|
15 Feb 09 - 12:34 PM (#2567563) Subject: BS: Rahm Emanual and the census From: GUEST,mg I don't know enough about it..but why why? First of all, why move it? Second of all it sure looks political and third of all I just don't seem to be able to trust him and am scared by him getting too much control...mg |
|
15 Feb 09 - 12:59 PM (#2567595) Subject: RE: BS: Rahm Emanuel and the census From: Ebbie Lke you I don't know enough about it but if this blogger is emblematic of those opposed to the "move" I suspect that I'll be on 'tother side. "So, is President Fucking Moron Idiot Commie Muslim looking to use the census to redistrict and give Democrats a permanent advantage? Is that what this is about? And isn't there some conservative law group/center that can take this on, just to make President Fucking Moron Idiot Commit Muslim squirm and furrow his brow?" A saner blogger: "Consider what we know. "The director of the Census Bureau will report to the White House." This was later rolled back to "The director of the Census Bureau will work with, rather than report to, the White House." "Nowhere in Obama's plan (what we know of it) does he say that he's removing the Census Bureau from the Department of Commerce. His subordinates have simply announced that the census will be one of his priorities and that he intends to closely monitor the Census Bureau's work. "Disturbing? Sure. Unconstitutional? What the hell are you talking about, Willis?" http://minx.cc/?post=282579 |
|
15 Feb 09 - 01:05 PM (#2567603) Subject: RE: BS: Rahm Emanuel and the census From: Alice Hate speech radio is spewing negative stuff about the census, trying to scare people... as usual. |
|
15 Feb 09 - 01:06 PM (#2567604) Subject: RE: BS: Rahm Emanuel and the census From: pdq "Last Friday in her Washington Post blog, Mary Ann Akers (a.k.a. 'The Sleuth') wrote that Obama and his people were planning to transfer the U.S. Census—a big deal now as 2010 approaches—from the Commerce Department, where it has long resided, to the White House. That's important because the census results will determine the redrawing of Congressional districts and so electoral college numbers, and could impact the 2012 elections..." |
|
15 Feb 09 - 01:19 PM (#2567614) Subject: RE: BS: Rahm Emanuel and the census From: GUEST,mg I can get scared all by myself and don't need talk radio to do it for me. To me this is scary. Would you be scared if Cheney had done this? mg |
|
15 Feb 09 - 01:22 PM (#2567615) Subject: RE: BS: Rahm Emanuel and the census From: Alice mg, there is nothing scary about it. |
|
15 Feb 09 - 01:31 PM (#2567626) Subject: RE: BS: Rahm Emanuel and the census From: John on the Sunset Coast I read on one of the political blogs that the Congressional Black Caucus, and its Hispanic counterpart complained that the Census could not be entrusted to a Republican led Commerce Dept. Hence Obama decided to take more control of it. This is the real reason, alleged, that Gregg withdrew his acceptance of the Cabinet post. True? False? As it appears to me that that Clinton is being undercut at State, perhaps a pattern is emerging indicated by these actions, so I lean more to the true side. |
|
15 Feb 09 - 01:31 PM (#2567627) Subject: RE: BS: Rahm Emanuel and the census From: Alice The census has not been "moved". The Commerce Department oversees the director of the US Census bureau. The director of the Census bureau still reports to the Commerce Department, but will also report to senior management of the White House. Don't you think the president should be fully informed and receive reports from such an important bureau as the census? We should be glad that we now have a president who works hard at knowing all the facts about what is going on in this country to be fully informed when making decisions. |
|
15 Feb 09 - 01:48 PM (#2567642) Subject: RE: BS: Rahm Emanuel and the census From: Alice Now that we have a presidential administration that knows how to use the internet to communicate we have more access to information directly from the White House than ever before. The press briefings and more are all on whitehouse.gov for reference if you want to go to the primary source. Here is the press conference where the question was asked about the census. Press Briefing 2/6/09 "Q One last one. Has the White House moved the control of the Census Bureau into the White House for the purposes of the 2010 census, and if so why? MR. GIBBS: No, the -- I think the historical precedent of this is there's a director of the census that works for the Secretary of Commerce, the President, and also works closely with the White House, to ensure a timely and accurate count. And that's what we have in this instance." The idea is false that the census has been moved or that the president has more control over the census than presidents in the past. I repeat that I think we should be glad that we have a president who is working hard to be fully informed. |
|
