CNN's Yellin claimed census was a "big issue" for Gregg after Gregg said it was not
SUMMARY: CNN's Jessica Yellin stated that the Obama administration's decision to strengthen White House oversight of the census was one of "two big issues" leading Sen. Judd Gregg to end his nomination for secretary of commerce. In fact, Gregg has said that the "census was only a slight catalyzing issue," and "not a major issue." He also called it a "slight issue" and said "[i]t wasn't a big enough issue for me to even discuss what the issue was."
During the February 12 edition of CNN's Campbell Brown, No Bias, No Bull, CNN national political correspondent Jessica Yellin stated that the Obama administration's decision to strengthen White House oversight of the census was one of "two big issues" leading Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) to end his nomination for secretary of commerce. In fact, while Gregg cited the census in a press release announcing his withdrawal, during his January 12 press conference, Gregg said that the "census was only a slight catalyzing issue. It was not a major issue."
During the press conference -- which aired on CNN several hours before Yellin's report -- Gregg was also asked, "[C]an you just elaborate on the census as being an issue?" Gregg responded: "Well, I don't need to elaborate. I know it was a slight issue." A reporter then asked: "Well, what was the issue, from your perspective?" Gregg responded: "It wasn't a big enough issue for me to even discuss what the issue was."
From C-SPAN's January 12 coverage of Gregg's press conference:
GREGG: Why don't we just --
REPORTER 1: What role did --
GREGG: I'll get around to everybody.
REPORTER 1: What role did issues with the census play? And will you run for re-election in the coming year?
GREGG: The census was only a slight catalyzing issue. It was not a major issue.
Will I run? Probably not.
REPORTER 2: Can you just -- can you just elaborate on the census as being an issue? I mean, you know --
GREGG: Well, I don't need to elaborate. I know it was a slight issue. I mean it --
REPORTER 2: Well, what was the issue, from your perspective?
GREGG: It wasn't a big enough issue for me to even discuss what the issue was.
REPORTER 3: Senator, White House --
GREGG: Yeah?
REPORTER 4: Will you vote on the stimulus? And what do you make of the administration's new plan to address the financial crisis?
GREGG: Well, I think the administration is doing an extraordinary job of trying to manage this financial crisis. I think their decision to move quickly on the TARP and get the extra TARP money in place was very important. I believe that Secretary Geithner has put forward a very -- the outlines of an extremely comprehensive plan that I think will work when it gets the detail behind it.
From the February 12 edition of CNN's Campbell Brown, No Bias, No Bull:
YELLIN: So, there were two big issues for him.
One: He's a fiscal conservative and was upset about the price tag on the stimulus deal. He didn't even vote on it, which made White House aides very unhappy.
But the other big issue was the census. It might sound minor, but the White House planned to take oversight of that out of the Commerce Department. And the Census helps determine congressional districts, which party has power. And Republicans started to howl about this, saying it's a pure power grab by the White House. They put enormous pressure on Gregg to fight this.
And, tonight, Republicans are saying that Gregg's withdrawal is a real blunder by the White House. They're working this for all it's worth -- Campbell.
BROWN: Jessica Yellin with the inside scoop for us. Jessica, thanks.
OK... I'm going to ask "WITH?", not to be snarky, but to be eductaed a bit. Do conservatives have a probelm with the census or something? Someone please explain. (Obvriously she got some info about a conservative (or what they said) wrong, but I don't see what part of their agends this helps.)
Their problem with the census is that they can't control it.
There are some people the Republicans would rather not count
Just as Rovian Math refused to count real people in 2006 and 2008. Do these lunatics on the right actually think that the census will be a bad thing for America?
I haven't been following the census issue too closely, I'v been hearing it on righty radio, but with no details, which is how they usually discuss their non-issues.
Sounds like another vaguely scary thing to screech about. I've been hearing it connected to the people of D.C. being counted more as a state (which sounds like a lot of non-white people getting a voice to Repubs, I guess).
Mike Gallagher was nattering with Chris Wallace this morning, and it was mentioned among other items making up the "train wreck" of Obama's first days in office that the wingnuts seemed very concerned about. Something about an authoritarian power grab as well.Translated as people voting who they would rather not have voting.
