Senator Gregg Withdraws Bid

[JaJae]

Coming from Drudge

OBAMA BURNED: GREGG WITHDRAWS AFTER POLICIES TOO MUCH TO STOMACH
Thu Feb 12 2009 16:18:14 ET

For Immediate Release:
Thursday, February 12, 2009

Senator Gregg Statement on His Withdrawal for Consideration of U.S. Commerce Secretary

Sen. Gregg stated, “I want to thank the President for nominating me to serve in his Cabinet as Secretary of Commerce. This was a great honor, and I had felt that I could bring some views and ideas that would assist him in governing during this difficult time. I especially admire his willingness to reach across the aisle.

“However, it has become apparent during this process that this will not work for me as I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the Census there are irresolvable conflicts for me. Prior to accepting this post, we had discussed these and other potential differences, but unfortunately we did not adequately focus on these concerns. We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy.

“Obviously the President requires a team that is fully supportive of all his initiatives.

“I greatly admire President Obama and know our country will benefit from his leadership, but at this time I must withdraw my name from consideration for this position.

“As we move forward, I expect there will be many issues and initiatives where I can and will work to assure the success of the President’s proposals. This will certainly be a goal of mine.

“Kathy and I also want to specifically thank Governor Lynch and Bonnie Newman for their friendship and assistance during this period. In addition we wish to thank all the people, especially in New Hampshire, who have been so kind and generous in their supportive comments.

“As a further matter of clarification, nothing about the vetting process played any role in this decision. I will continue to represent the people of New Hampshire in the United States Senate.”

Good for him. I'm glad he stood up for what he believes in. I strongly disagree with this bill, but I wonder why he didn't see it through to try to change the policies from within. I guess he figured it was a lost cause.

[motivez]

I think this has more to do with worries about what would happen if the GOP had one less Senator at this time than anything else.

[Swift]

I think that's pretty cool. But what state is he from and who is the governor of said state?

EDIT: Oh, he's from New Hampshire. Yeah, Motivez, you could be correct in your assesment.

[Donkey®]

Really? He specifically stated he agreed with Obama's economic policy...so this isn't because of the bill.

[DosEquis]

I am pretty sure he is putting his party before his country with this stunt.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Really? He specifically stated he agreed with Obama's economic policy...so this isn't because of the bill.

Just because you agree with someone's policy agenda doesn't mean you'll support every aspect of it. I supported Bush's tax cuts but was very much against all the stupid spending.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

I am pretty sure he is putting his party before his country with this stunt.

Yep

The GOP is circling the wagons around their leader Rush Limbaugh.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Yep

The GOP is circling the wagons around their leader Rush Limbaugh.

Oh, you mean the one that DOESN'T hold anykind of political office? Ok, gotcha.

[HughRuss]

Originally Posted by Swift

Oh, you mean the one that DOESN'T hold anykind of political office? Ok, gotcha.

Which says quite a bit about the GOP...

[kinggovernor]

once they said they wanted to politicize the census, the writing was on the wall

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

once they said they wanted to politicize the census, the writing was on the wall

What?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Scrum

What?

Democrats didn't trust a dirty Republican to handle the Census, a core part of the job Gregg was up for. They started complaining and the White House agreed that if Gregg got the job they would take control of the Census.

But statisticians at the Commerce Department didn't think it would mean having the director of next year's Census report directly to the White House rather than to the Commerce secretary, as is customary. "There's only one reason to have that high level of White House involvement," a career professional at the Census Bureau tells me. "And it's called politics, not science."

The decision was made last week after California Rep. Barbara Lee, chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, and Hispanic groups complained to the White House that Judd Gregg, the Republican senator from New Hampshire slated to head Commerce, couldn't be trusted to conduct a complete Census. The National Association of Latino Officials said it had "serious questions about his willingness to ensure that the 2010 Census produces the most accurate possible count."

Anything that threatens the integrity of the Census has profound implications. Not only is it the basis for congressional redistricting, it provides the raw data by which government spending is allocated on everything from roads to schools. The Bureau of Labor Statistics also uses the Census to prepare the economic data that so much of business relies upon. "If the original numbers aren't as hard as possible, the uses they're put to get fuzzier and fuzzier," says Bruce Chapman, who was director of the Census in the 1980s.

