Gregg: A Republican Runs the 2010 Census
I'm surprised only one commentator so far as I know, Michael Barone, and few Democrats like Congressional Black Caucus Chair Barbara Lee, have made this point. By putting Judd Gregg at Commerce, Obama has put a Republican in charge of one of the most politically frought tasks facing any president: the Census. Mandated by the Constitution, the Census is, of course, essential for allocating congressional seats as well as the disbursement of certain federal funds.
The methods of Census collection are often in dispute. In 2000 Democrats pushed for statistical sampling to achieve a better count of underrepresented groups--the homeless, transient poor, and so on. They lost. It's not clear that there will be as much controversy in 2010 when the next Census will take place but by putting Gregg at the Commerce Department--which oversees the Bureau of the Census--Obama has handed a potentially very politically sensitive position to a Republican. My old colleague, Barone weighs in against sampling as liberal subterfuge although any number of groups of like the American Association for the Advancement of Science have supported it.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
It's Reid's brilliance at display again.
February 3, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reid is the President? WTF?
February 3, 2009 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ried Recommended him to Obama, Obama doesn't even know him.
Ried also recommended Harriet Myers to Bush. Dude's got the magic touch!
February 3, 2009 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ried Recommended him to Obama, Obama doesn't even know him.
Ried also recommended Harriet Myers to Bush. Dude's got the magic touch!
uh, terribly sorry but Harriet Miers was entirely Bush's idea. she was a personal friend of his and he wanted to place someone he would be comfortable with in the Supreme Court, like it was his personal plaything. and of course she said yes, as she could never say no to Bush. and it was a Conservative firestorm that followed and which made him withdraw her name. another example of the leader Bush never was. roberts and alito were both far better choices than Miers. and it's spelled: Reid.
February 3, 2009 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Couple of points,
1. I don't think that gregg is going to be able to do anything as head of commerce to impact on the census one way or the other.
2. I don't think that statistical sampling is constitutional. I believe that only a head count is constitutional. Statistical sampling sounds like utter bs anyway and should not be done on something as critical as a census.
Total non-issue.
February 3, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The census is a political hand grenade. It has a history of ruining Commerce Secretaries to my understanding (don't ask for a link, I don't have one..... yeah, yeah... i know)
February 3, 2009 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
One other point, a commentor pointed out the fact that commerce controls the senate early this morning, so I guess the noone line out is kind of silly. Someone pointed it out this morning before either you or Barone. Big deal.
Interestingly enough, people weren't running around claiming the sky is falling, the sky is falling because commerce oversees the census. In fact, there was no comment.
However, as this is another nail in the coffin of the obama administration, I will do the honors. The sky is falling, the sky is falling. What a disaster! Two whole weeks and its all over. The republicans are taking over the obama adminstration and the administration is an abject failure. Oh no! Only 3 years and 351 days to go until a new president. Better start a countdown.
February 3, 2009 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
census, not senate in the first paragraph. I don't know why I keep doing that.
February 3, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure what your point is about Barone. I assume that you still consider him a colleague. Are you just saying that he's old?
February 3, 2009 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just saw Gregg's brief statement on CSPAN and he sounded good.
Very supportive of the stimulus plan and pushing his colleagues not to play politics with it.
That was actually refreshing after all the all the Daschle news today.
February 3, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
But, but he is a nasty republican who will undercut obama and the administration. Didn't you hear? The sky is falling, the sky is falling. Of course you don't want a former republican leader in the senate supporting obama's program. That would be stupid. Obama just destroyed his administration by appointing a business oriented conservative republican to a head a department that's supposed to stimulate and help businesses. Didn't you hear?
February 3, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
You seem to have some hostility issues against anyone raising the slightest question about an Obama action. I don't think Obama would approve!
Look, Elana made a fine point. A Republican will be running the census. She didn't say, contrary to your hyperemotional post, that this is the end of the world.
Maybe in the end it'll be brilliant. Maybe not so much.
I, for one, am damn tired of bipartisanship being the highest goal we can reach for. Modern Republicans don't play that game. They will stick it to Dems over being bipartisan every time.
February 3, 2009 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I am just kidding around. Sorry if you take it as hostility. It just seems that everyone is freaking out about every little thing. It seems silly to me.
Incidentally, it was cooper's post, not elana. Also, can't I have an opinion that it's a silly issue? The congress controls the census in reality, not the commerce secretary. The commerce secretary basically get to take the heat, but has no control over the situation. Primarily in the past, the issue has been funding the stupid census, which is always underfunded and behind schedule for as long as I can remember.
What on earth would the commerce secretary have to do with that? Nothing. Again, everyone is going ballistic over stupid things.
February 3, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alpha,
I agree, modern day Republicans are huns, you put a hand out to them and they will bite it off.
I think Obama is over reaching with this bi-partisan thing with the Gregg appointment. What does Obama or the Democrats gain, some temporary feel good bragging rights to bi-partisanship?
February 4, 2009 7:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget Hillary will be starting a shadow government right under Obama's nose. Going overseas and saying the exact opposite of what Obama told her.
February 4, 2009 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gregg will be a part of the Obama administration--that he'd use his position to make things better for the Republicans is ridiculous. A point of this administration has been transparency.