15 Feb 09 - 01:56 PM (#2567646) Subject: RE: BS: Rahm Emanuel and the census From: John on the Sunset Coast With all due respect, Alice, why would I believe Robert Gibbs' press briefings anymore than, his spin if you will, anymore than any of Bush's press secretaries were believed when they spun?? or Clinton's or any of them? |
|
15 Feb 09 - 02:12 PM (#2567656) Subject: RE: BS: Rahm Emanuel and the census From: Ebbie I have not yet read the history of this 'move' but I do recall the "redistricting" that the GOP accomplished several years back. If the Bush administration had been consulted on it, would it have happened? If the Bush administration had been consulted on it, would it have admitted that it was its idea? |
|
15 Feb 09 - 02:14 PM (#2567660) Subject: RE: BS: Rahm Emanuel and the census From: Alice This is much ado about nothing. It's not a move and it's not some conspiracy to grab power... maybe people are so used to Cheney/Bush antics that they project them onto anyone in the White House. |
|
15 Feb 09 - 02:21 PM (#2567669) Subject: RE: BS: Rahm Emanuel and the census From: DougR The Democrats want to politicize the taking of the census. To doctor it in such a way that the Democrats are assured of staying in power. I do hope this action is challenged in the courts. DougR |
|
15 Feb 09 - 02:23 PM (#2567672) Subject: RE: BS: Rahm Emanuel and the census From: Ebbie Remember the redistricting a couple of years back, Doug? I would not be at all surprised to hear that the administration is guarding against another such outcome. |
|
15 Feb 09 - 03:08 PM (#2567708) Subject: RE: BS: Rahm Emanuel and the census From: Alice This TIME article explains why Hannity and Rove and their ilk are trying to create controversy about the next census. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1879667,00.html This is the first time in 30 years that the census will be taken under a Democratic administration. The Republicans were so manipulative with the census in the past, they are afraid the Democrats will play the dirty tricks the GOP used. In '99, the Supreme Court ruled that statistical modeling could not be used. The Bush administration did not want statistical scientific modeling to improve the accuracy of the census. (typically anti-science) "The 1990 Census missed an estimated 8 million people — mostly immigrants and urban minorities — and it managed to double-count 4 million white Americans." "The redistricting that took place in Texas at Tom DeLay's urging following the 2000 census — which swung six congressional seats to the GOP — is just one example of how dramatically political fortunes can shift based on the use of those crucial numbers." |
|
15 Feb 09 - 03:12 PM (#2567710) Subject: RE: BS: Rahm Emanuel and the census From: Alice Actually, the Republicans are probably just afraid that we will finally get a more ACCURATE census, since they under-counted minorities and over-counted whites during GOP control. |
|
15 Feb 09 - 05:41 PM (#2567828) Subject: RE: BS: Rahm Emanuel and the census From: mg There should be concerns about the accuracy of the census, and any gerrymandering etc. And there should be judicial oversight etc. to make sure this is absolutely and totally impartial. And if anyone thinks it is a good idea for the white house to be in charge of this, and it is not clear they are planning to be, but say they are, would you have wanted CHeney in charge of the census? Anyone with more political leanings than scruples? Huge potential for political misuse here and I think a wedge for other white house control..can we say IRS? mg |
|
15 Feb 09 - 06:31 PM (#2567858) Subject: RE: BS: Rahm Emanuel and the census From: Riginslinger The reality is, as has been posted earlier, when black and Hispanic groups thought Judd Gregg was going to be in control of the census, the President promised to move it from Commerce. That move spooked the Republicans, because there are obviously people in the White House they don't trust, and Judd Gregg didn't want to take over of an emasculated Commerce Department so he withdrew. Now, if the president wants to nominate a Democratic Commerce Secretary, the blacks and Hispanics will drop their objections, and the census can be moved back to Commerce. It's just another case of the government being pushed around by special interest groups. That's what Obama promised would not happen. The census, it seems to me, is a really big deal. Clinton was in office in 2000, and now Obama, so the Republicans really might have a legitimate complaint. |
|
15 Feb 09 - 07:24 PM (#2567880) Subject: RE: BS: Rahm Emanuel and the census From: DougR What we don't need, to provide oversigt, is the White House Chief of Staff looking over the shoulder of those in charge of the census. I agree it should be done right and fairly. DougR |
|
16 Feb 09 - 08:01 AM (#2568146) Subject: RE: BS: Rahm Emanuel and the census From: Riginslinger Just looking at the situation, it seems like the further the census could be removed from the White House or Congress, the better it would be. |
|