Mr. Chapman worries about a revival of the effort led by minority groups after the 2000 Census to adjust the totals for states and cities using statistical sampling and computer models. In 1999, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Department of Commerce v. U.S. House that sampling could not be used to reapportion congressional seats. But it left open the possibility that sampling could be used to redraw political boundaries within the states.

John Fund Explains Why Barack Obama Wants Control of the U.S. Census - WSJ.com

Basically minority groups don't want a Republican in control of the census because they want to ensure that their districts get as much money as possible and they're worried that if Republican does the census it won't be "accurate" enough to include the highest number of minorities possible. Thus, they would lose some federal funding. So in an unprecedented move, the White House decided to oversee and supervise the census and take the power away from the Commerce Department irregardless of the fact that the Commerce Department has always handled the census. It is one of the key responsibilities of the department.

When Obama agreed to take the census power away from the Commerce Department on the whim of activists wanting money, Gregg respectfully withdrew his name. He was expected to get the job and apparently didn't want it anymore if that's how things were going to be handled. It's not surprising people haven't heard about it, when it happened ABC, NBC, CBS, etc all declined to report on it. I wonder if it would have been newsworthy for the Bush administration to take control of the census?

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Scrum

What?

YouTube - Rachel Maddow Show - Rep. Barbara Lee...

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by JaJae

So in an unprecedented move, the White House decided to oversee and supervise the census and take the power away from the Commerce Department irregardless of the fact that the Commerce Department has always handled the census.

[...]

I wonder if it would have been newsworthy for the Bush administration to take control of the census?

Unprecedented?

The Census: Don Evans Takes Over the Count - TIME

[Bush Commerce Secretary Don Evans] Friday issued a rule that makes him the final arbiter over the hotly contested political issue of whether the initial population count is accurate or needs to be statistically adjusted. The move removes from the Census bureau the decision over whether to adjust the 2000 count to guard against an undercount of minorities and low income Americans.

Bush Administration Strips Census Bureau of Authority to Adjust Count. (26-FEB-01) Nation's Cities Weekly

While the country was reacting to the news of intensified bombings in Iraq, the Bush Administration quietly moved to revoke the Census Bureau director's power to adjust the Census tally announced last December. Specifically, Commerce Secretary Don Evans stripped the Census Bureau of the power to decide whether the Census 2000 head count would be adjusted to include the undercount. Traditionally, the undercount tends to be in cities and rural areas with minorities, children and the poor that have the greatest need for federal assistance which often depends on demographic factors collected by the census for its allocation. Frequently, these are congressional districts with democratic leanings.

The move to strip the authority of the Census Bureau to make the pronouncement is seen as virtually ensuring that Republicans will prevail in their push not to adjust the Census 2000 tally. The Chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Census, Rep. Dan Miller...

Looks to me like they are trying to ensure that politics doesn't strip minority counts like they have in the past.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by HughRuss

Which says quite a bit about the GOP...

But who says that Rush is the leader? Obama? That jsut makes no sense.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Unprecedented?

The Census: Don Evans Takes Over the Count - TIMEBush Administration Strips Census Bureau of Authority to Adjust Count. (26-FEB-01) Nation's Cities Weekly
Looks to me like they are trying to ensure that politics doesn't strip minority counts like they have in the past.

Ooooh so it seems it was a problem in the past with republicans under reporting in areas that might get welfare... so these groups were concerned it would happen again...

Personally, I am ready to throw bi-partisanship out the window. They have been nothing but bitter dick heads unwilling to compromise and work with Obama.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Unprecedented?

The Census: Don Evans Takes Over the Count - TIMEBush Administration Strips Census Bureau of Authority to Adjust Count. (26-FEB-01) Nation's Cities Weekly
Looks to me like they are trying to ensure that politics doesn't strip minority counts like they have in the past.

yes when we do the census we should actually count everyone, just do a statistical sample

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

yes when we do the census we should actually count everyone, just do a statistical sample

Apparently getting a full head count in poor areas is a problem if a republican is doing the counting.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Personally, I am ready to throw bi-partisanship out the window. They have been nothing but bitter dick heads unwilling to compromise and work with Obama.

And democrats were so in love with Bush...

[stolz25]

Took almost a month before he was ready to get rid of bi-partisanship.