Now, whether statistical sampling is admissible? I'd bet if it is tried that the Supreme Court would end up being the deciding factor here. I like the AAAS. I understand that minorities are often undercounted. I'm a scientist. But a census seems to me to be like voting. One person. One vote. Statistics don't matter.
February 3, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, remember, Obama is the boss. If Gregg doesn't comply, he can fire his sorry ass.
February 3, 2009 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree completely. Statistically sampling sounds like a better method, scientifically. However, it sounds unconstitutional, legally.
This is one of the few rare cases (possibly the only case) where I'm not upset that politics "trumps" science.
February 4, 2009 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
WTF. Gregg carries out Obama's policies or he's gone. I am pretty sure Commerce Secretaries do not get to fcuk up the Census on their own unless they are doing it on the orders of the President. And even then it''s pretty damn hard for the president to fcuk with the census.
Call this another example of trying to manufacture drama that is the life's blood of washington journalism.
February 3, 2009 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
My feelings exactly. If he doesn't tow the line, hiss ass is gone.
February 3, 2009 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
you don't tow the line, you toe it.
February 3, 2009 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unless you are playing tug of war...
February 4, 2009 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given that the census has been sampling for decades with the long form - I don't see much point to arguing it.
I get a kick out of the complaints about 'nosy questions' from people who clearly have never looked at the censuses that are available.
If they had, they'd know that past censuses were far nosier than the current ones. (Questions like how long you've been married, how old were you the first time you married, how many kids have you had, how many are alive; also about immigration, reading and writing, disabilities and insanity, and physical health.)
February 3, 2009 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahhhh... sampling doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. Getting more robust statistical data from census forms is not the sampling that is being discussed here, which is re-weighting that actual numbers of people based on statistical models of who would get missed by the head-count process that normally gets done in the census.
February 4, 2009 2:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
another silly choice.
defenders of Obama now have become comics.
they cant bare the thought they need to see the truth.
it scares the little dears.
February 3, 2009 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Scares?
Whatever. Anyone that is familiar with Obama's past and the way he governs, like during his reign as editor of the Harvard law review, knows that Obama's gift is his ability to turn heavily partisan arenas into inclusiveness, and that during his editorship the biggest complaint was from the liberal wing who felt Obama was betraying them by not championing liberal writers and issues as they felt he owed it to them to do.
No surprises here that Obama's biggest detractors are those like JadeZ who expected differently.
February 3, 2009 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait...do you mean we DON'T get to treat the red states like occupied territories? What in the world were we voting for, then?
February 3, 2009 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
For some reason alot of people think that. I like the current mantra that if a rep or senator doesn't vote for the bill then don't give their district or state any funds. Oh, that's brilliant. There are people in those states and districts that are desperate and need help. Just because their congress people are idiots doesn't mean that they should not be helped. It really is sad when you think about it. Why do rabid lefties sound so republican when they have some power? I don't understand.
February 3, 2009 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, according to colleagues at the Law Review, his highest priority was producing the best publication possible.
February 3, 2009 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well at least Rachel Maddow will have something to bitch about tonight
February 3, 2009 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
As if her "bitch" well ever runs dry. I stopped watching her two months ago. Too glass half empty for me. Whenever I switch over for a minute or two, I know I made the right decision.
February 3, 2009 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't fault her for bitching - her show is really very good and her guest keep getting better and the reason they do is her reputation. People like going on her show because she asks intelligent questions.
Her paranoia does get on my nerves some but not enough to stop watching her.
February 3, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's a very, very bright woman and asks intelligent questions. But you nailed it. She's just too damn paranoid and hand-wringy.
She reminds me of my cousin-in-law. If you say, "gee, it's a gorgeous sunny day," he'll say "yes, but we're all probably getting skin cancer." Sheez.
February 3, 2009 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do love Rachel but she one paranoid worry-wart. I love her but it is starting to grit on my nerves but I do look past it because she has so many other excellent qualities and her show is really good.
February 3, 2009 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's "fraught", not frought. Also, this census thing is a red herring. Gregg is not going to want to get shit-canned for screwing up the census. Commerce is a great place to park a senior Republican senator. It's a non-regulatory department the function of which is to cheerlead for US businesses. Perfect for a dick like Gregg.
February 3, 2009 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems like it would be easy enough for Congress to reject him. Give Obama a little tough love, which he seems to need. He should open his eyes to the fact that he is allowing the foxes back into the hen house and getting nothing in return for it (like a Dem in that Senate seat). This is a bad bad bad deal.
February 4, 2009 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was actually going to (and still might) send a letter to the White House in support of renewing the push to get sampling into the next census. Perhaps it is even more important now.
Pace Michael A, while sampling might be found to be unconstitutional, this would be a judgement call; it certainly isn't obvious on its face that a method of enumeration which can be proved to be more accurate is necessarily less desirable.
February 4, 2009 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Color me skeptical about the warning intonation of this post. I have a friend at Commerce who works on the Census project. He's been there 12 years. There is a significant amount of entrenchment on what the shape of the Census will be in 2010, and it doesn't look significantly different from the shape of the Census in 2000, when it was taken under a Democrat. Gregg's influence over the census will be small. And it's not Gregg that will have the influence, it's the undersecretary with direct oversight over the Census project. Know who that is yet? No you don't, and it will likely be selected by the White House.
February 4, 2009 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink