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.
Rhoda
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).
DougJ
He’s not running again.
There’s no way this is the census.
Zzyzx
I have no clue why it was moved and – to use a term I hate – the optics look horrid.
Shygetz
I’m again’ it.
JR
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.
DougJ
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.
John Cole
@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.
Doug
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.
Bubblegum Tate
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]
TenguPhule
Any Democratic Executive who let a Fucking Republican control the Census is Too Stupid to Live.
Thom
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.)
Thom
You’re getting had, perhaps:
Steve
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.
gopher2b
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).
MikeJ
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.
justcorbly
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.
Zach
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).
Thom
Oh, too much. From the same article I linked before:
."
Frank
The last time I looked, the Dept. of Commerce was part of the executive branch.
I smell smokescreen.
Josh Hueco
Easy. Amend the Constitution to count white people as 3/5 of a person.
/ducks and runs
Adrienne
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.
Mr Furious
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.
gopher2b
@gopher2b:
that being said, Gregg has handled this one like a complete assfuck
Mr Furious
What Frank said.
Thom
@Thom:
The last three paragraphs of my last comment should be in blockquote. I don’t know what happened.
Laertes
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.
Brien Jackson
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?
Broken
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!
demimondian
@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.
DougJ
@Broken
You’re going to argue with a Congressional legend like Darrell Issa?
Fuck you, shrill libtard.
Zach
@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.
Stuck
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.
Xecklothxayyquou Gilchrist
Census?
I think the Republicans are calling it the Porkus these days.
Joshua Norton
You mean after ChimpCo privatized it and farmed it out Haliburton on a no-bid contract?
phil
The President can control the census all the same if it’s left in the Commerce Department.
demkat620
@TenguPhule: And jobs. The census hires alot of people.
John PM
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?
whinger
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.
demkat620
@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.
jake 4 that 1
If you consider the high levels of pooch screwing (complete with multi-million dollar equipment fail) that went on over there and this:
is true. I’d say it’s a good thing to have an extra layer of accountability.
Jim
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.
mak
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.
Adrienne
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.
The Grand Panjandrum
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?
Steve
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.
The Populist
Gregg is pro-stimulus so that can’t be it.
amorphous
And all this time I thought it was "doing what they fucking want to whenever." Now I realize that was reading acronyms fail.
TheFountainHead
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.
joe from Lowell
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.
NonWonderDog
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.
joe from Lowell
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.
The Grand Panjandrum
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.
Just Some Fuckhead
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.
Rome Again
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.
John Cole
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.
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!
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:
Threatening and wingnutty stuff, there, amirite?
Assholes.
Adrienne
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.
mannemalon
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.
MeDrewNotYou
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?
TheFountainHead
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.
bvac
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.]
r€nato
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.
John Cole
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.
Just Some Fuckhead
@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.
Rome Again
Question: so if Republicans want to count every person, does this mean gerrymandering doesn’t exist?
Stuck
The census on that is yea. Or, Assholes of a flock flock together. Flocking shame but not untrues/
amorphous
Fox News has the villagers all in a tizzy. They start right off with the comedy.
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
John Cole
@amorphous: What is that, Amorphous? I was reliably informed that no one was asking about the census.
The Other Steve
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. :-)
Rome Again
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.
The Other Steve
The Republicans complaining about this leads me to believe they did something in the Census Dept they don’t want found out.
John Cole
Look at this. Byron York NOT asking questions:
Clearly, no one has suggested Obama is up to no good. I just imagined it all.
Just Some Fuckhead
John, I’m just going to be brutally honest and put it out there: I don’t think our bromance is working.
J Royce
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.
Rome Again
@The Other Steve:
Exactly!
Stuck
@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.
John Cole
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:
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.
Stuck
@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.
Thom
@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:
That appears to be flat out wrong. (Same link as before.)
JL
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.
greg
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.
kay
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.
Arachnae
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?
Just Some Fuckhead
@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.
JL
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.
Stuck
@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.
Montysano
The Census canard is just too easy; a quick Google and you know it’s bullshit. I think Sully is right
:
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?
demimondian
@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.
kay
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?
amorphous
@Montysano: this
Just Some Fuckhead
@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.Broken
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.
Rome Again
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.
Martin
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.
Andre
Maybe we could use cats to run the census, too?
Rome Again
I do not have permission to edit my last post? Hmmmmm.
Wussup with that?
JL
@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.
Rome Again
@Martin:
So the GOP is projecting again? Makes sense.
Laura W
@Stuck: Is there any room left on your bench for me? I’m packin’ a flask!
JL
@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.
Thom
Jeez. We all called it a canard.
No respect, I tell ya.
MeDrewNotYou
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.