I think it will make excellent wingnut conspiracy theory fodder, but it's really shaping up to be a battle over funding. The Census headcount undercounts the population, but it undercounts minorities and the poor at a higher rate. Funds are needed for advertising and outreach to reach people that many Republicans would rather not see counted.
There may also be a fight over the use of sampling to correct the undercounts. That would be a fun one, too, given how much the wingers respect science.
Andrea Mitchell said this morning that Republicans want to stick to a house by house count, and Democrats want to use estimates to include homeless people. Apparently this has an effect on Federal Revenue allotments to states and the process of redistricting.
I'm sure it's more complicated than that, or... maybe not. It stands to reason that Republican Social Darwinists wouldn't want to count homeless people.
Well, the homeless aren't really people, are they? I mean they don't own houses or cars...or belong to clubs. Their children don't attend good colleges...or belong to sororities. They don't watch FOX News...probably don't even have HD televisions, either. How can you call them people? Yuck... ;>)
I'm sure if the Repoops had their way, rental units wouldn't count as houses.
...unless they had wheels on them.
Or it's in Alabama...
After all this time, you finally found my investment property (AKA tax shelter).
I believe that removing the Cenus from the Commerce Department was the primary reason Judd Gregg withdrew his nomination...regardless what he says publicly. He probably came under pressure from fellow Republicans to not go along with anything which might directly hurt the party's chances at election time.
You're probably right. It's possible, even probable, that the "leadership" of the Republican Party collared him and convinced him that cooperating with Obama on ANYTHING would be frowned upon.
This just gives the screechmonkeys something new to carp about. Joe Blow Scarborough was wringing his hands this morning about all of Obama's "cabinet problems".
Just to clarify, the Commerce Department is still doing the Census. The complaint is that the Census Director will also work with White House staff, which Republicans called "uprecedented politicization." However, the previous Census Director did work with the Clinton Administration on "budgeting, advertising and outreach efforts."
link
So if a Democrat nominates a Republican for a position, trying to be bipartisan and all, all that needs to be done is for that nominee to back out to create a political problem for Democrats. It seems to me this discourages the practice a little bit. If the Republicans really were interested in bipartisanship, they wouldn't try to make political hay out of something like this.
I agree... The selection of Judd Gregg as Commerce Secretary demonstrates to me a willingness by President Obama to include Republicans in his adminstration. He didn't have to do that. But old habits die hard and the Republican leadership is obviously still stuck in that Rovian political model of divisiveness. Why would John Boehner say "Great!" when learning of Gregg's withdrawal? You would think Republicans would want a seat at the table. Apparently they don't. They want President Obama to fail. It's their only shot at gaining seats in 2010.
You're absolutely right. Everything Republicans say and do for the next two years should be viewed through that filter.
And even beyond that, Republicans may have some trouble criticizing any future Democrats for not appointing a bipartisan cabinet, because the simple reply of "Judd Gregg" is difficult to address.
I understand their desire for failure, but doesn't it stand to reason that if they really want the Obama administration to fail, they'd be looking to get as many Republicans in there as possible?
It worked for Bush...
Dang, you beat me to it, Neon.That'll teach me to get sidetracked by work before checking MMFA out.
Most of the comments from my friends here are ignoring the obvious objection of moving the census under Rahm Emanuel's juristiction. It is simply this: Obama is the politicizing the census for partisan gain. There is no doubt, by moving the control to the White House that the Democrats are trying to influence the count for their benefit. Otherwise they'd leave it at Commerce.
I'd like to see anyone here provide any justification why the oversight of the census needs to be moved to the White House.
"I'd like to see anyone here provide any justification why the oversight of the census needs to be moved to the White House"
Because they thought there was going to be an R in charge at the Commerce Dept?
dogg,
Since Gregg was chosen by Obama, it doesn't make sense to put a Republican in charge and then take away a key function of his department because he is a Republican. If it the decision to move the control over the census was because Gregg is a Republican, Obama would have just as easily, and without any political furor, chosen a Democrat instead of Gregg to run Commerce.
Democrat or Republican, moving the control over to the White House is purely a political move. And a very poor one on top of that because it again shows how Obama's actions do not match his campaign promises for a "post-partisan" administration.
Not real good at catching circular arguments, are you?