16 Feb 09 - 12:25 PM (#2568301) Subject: RE: BS: Rahm Emanuel and the census From: GUEST,mg it really seems like there should be a law keeping it out of the hands of politicians..maybe there is..it seems like an obvious abuse of presidential power potentially and certainly a wretched idea. We have a known cabinet member who has abused government agency power and will she keep her hands off? It is shocking that this could even be considered. mg |
|
16 Feb 09 - 01:35 PM (#2568375) Subject: RE: BS: Rahm Emanuel and the census From: Ebbie Methinks thou dost worry overmuch. (Sorry. That sideswipe against Clinton got me.) |
|
16 Feb 09 - 02:04 PM (#2568407) Subject: RE: BS: Rahm Emanuel and the census From: Bill D "The Democrats want to politicize the taking of the census. To doctor it in such a way that the Democrats are assured of staying in power." Good grief, Doug! You have it exactly backwards! The White House is assuming oversight on the census to avoid politisizing the count. The last couple of census seemed like were not conducted well to get all the population counted....It is almost certain, though no one can 'prove' it, that Judd Gregg changed his mind about being Sec. of Commerce at least partly because he learned he would NOT be able to control the census! The Republicans didn't want lots of hard-to-find minority populations found. Gregg decided that if he couldn't make a difference, he might as well stay where he was and not have to pretend to like Obama's agenda. |
|
16 Feb 09 - 02:25 PM (#2568421) Subject: RE: BS: Rahm Emanuel and the census From: John on the Sunset Coast "It is almost certain, though no one can 'prove' it, that Judd Gregg changed his mind about being Sec. of Commerce at least partly because he learned he would NOT be able to control the census!" You may have the words right, BillD, but the reasoning wrong. I see this as a cynical action by President Obama--assuming, as I do, that his original appointment of Gregg was sincere--when he was pressured by the Black and Hispanic caucuses. The fact that this major duty of the Department would be micromanaged by the Democrat version of Karl Rove undercuts the importance of the appointment...a vote of no confidence re: the appointee. If Gregg cannot be trusted to honestly participate in this census, what makes him trustworthy for any part of the job? Gregg rightly gave up the position, and did so in a non-political, gentlemanly way. |
|
16 Feb 09 - 02:26 PM (#2568424) Subject: RE: BS: Rahm Emanuel and the census From: Riginslinger Bill - I agree that Gregg pulled out because he didn't want to preside over an emasculated commerce department, but the census became politicised at the exact moment the White House decided to take it over. |
|
16 Feb 09 - 02:29 PM (#2568425) Subject: RE: BS: Rahm Emanuel and the census From: GUEST,mg Everyone should have oversight on the census and it should not be at all politicized or in the hands of the ruling party at the time. that is just absolutely nuts. And as for Gregg..it looks like he was not the right person anyway, but certainly he should be offended at having the census pulled away, but it surely does not mean he intended to twiddle with it. mg |
|
16 Feb 09 - 02:39 PM (#2568436) Subject: RE: BS: Rahm Emanuel and the census From: Riginslinger John - You're right. It was Obama stooping over for the Hispanic and Black Caucuses. Another example of the new administration pandering to special interest. |
|
16 Feb 09 - 02:58 PM (#2568458) Subject: RE: BS: Rahm Emanuel and the census From: artbrooks The census is really a very minor part of the responsibilities of the Commerce Department...important, true, but even a Commerce Department without the Bureau of the Census (which isn't happening) is hardly "emasculated". Lets see...they run NOAA, the Economic Development Administration, the Bureau of Standards, the International Trade Administration... |
|
16 Feb 09 - 03:15 PM (#2568476) Subject: RE: BS: Rahm Emanuel and the census From: John on the Sunset Coast During the next 2-1/2 years or so, the census WILL BE a major proportion of Commerces' work; after that it will be minor as artbrooks is wont to point out. I reiterate, the dimunition of the (Republican) Secretary's role in carrying out this function is 'a priori' political and a show of no confidence. |
|
16 Feb 09 - 03:18 PM (#2568477) Subject: RE: BS: Rahm Emanuel and the census From: Bill D "Another example of the new administration pandering to special interest." HA! well, that's sure something the Republicans expect, since they are past masters at it! They just assume anyone in power would do that. They are alread BEING proved wrong. "If Gregg cannot be trusted to honestly participate in this census, what makes him trustworthy for any part of the job? " Sorry John, but it turns out Gregg asked for the Commerce job and told Obama he would follow administration policy, much as Ray LaHood is doing in Transportation.. Then he 'decided' he could not agree to do as he promised...after he heard the White House would have census oversight...(not 'control') |
|
