Gregg withdraws as Commerce nominee

[Thomas Veil]

The Obama cabinet nominations are dropping like flies lately.

Gregg withdraws as nominee for Commerce (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29166218/)
Republican New Hampshire senator cites ‘irresolvable conflicts’

Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire abruptly withdrew his nomination as commerce secretary Thursday, citing "irresolvable conflicts" with President Barack Obama's handling of the economic stimulus and 2010 census.

"We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy," Gregg said in a statement released by his Senate office.Kinda falls into "Why didn't you think of that before?" territory, but if he wasn't the right guy for the job, it's just as well that he bows out.

[rdowns]

I just watched Gregg's press conference. He seemed to ooze sincerity and said he just didn't think this out beforehand. Feels it was better to realize it now rather than later. I respect the guy for that.

[fivepoint]

Moving the census from the supposedly non-partisan commerce department to the OBVIOUSLY partisan office of Rahm Emmanuel seems like a ridiculous move by the Obama Administration.

I'd be very surprised if this holds up in court when it inevitably goes there.

[Thomas Veil]

It's not being moved.

It is, however, interesting to see how quickly conservatives have re-discovered their concerns about abuse of power.

[NT1440]

Moving the census from the supposedly non-partisan commerce department to the OBVIOUSLY partisan office of Rahm Emmanuel seems like a ridiculous move by the Obama Administration.

I'd be very surprised if this holds up in court when it inevitably goes there.

What could you do with a census? :confused:

[leekohler]

What could you do with a census? :confused:

Say there's more black people? More minorities in general? That still doesn't make sense. :confused:

[fivepoint]

It's not being moved.

It is, however, interesting to see how quickly conservatives have re-discovered their concerns about abuse of power.

Rediscover? I don't know about the rest of "the conservatives" but I've been concerned about 'abuse of power' for quite a while now. I didn't support the Patriot Act for one thing... not to mention my entire predisposition against government power in general.

Thanks for lumping me in with people though and making vague generalizations.... and completely avoiding the issue.... it was very helpful.



What could you do with a census? :confused:

Are you kidding? They are the foundation for how redistricting lines are set and basically how the entire political landscape will be determined. That's why it's so important that it stays as bipartisan as possible.

[Thomas Veil]

Rediscover? I don't know about the rest of "the conservatives" but I've been concerned about 'abuse of power' for quite a while now. I didn't support the Patriot Act for one thing... not to mention my entire predisposition against government power in general.

Thanks for lumping me in with people though and making vague generalizations.... and completely avoiding the issue.... it was very helpful.Senator Gregg is the one who had a problem with this. So did the House Republicans who wrote President Obama to express their concerns about this issue.

It's not all about you.

Are you kidding? They are the foundation for how redistricting lines are set and basically how the entire political landscape will be determined. That's why it's so important that it stays as bipartisan as possible.Wish somebody had told that to Tom DeLay when he and his buddies drew up all those screwy districts in Texas after the 2000 census.

[NT1440]

Are you kidding? They are the foundation for how redistricting lines are set and basically how the entire political landscape will be determined. That's why it's so important that it stays as bipartisan as possible.

The redistricting you'll have to explain to me....

As for the political landscape, so if they SAY more libruls' are in an area, that makes it so? I don't get what you're trying to say at all really.:confused:

[CalBoy]

The redistricting you'll have to explain to me....

It's quite simple really.

Imagine a state with 7 million people. It will get a total of 10 representatives in the House.

The lines for each district (of 700,000 people) can be drawn very crookedly in order to create "safe" districts for certain parties or to spread out certain groups to make their voting power nill.

Read up on Gerrymandering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering) for more info.

[it5five]

Farewell Gregg. You won't be missed in the job.

Again, another terrible nomination is out (Daschle is one of the others), and Obama is presented with another opportunity to nominate a candidate actually qualified to run a department.

[fivepoint]

Farewell Gregg. You won't be missed in the job.

Again, another terrible nomination is out (Daschle is one of the others), and Obama is presented with another opportunity to nominate a candidate actually qualified to run a department.

The list IS getting pretty long, isn't it? I'm also interested in your opinion on how Mr. Emanuel will do in his new position of census chief.

[mactastic]

It's quite simple really.

Imagine a state with 7 million people. It will get a total of 10 representatives in the House.

The lines for each district (of 700,000 people) can be drawn very crookedly in order to create "safe" districts for certain parties or to spread out certain groups to make their voting power nill.

Read up on Gerrymandering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering) for more info.
IIRC, the states do the gerrymandering. The problems with the census at the national level is in how people are counted. Conservatives tend to want to only count actual people who answer the census form, but most everyone else -- including statisticians -- feel that you must use some form of statistical analysis to count those who don't return the forms. The reason conservatives oppose this is that those who don't return the forms are often poor and/or minority, and tend to vote Democratic. So if you're able to say there are a bunch fewer people in a state that trends Democratic, you can suppress the number of total representatives that state gets.

Plus there are a host of federal dollars that are apportioned based on population. Suppressing the count in Democratic states means that you can steer more federal dollars towards "real Americans".

And of course, conservatives make the opposite argument, that liberal statisticians deliberately manipulate the formulas so as to overcount the populace in Democratic-leaning states.

[it5five]

The list IS getting pretty long, isn't it? I'm also interested in your opinion on how Mr. Emanuel will do in his new position of census chief.

Well, Emanuel will do a better job at the census than Gregg would have. Someone who has a record of voting to abolish the very department he will be in charge of, and someone who had a history of voting to de-fund the census shouldn't be allowed anywhere near those things. I think moving it would have been completely unnecessary had Obama actually nominated a qualified candidate to run the Commerce Department. We'll see what Obama does with the next candidate, and whether or not he moves the Census back. Unless, of course, he wants to play at "bipartisanship" some more, and nominates another anti-Census anti-Commerce Department Republican to run those very things.

[CalBoy]

IIRC, the states do the gerrymandering.

They do indeed, but NT1440 seemed like he didn't understand how redistricting could be a political problem so I went after that. :)

[Cleverboy]

Well, Emanuel will do a better job at the census than Gregg would have. Someone who has a record of voting to abolish the very department he will be in charge of, and someone who had a history of voting to de-fund the census shouldn't be allowed anywhere near those things. I think moving it would have been completely unnecessary had Obama actually nominated a qualified candidate to run the Commerce Department. We'll see what Obama does with the next candidate, and whether or not he moves the Census back. Unless, of course, he wants to play at "bipartisanship" some more, and nominates another anti-Census anti-Commerce Department Republican to run those very things. I still don't see how anything was "moving" anywhere. I'm calling this as an overreaction by the GOP talking heads... again. It's disturbing.

Obama did not formally announce plans to take over the census, but numerous press reports cited unnamed senior administration officials saying he planned to have the Census Bureau’s director report directly to White House staff. Further, in withdrawing from the nomination for Commerce secretary, Gregg cited concerns over the census.

The White House issued a statement Feb. 5 clarifying the earlier news reports, saying the Census Bureau director would “work closely” with the White House, not be controlled by it. Without a public announcement, and only going off of unnamed sources, the GOP are in full "spin mode" over the idea that the White House would like to even POSSIBLY play a part of the census process.

~ CB