AA, why are the Repugs so enamored by campaign promises on the Dem side? Let those that voted for those promises ,which by the Repugs had their own, hold the democratically elected President, Mr. Obama, to task should he fail or skirt those issues.
Maybe history is repeating itself and Obama is going the Bush way..'I'm a Uniter not a divider'. 'I don't believe in nation building'. And the Repugs re-elected him. But don't hold your breath. This President is doing what is good for the country as a whole and not for the special interests of Rush and the RadioRadical Right. And you guys got a lot of nerve saying everything is political. Because your thinking can't believe that things can be on the upside, don't take it out on everybody.
Sit back AA and enjoy the ride..your side may learn something about running a country into stabilization. God knows you guys know how to run it into the ground and still insist we do it the same way. Obama is just saying NO.
Prince,
No need to be upset when it is pointed out, (again and again,) that Obama's administration is already not living up to it's campaign promises of leading the country into a post-partisan era.
What I find interesting is that I do not remember you or anyone else here, sitting back and enjoying the ride while Bush was President.
It's not Obama's fault that the Republicans are acting as contrarian as possible.
He can't force them to be reasonable. Blaming him for not living up to his campaign promise when he has lived up to his campaign promises is not fair. He's doing his part.
How many Republicans were invited to help craft the House Bill version of the "Stimulus' plan? How many were invited to help craft the Senate version? How many Republicans were allowed in to the Conference Committee?
Why has Obama repeatedly attacked the Republicans when it is their duty as the loyal oppostion to point out the flaws in the stimulus bill? Why does Obama repeatedly invoke, "I won" when faced with tough criticism.
Why is so much pork included in the stimulus plan that has nothing to do with stimulating the economy?
Despite his later denials and backing down, why did Obama trying to bring the Director of the Census under direct White House Control?
I find it laughable that you still think Obama has being bipartisan while blaming the Republicans for raising objections to his massive trillion dollar spending spree.
Obama has reached out to Republicans in his 4 short weeks MORE than George Bush did in his ENTIRE 8 years!
The truth is, no matter what Obama did, Republicans were going to vote NO. They never had plans to work with Obama, and all of your excuses are just that, pathetic excuses.
Republicans' refusal to provide a single vote in support of President Obama's $825 economic recovery package, Senate Republicans are now suggesting they will filibuster the stimulus bill.
That's the word from ThinkProgress, which Friday afternoon offered a round up of the latest in Republican obstructionism. While Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions offered a none-too-thinly veiled threat of a GOP filibuster ("I think its going to take 60 votes to pass the bill"), Arizona's John Kyl said he would explore "whatever parliamentary possibilities are in front of us." Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) promised to join the effort, announcing, "I would be a part of it." And on Thursday, Chuck Grassley (R-IA) told Robert Siegel on NPR that a filibuster of the Obama package passed by the House could be in the cards:
The revelations are just the latest signs that Senate Republicans will violate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's pledge three weeks ago "I don't think this measure's going to have any problem getting over 60 votes." Referring to almost $300 billion in tax cuts already incorporated by the Obama administration, McConnell said:
"It could well have broad Republican appeal and make it much more likely that the measure passes with broad bipartisan support, which is what the new president would like and what we would like."
The good news is the Republican party made headlines for about a week. The bad news, for Republicans, is the American people STILL don't want the Republican party to lead anything!
how about this, the congressional black caucus had a fit over gregg being commerce secretary because of his views on the census
here is another he wanted to abolish the department and voted for it twice
Are you saying Gregg wanted to abolish the Census Department? I think you are mistaken.
Are you saying Gregg wanted to abolish the Census Department? I think you are mistaken.
No, Gregg wanted to abolish the Commerce Department.
Gregg’s 1995 votes were cast for the fiscal 1996 budget resolution, a nonbinding blueprint that outlined the GOP’s fiscal priorities after Republicans won full control of Congress for the first time in 40 years.
See the roll call vote here. Gregg also opposed President Clinton’s efforts to increase funding for the Department to run the 2000 census.
And which department controls the Census?
The Commerce Department...........the same department Gregg wanted to abolish!
no sorry i thought i had typed the word out and it didnt, he voed twice to abolish the commerce department.