LM
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
low-tech cyclist
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.
MeDrewNotYou
@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. :)
Stuck
@JL:
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.
TheFountainHead
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.
Fencedude
North Hollow Files.
If you follow my drift (and have read the books in question…)
JL
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
TheFountainHead
@low-tech cyclist: All absolutely true, also.
Just Some Fuckhead
John, I think the real problem here is yer watching that fat racist sack of shit Dobbs. Garbage in, garbage out.
KG
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).
JL
@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.
JL
@KG: One party would prefer not to count everyone.
John Cole
@Thom: Cripes. Why the ruckus here folks? All I said was Canadian beer sucks.
TheFountainHead
@JL: You had c i a l i s in your post.
Stuck
@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.
Stuck
And I’m so dumb as to expect it to go thru this time.
Knucklehead Stuck
**this will make sense a little later
Dr. Rockso
What was the major issue?
KG
@ 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?
gnomedad
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.
gnomedad
@John Cole:
It’s the mice.
Comrade Jake
FWIW, Ambers and Sully have a pretty good discussion up on all this nonsense.
amorphous
@TheFountainHead:
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
demkat620
@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.
Thom
@gnomedad: It’s the moose. In the hoose, you understand.
Incertus
@demimondian:
Are you sure your citation is correct? Because the version I’m saying reads thusly:
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.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Dr. Rockso: Five prayers a day?
Bostondreams
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:
(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’?
deadrody
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.
amorphous
@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.
JL
@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.
Rome Again
To get past the "See-Alice" problem, just spell it "soshulist" or "soshulism" – phonix makes the problem go away. ;)
Comrade Jake
@Dr. Rockso:
In reviewing his documents for the confirmation hearings, Gregg discovered he was
an assholea Republican.JL
Although at this point in time, I would not mind if the House were 100% Dem, realistically what would a few house seats do?
ThymeZoneThePlumber
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.
Incertus
@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.
Comrade Jake
@ThymeZoneThePlumber:
What did he say?
Xecklothxayyquou Gilchrist
@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.
Just Some Fuckhead
@JL: Are you insane? Can you imagine the gridlock if the House was 100% Democratic?
John Cole
@amorphous: Someone tell me how to convert an audacity file to something useful and I will upload one.
TheFountainHead
@deadrody: Huh?
Dr. Rockso
So, no one knows why he got pasturized?
(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.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
@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.
Shawn in ShowMe
Geez, the Grand Ol’ Pricks have been doing this since 1994. Truly the ramblings of a drug-addled mind.
JL
@Just Some Fuckhead: In a good way
Rome Again
@ThymeZoneThePlumber:
Aren’t you glad I turned you on to him now? ;)
amorphous
@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.
JL
The repubs obviously have something on Gregg, probably Abramoff, cause why would he praise Obama, while Obama dissed him.
shawn214
@John Cole:
Unibroue makes some great beers.
ThymeZoneThePlumber
@Rome Again: tyvm
amorphous
@Just Some Fuckhead: Who would they back down to?
Francis
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.)
Just Some Fuckhead
@amorphous: Themselves. Imagine the carnage when half the House bows in the defeat to the other half who already threw in the towel.
Rome Again
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.
MeDrewNotYou
@Francis: Thanks! That pretty much answered my questions. If you were standing next to me, I’d buy you a shot. :)
Rome Again
@ThymeZoneThePlumber:
ywvm ;)
Is it as good for you as it is for me? :p
Just Some Fuckhead
Don’t come a-knockin’ when the thread is a-rockin’.
Shawn in ShowMe
Early mention of Abramoff
Maybe Koonce ratted out Gregg?
amorphous
@Just Some Fuckhead: I lol’d… then I cringed… then I cried.
Church Lady
@#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.
Laura W
@Just Some Fuckhead: Damn you. I have to change my bed sheets now.
Edit: I mean ‘cuz I wet them, of course. Sheesh.
MeDrewNotYou
@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
Just Some Fuckhead
@Laura W: lolz
Laura W
@Just Some Fuckhead: Speaking of rocking threads…you need a suit like this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF7f4SSV6ms
Francis
[in case anyone’s still reading this thread, please substitute “apportionment” for “appointment” in my post @152. duh.]
AnneLaurie
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?
BP in MN
@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.
Just Some Fuckhead
@Laura W: I really dig the suit and turtleneck. But how would it look with my 80s hair?
Laura W
@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.
Conservatively Liberal
Fixed.
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:
Fixed.
joe from Lowell
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.
joe from Lowell
Ooh, nice use of "Wolverines."
Conservatively Liberal
@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.
Steeplejack
@Thom:
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.
Steve
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.
Conservatively Liberal
@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.