16 Feb 09 - 04:11 PM (#2568516) Subject: RE: BS: Rahm Emanuel and the census From: John on the Sunset Coast "Sorry John, but it turns out Gregg asked for the Commerce job and told Obama he would follow administration policy,..." Well, Bill, I have just finished googling Gregg's withdrawal, visiting maybe 75 stories from about 15 or 18 pages. The only corroboration of your assertion is this quote from found in several sources, "'It comes as something of a surprise, because the truth, you know, Mr. Gregg approached us with interest and seemed enthusiastic,' Obama said in an interview with the Springfield (Ill.) Journal-Register." I have found no other corroboration of that statement from any source, credible or uncredible. So you will pardon me for not accepting you statement that Gregg asked for the job at face value. |
|
16 Feb 09 - 04:18 PM (#2568527) Subject: RE: BS: Rahm Emanuel and the census From: Bill D "face value"? Well, I wasn't there when it happened, but it has just been an accepted fact that wasn't an issue until he backed out. I heard a Republican say specifically that he knew/was aware that Gregg had solicited the job. It's been 3 days...let me think who & where. (and I can't imagine Obama would invent such a story.) |
|
16 Feb 09 - 04:34 PM (#2568540) Subject: RE: BS: Rahm Emanuel and the census From: John on the Sunset Coast Further to my post 4:11. Even if the President's comment is 100% accurate, it would not necessarily point to Gregg"s desire to wreak havoc with the census. I have interviewed for jobs where they were described one way, and the reality was something different, perhaps you have to. I was got to the third stage of a job as Personnel Director of a moderately sized division of a national firm. The position was to report directly to the general manager, but in that last interview I was told that the position would report to the Controller, placing him between the GM and PD. When I found that was the case, I withdrew from further consideration as it was not the job I had applied for. Might this not be the reason Gregg bowed out? |
|
16 Feb 09 - 05:12 PM (#2568580) Subject: RE: BS: Rahm Emanuel and the census From: Bill D well..note in my post of 2:04 that I said: "...Gregg changed his mind about being Sec. of Commerce at least **partly** because...." I have no reason to doubt that what he said was true...as far as it went...but I am also 79.526% convinced that the census part was the deal breaker. He, after all, was once ready to totally abolish Commerce!. He just saw no advantage in giving up his last 2 years of being Senator unless he could ummmmm.... accomplish something. Naturally, if I am correct, it is not something he would ever admit. To his credit, he did make a very gracious speech in his withdrawal, saying nice things about Obama & the offer...but it WAS strange timing. There are some behind-the-scenes discussions that we may never learn about. |
|
16 Feb 09 - 05:17 PM (#2568594) Subject: RE: BS: Rahm Emanuel and the census From: Stilly River Sage So you will pardon me for not accepting you statement that Gregg asked for the job at face value. He did ask for the job. Is that what you're questioning? It's all over the news, it isn't rocket science to track down this statement. SRS |
|
16 Feb 09 - 05:38 PM (#2568611) Subject: RE: BS: Rahm Emanuel and the census From: John on the Sunset Coast SRS--I make no claims to being a rocket scientist, but I did a search and reported my results. If you have a 'news' source, please provide. And, as I wrote, even if he did asked for the job, or indicate his availablity for it, it doesn't mean that he had nefarious motives for wanting to be Commerce Secretary. That may be your take and Bill's, but it is not the only valid explanation. |
|
16 Feb 09 - 05:53 PM (#2568626) Subject: RE: BS: Rahm Emanuel and the census From: pdq "...Gregg had solicited the job..." Another word could have been used besides "solicit". Notice how subtle shading affects our response to a statement. Actually, Senator Gregg sent a "letter of availability" to the presidential staff. Dozen, perhaps hunderds of people do this when a new administration comes in. Judd Gregg will not run for re-election when his seat is up in 2010, so a 4-8 year stint may have served both the Senator and the administration well. |
|
16 Feb 09 - 11:16 PM (#2568847) Subject: RE: BS: Rahm Emanuel and the census From: Riginslinger Nobody in their right mind would trust the census to somebody named Rahm in the first place. |
|
17 Feb 09 - 12:59 AM (#2568884) Subject: RE: BS: Rahm Emanuel and the census From: Ebbie WHAT? |
|
17 Feb 09 - 01:23 AM (#2568892) Subject: RE: BS: Rahm Emanuel and the census From: Ebbie From Wikipedia: "Emanuel's first name, Rahm means "high" or "lofty" in Hebrew, and is the namesake of one Rahamim (surname unknown), which means "mercy" in Hebrew, killed in the 1940s fighting for the Zionist group Lehi. The surname Emanuel adopted by the family in honor of his father's brother Emanuel Auerbach, killed in Jerusalem during a skirmish with Arabs, means God is with us. Sources conflict as to whether the family changed its name from Auerbach in 1933 or 1938" A good deal better name than Riginslimer. |
|
17 Feb 09 - 09:04 AM (#2569105) Subject: RE: BS: Rahm Emanuel and the census From: Riginslinger Thanks so much! |