He is having a heck of a "post-partisan" administration. AA if you invited some naybers over that you had been in a pie fight with and they said ya, we'll come over, with paint guns loaded with Tabasco and Acid, how would you feel?
I would "feel" you need to work on your analogies.
Democrats are trying to influence the count for their benefit.
How would they influence the count, by counting everybody? What benefit would they receive?
The question arises about the use of statistical sampling and computer models as a method to replace actual hard counts. Having on Party control the Census, raises grave doubts as to the accuracy.
Any move by Obama that raises doubt about the fairness and non partisanship of the census, threatens the integrity of our whole system of Congressional apportionment and government dollars based on census statistics.
Sampling is another issue. One that has for now been settled. If the Democrats should try to address it legislatively, I have no doubt you'll be the first one here crying about how the science of statistics is nothing but a liberal plot.
You still didn't answer my question - how will the Democrats benefit from "influencing" the count?
fog,
Since Congressional districs are reapportioned after each census, gerrymandering could very well be influenced by erroneous counting of supposedly hidden citizens. Both Congress and the Electoral College are based on the census.
Also billions of federal dollars are allocated based on the census. The Democrats could very well "buy" more votes with the federal dollars by inflating estimates within their districts.
Therefore the census has to be completely apolitical and free of any hint of partisan control.
Gosh gee willikers - you sure have your tin foil hat on full blast.
First of all, you're basing your whole argument on the fantasy that the Dem's are going to rig the census for political gain. But in the spirit of entertainment, I'll play along:
Who are these "supposedly hidden citizens"?
How can the Democrats "buy more votes"?
fog,
No tin foil hat for me. You must be projecting again. :-)
The hidden citizens would be those who are added via estimates and computer models. Appropriations are many times based on census statistics. Most of these supposedly hidden citizens are located in Democratic Congressional districts.
The 'poor' vote Democratic because they want more from the government. Democrats in effect buy votes by promising to give more to the poor.
"The 'poor' vote Democratic because they want more from the government. Democrats in effect buy votes by promising to give more to the poor."
Then Republicans buy votes by promising to give more tax breaks to the rich. Maybe you could look at it as Democracy, where people vote for those who serve their best interests. What a radical concept that would be.
The will "benefit" by rolling back The Hammer's gerry-mandering that how. To AA: elections have consequences, rolling back the hyper partisan tactics of the last 8 years is post partisan .
and threaten any return of Lord Rove and his Sith cohorts right?
i agree with you anotheramerican. No justification to make the census a political tool.
Nor is there any evidence that that is happening.
Lets hope so. It is not a tool to gain power, it should be non political.
Craig,
The White House taking control of the Census is prima facie that the politicization of the Census is being attempted by Obama. No other evidence is needed.
So obvious that only the Righties can see it. Now tell us that "we know Saddam has weapons of mass destruction but we just can't find them". AA, nobody cares about the rightwing conspiracies of everything the Democrats trying to do. Every single item Prez Obama has even hinted the loonies on the right think conspiracy.
The Boogeyman died January 20, 2009. Come out from under the covers and turn off your lights at night. Nothing to fear any longer. A new day is dawning..or does the right like to run around in the dark. You are safe now.
But AA threw in a serious -sounding Latin term, twisted to work in the world of Wingnut Law. In this episode, no further evidence is needed beyond one man's paranoid assumption.
Prince,
Nice try at deflection. Neither Saddam nor WMDs are not the issue here.
Your typical liberal argumentation, (i.e., juvenile putdowns,) show you have nothing to offer except that.
I always know when the insults and deflections away from the issue come out that your side is losing the argument.
I do not believe anyone here is arguing with you. You put out a conspiracy and nobody buys it. The Freepersmay but not here. I never argue, I'm to juvenile to do such a grown up thing.
The White House isn't "taking control of the Census."
tell that to Tom DeLay of Texas. who did exactly that to get republicans elected.in certain key districts.
Tom Delay is a scumbag, not sure what he has to do with this conversation?
He has everything to do with this conversation. He's responsible for gerrymandering congressional districts in Texas to turn what had been Democratic districts into Republican districts by changing the way they count and re-mapping districts.
right just make everything else a political tool to use to beat down anyone who disagrees with you
The Census is not being put under different jurisdiction, taken from the Commerce Department, or being politicized, so no justification is needed.
