Preview: B

*Calendars can not be ordered until Cafe Press gets their calendar paper in.

Recent Comments

  • trnc on Thursday Evening Open Thread: Rock’n’Roll’n’Fame (Feb 2, 2023 @ 11:00pm)
  • Toocananj on Not-So-Useful Idiot Abroad (Feb 2, 2023 @ 10:58pm)
  • different-church-lady on Calling Out the Hypocrisy Open Thread (Feb 2, 2023 @ 10:54pm)
  • Leslie on Calling Out the Hypocrisy Open Thread (Feb 2, 2023 @ 10:50pm)
  • Chetan Murthy on In A World Full of Garbage People (Feb 2, 2023 @ 10:50pm)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Favorite Dogs & Cats
Classified Documents: A Primer

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup

Front-pager Twitter

John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
ActualCitizensUnited

Shop Amazon via this link to support Balloon Juice   

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!