Can you justify the misinformation you post?
Census Director to Work Directly with White House
By Philip Rucker
President Obama has decided to have the director of the U.S. Census Bureau work directly with the White House, the administration said today, a move that comes as the Census Bureau prepares to conduct the 2010 census that will determine redistricting of congressional seats.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/02/05/census_director_to_report_to_w.html
It says right there "...as the Census Bureau prepares to conduct the 2010 census...."
So you admit you're contention that the census has been taken from Commerce is untrue?
To clarify, the Census Bureau is part of the Commerce Department.
To argue that the Census still stays with the Deparment of Commerce when the Director reports directly to White House aides is to ignore the obvious fact that what the Obama Administration says and what it does are two completely different things.
Technically, the Department of the Census will still be Housed in the Commerce Department, but for all practicle purposes, it will be run directly from the White House.
I suppose for this contention, you have supporting evidence.
Yes he does, he just said it..Don't you understand Craig, we are supposed to listen and believe everything another american says. It is written in one of his books.
POW,
Simply read the Washington Post link above for supporting evidence.
I think the misreading of "work directly with" as "report directly to" may be the banana peel Barney stepped on here.
No justification from me, but is it what the right-wing is making it out to be? Googling the issue simply leads to a gold rush of right-wing blogs that are hyperventilating over it. I can't find a seemingly objective source that can tell me exactly what Obama wants to do and why.
It is bewildering enough that Obama was looking to put Senator Judd Gregg in charge of a government department that Gregg himself favors getting rid of. I wish Obama would come out and tell us exactly what his intentions are.
The President is trying to be non partisan, you can't blame him for that. He is trying to change Washington. The issue is the partisan haters on the left and right who will do anything to keep Washington the way it is.
The president is being bipartisan and the recalcitrant republicans are being obstructionists. When they discover next election cycle the electorate remembers these bozos are keeping the country from recovering, they are going to be thrown out for at least the generation that remembers.
I think I'm reading "Alice in Obamaland". The WhiteHouse taking control of the Census is the exact opposite of bipartisanship.
The Duchess: [i.e., liberals describing themselves]
I quite agree with you. And the moral of that is: Be what you would seem to be, or if you'd like it put more simply: Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise.
The White House isn't "taking control of the Census."
Oh. Okay. You said it isn't - so that makes it so.
You make my point about liberals that I just made quoting the Duchess in "Alice in Wonderland". Never let the facts interfere with your opinion.
Perhaps you can explain just what exactly the White House doing by having the Director of the Census report to White House aidesl?
Just be honest, you think the Dems are going to cheat. Cut all the other BS..Here's my answer to you. Think whatever the hell you want but have some facts. Has Obama lied to you? Has anything been done under the table? Or are you guys just so used to your own being the liars, cheats that they are? Get out the vote in the next election. Or will the country be ruined by then? Rush thinks so.
This is a new Administration..you don't have to like it but get some REAL facts. And you quote Alice in Wonderland..you Cons should know it by heart, you've lived there for as long time.
You can't be serious about Obama not lying?
Obama promised to use public funding in the general election if the Republican would agree to it. McCain did and Obama in fact did not.
What about Obama's pledge not to have in his administration anyone who lobbied the department in the past two yearsto which they are appointed?
Mr. Obama's nominee for deputy secretary of defense, William Lynn, has been a lobbyist for the defense contractor Raytheon, and his nominee for deputy secretary of health and human services, William V. Corr, lobbied for stricter tobacco regulations as an official with the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
Not to mention the non lobbyist, Tom Daschle, who only got paid millions by a lobbying firm and was still nominated by Obama for a cabinet level position.
Plus Obama's assertion he never heard Rev.Wright engage in his racist and anti-American sermons after attending that Church for 20 years defies incredulity. And on top of it saying he could no more disown Wright than his grandmother and then disown Wright was downright laughable.
The list goes on and on however I'll stop here.
However if you like check out: http://obamawtf.blogspot.com/2008/05/documented-lie-50-obama-claimed-he-had.html
If you don't call that a lie, then you don't know the definition of a lie.
Obama promised to use public funding in the general election if the Republican would agree to it. McCain did and Obama in fact did not.
Just because YOU repeat a lie, doesn't change the fact that it's a LIE!
Obama said he would CONSIDER using public funding. He CONSIDERED and decided that taking public funding made no sense!
Not to mention the non lobbyist, Tom Daschle, who only got paid millions by a lobbying firm and was still nominated by Obama for a cabinet level position.
IS Tom Daschle a member of Obama's cabinet? NO!
Skip your whine, you have no point to make about Daschle!
Plus Obama's assertion he never heard Rev.Wright engage in his racist and anti-American sermons after attending that Church for 20 years defies incredulity. And on top of it saying he could no more disown Wright than his grandmother and then disown Wright was downright laughable.
Every day you post another pathetic notion about Obama.
You actually have the freaking nerve to preach "Christianity", as if your seated next to GOD. You are soooo damn far from "Christianity", I'm surprised the church doesn't go up in flames when you drive by.
Go back to Nov. 4th, 2008 and see what Americans thought about you and your right wing nuts! That's a free clue!
If you have any evidence to the contrary I'd be happy to look at it, but I know you don't. You should face the fact you have, once again, been fooled.
From Ed O'Keefe:
Sorry for the extended quote. I posted the link earlier, but AA missed and got himself all worked up over nothing.
Craig,
Do you not see that "working closely" and "reporting to" are completely different?
One does not need to report directly to White House Aides in order to work closely on budgeting, advertising, and outreach efforts.
Oh and just because Bill Clinton did it, does not exactly say much for the ethical considerations.
If the Obama administration comes out and says that data collection and analysis will remain separate, that would nip this in the bud.
Has anyone seen any quote by Obama and friends that maintains this separation?
No, it didn't, but I remember talk in 2000 that if Gore were elected and the right people were put in place, there were plans in place that would have redistricted our state so that it would have been almost impossible for one party to have a seat in the House of Representatives.
Yes, "working closely" and "reporting to" are different. Which one am I supposed to be afraid of? You've suggested both in this thread.
Be afraid of "reporting to".
From the AP:
There. Nipped.
There. Flipped. ;-)
Dead-on self-diagnosis, Barn. ;0)
"Paranoia has its doubts"...somebody said that. AA, I hope they get that free mental health care in place. The disease is spreading quickly inside the brains of the recently defeated(actually trounced) Republicans. The disorder is one of disbelief that they are not in charge. Hey, the libs lived throught it so can you. So look up from the rabbit hole and you will see light. Unless Obama orders more of those 'special' drugs to be put in your water supply. I'm selling test kits for drinking water with a special price for Republicans and it is NOT taxable. Should be a flood of Cons coming my way.
Prince,
Nice try at snarkiness but you are sidestepping the issue. I have no doubt Obama and the radicals Pelosi and Reid are in charge. The issue is not that they are not in charge, the issue is that they are being blatantly hypocritical once again by subverting the objectivity of the census by making the Director of the Census directly answerable to the White House.
It is illogical to conclude that the White House would make the Director of the Census answerable directly to them and then not try to exert influence on that Director for political gain.
If they had no interest in doing so, they would have let the Director answer to the Secretary of Commerce.
In your wildest dreams could you ever concieve that the White House wants this to be overseen so that it is an honest consensus? "It is illogical to conclude"...in Wonderland maybe but this is for ForRealLand.
Prince,
Let me ask you what you would think if Bush had said the Director of the Census will report directly to Karl Rove?
Comparing Rove to anyone in this administration is, frankly, an insult. Try again.
fog,
No need. Thanks for making my point for me.
I agree, comparing Rove to anyone in this administration is an insult. It's an insult to Rove. There's no one in this administration that could carry his briefcase. They are a bunch of pathetic losers.
Which jail should the Director go to in his search for Karl? Since Saddam and WMD's were tossed out by you, I suggest you keep these two out of it also. Remember, everybody had to trust these two or they were unpatriotic and unAmerican. Since you think Obama is manipulating things, which are you? Remember, this is ConLogic.
You have been cutting and pasting here for a long time and your post does not make sense for i never said republicans should become democrats. You are stuck in this "liberal is bad " syndrome for so long that the notion we are in fact a democracy and leaders are chosen by vote of the majority completely is over your head. GW Bush actually oversaw a nation divided by " either you are with us or you are with the terrorrists ", de facto calling half the nation unamerican. It is crazy and it is not what it really is. Constitutional law is still the law of the land and it has been chipped away by the so called Patriot Act supported by those who fell a need to wrap themselves up in an american flag to prove they are real americans. Remember kent state and the carnage ? That was Constitutional law falling apart and replaced with military power. Remember Al Haig taking over the White house after Reagan was shot ? GHW Bush realised immediatelly what happened and cut Haig's wings. I don't mind debate and welcome it but when you quote some fantasy about liberals, I turn you off as some whacko out there exercising your free speech right and that is all. let's go have a beer and mull this over a johnny cash album.
Wolf,
I do like your last sentence and Johnny Cash. I'll buy the first few rounds.
However with your first sentence I take issue. Where did I say Republicans should become Democrats?
My quote about liberals was just poking fun at the apparent contradictions posted by you asserting that the President is bipartisan when it is so patently obvious he is not. This powergrab over the census is yet but another example and falls in line with so many of the characters in "Alice in Wonderland" that I couldn't resist that quote to illustrate my point. I would have though you would have gotten it.
The rest of your note is really such a mishmash of what I would call 'liberal thinking'. I have no idea why you are putting together unrelated ideas about events that happened 20 and 30 years ago in a failed attempt to make some sort of point about me not making sense?
You can rail all you want about Haig and or the Kent State shootings but the issue is Obama's partisan and completely transparent attempt to take over the Census.
the issue is Obama's partisan and completely transparent attempt to take over the Census.
You're just scared that some illegals or maybe a few homeless may be included in the census. And what % would that be? .001% maybe? A couple hundred per district? It must be tough to be so scared of Obama all the time. And he's only been in office a month - I'd hate to see you later this year.
I'm not scared of illegals. Only Democrats in Congress and the White House.
They
The big issue over the Census is that Democrats want to ensure our nation counts everyone. Democrats believe that this requires some non-direct counting of people to make up for the people that are missed in the house to house counts. That's for homeless people, people in transit from location to location, and for resident aliens who get missed by normal counting methods. Republicans want it to be a strict counting only of the people counted in the house to house method, with nothing added to account for people who might be missed.
Luv,
Your post is another example of the liberal thinking where up suddenly becomes down.
Ensuring our nation counts everyone and then saying you have to use "non-direct" counting to do so, you are arguing for two mutually incompatible notions.
By definition you are not counting everyone if you uses statistical models and estimates.
Besides the Census Bureau already does use population estimates and revises those estimates quarterly.
So if the Census Bureau is already doing that, why do the Democrats need to control the Bureau? The obvious implication is that they want to fudge the figures to help them politically.
You seem confused. Obviously ensuring that everyone is counted is better served by counting the people listed as opposed to house-to-house. Your point seems to be that no count will be absolutely perfect, therefore you might as well go with the more flawed method.
Wait til someone starts the rumor that ACORN will be involved in the 2010 census. Oops, maybe I just did.
Brab,
The former Director of the Census, Charles Kincannon, disagrees with your assertion that statistical analysis is more accurate.
Besides that, simple common sense tells us there is no way to prove estimates are correct.
Charles Kincannon, the Census chief, 2002-2008 said, Statisticians almost universally reject adjusting numbers. It follows that having Census report to the White House---which has previously never been done---would turn statistical science “into something where speculation and guesswork could introduce egregious and prejudicial errors.”
http://www.alyssaalappen.org/2009/02/13/obamas-census-ational-power-grab/
Well, if you can dismiss something Clinton did, then I can dismiss a Bush appointee just as easily.
You can't prove estimates are correct, but I can prove that the number of homeless people (for instance) is greater than zero. Therefore any estimate, unless it reaches the point where it more than doubles the actual number, is closer to the truth than not counting it at all.
Common sense.
DING...and the winner is...
P.S. Brabantio,from Conlogic, how do you prove that one is more than zero? You must be lying because it does not fit into the ConWorld. And AA, how can you ever 'dismiss' liberal thinkg when you use ConThinking? What a leap of faith you give yourself.
Can't wait until we need a new JUSTICE for the SUPREME COURT??? Maybe this is all a big set-up.....oh no, a conspiracy.
Brab,
I never said the number of homeless people was zero so your strawman argument is invalid.
On top of that, your conclusion about estimating homeless does not make sense. If you are estimating the number of homeless, you cannot know where it more than doubles the actual number since you do not know the actual number.
Besides that, homeless people who live in shelters are counted.
And finally, the question is not that there are not uncounted people, but that you just can't guess at how many people are not counted and add that to the total.
The following illustrates my point.
On any given night in America, anywhere from 700,000 to 2 million people are homeless, according to estimates of the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty.
Not knowing where the numbers come from, which is it? 700,000 or 2 million? Which congressional district do they live?
No census is perfect, but common sense tells you that guestimating does not necissarily make it more accurate.
My second to the last sentence should say, "... congressional districts..."
You can certainly argue that sampling should not be used as part of the census, but to suggest that statistical methods are equivalent to guessing is profoundly ignorant.
"I never said the number of homeless people was zero so your strawman argument is invalid."
I didn't say you said that. I'm saying if you don't count anyone, you're pretty much guaranteed to be less accurate than an estimate. This isn't hard to comprehend.
"On top of that, your conclusion about estimating homeless does not make sense. If you are estimating the number of homeless, you cannot know where it more than doubles the actual number since you do not know the actual number."
No, but you can have some confidence that you are reasonably close to the actual number.
"Besides that, homeless people who live in shelters are counted."
Great. That will help.
"And finally, the question is not that there are not uncounted people, but that you just can't guess at how many people are not counted and add that to the total."
I'm not advocating "just guess(ing)". There's no way to come to a conclusion about such a population, really?
should homeless people count? i think if you don't own property, you shouldn't count.
I didn't express myself in any particular way. I just stated what the two positions are, but AA went off the deep end.
Luv,
Your post is another example of the liberal thinking where up suddenly becomes down.
that would be Ted Turner and he is certainly no Rupert the Pirate
Founded by Ted Turner, but he cut ties with Time Warner, who owns CNN, back in 2006.
oh i thought he still owned it. my bad
I don't have any references other than the fact that my mother was hired by the US census bureau to count the peeps. Maybe since the census has been used to gerry mander in the past and Bushco embedded lot's of moles in the federal bureaus on his way out, O and Rahm are just being sure no funny business goes on this time. What will be telling ultimately is how much of the raw data and how transparent the methodology is once the count is finished.
"should homeless people count? i think if you don't own property, you shouldn't count."
For the census? That would put our population at what, 100 million? You're leaving out spouses, children, anyone who rents a house or an apartment, and prisoners.
You can't be serious.
I hate it when my computer won't "reply". This is adding on to my previous post.
That should be "many prisoners". Also many nursing home residents as well. I found a statistic from 2004 which lists the number of homeowners at 73 million, so apparently I was being too generous with the 100 million guess.
It also occurs to me that the vast majority of the island of Manhattan would not count. That's a great time-saver, I suppose.
AA, seriously. Talk about the duties of the loyal opposition coming from the same person who talks about "BDS". Why were those of the loyal opposition smeared as terrorist sympathizers for opposing the Iraq invasion, or speaking out against warrantless wiretapping, or trying to end torture? The hypocrisy is overwhelming.
Remember, Obama made concessions on the bill. Republicans wanted input, they got it, and then they refused to vote for it. That's not acting in good faith. That goes well beyond "raising objections".
"Are you saying Gregg wanted to abolish the Census Department? I think you are mistaken."
He means Commerce. Have you tried using google?
Many would say that help for the poor is good for the country as well.
And guess who WON....and I wasn't promised a toaster and certainly the policies of the failed Republican party were resisted by Americans. . PRESIDENT OBAMA hasn't been in office a month and your heads are ready to explode because you can't have your way. Too freakin' bad. 2012 is just around the corner but 2016 or 2020 are sooo far away. Take a nap, listen to Fox and all will be well.
I'm not sure why this story was on media matters-- because a CNN reporter didn't take a politician at his word, and instead reported something beyond what that politician revealed? I mean, sure, Yellin should have made clear that Gregg denied that the census was a major part of his decision, but the rest of her reporting was fair enough, albeit a little too brief to go into detail about the census fight.