Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel Go After the Census

Reader Comments
Back to blog

1. Gregg asks Obama (not the other way around) for the appointment as Commerce Secretary almost certainly because among other things, he wanted to be able to fulfill his long-standing desire to water down the census just like GWB did by under-counting minorities, the poor, and the homeless the in the first place. He wanted the job in part so that he could strangle the census.
2. Obama grants Gregg his wish, and nominates Gregg for Commerce Secretary.
3. Individuals and groups who are aware of Gregg's contempt for a census that includes everyone -- because that is standard Republican dogma and is something that is anathema to most Republican leaders -- come forth to express their deep concerns about placing a fox in charge of the census chicken coop.
4. When Obama learns from those groups of Gregg's preference for an unfairly limited census -- something Gregg has fought for in the past -- the President agrees to move control of the census out from under Gregg's jurisdiction. Obama does this out his zeal for bipartisanship, because he still wanted Gregg as his Commerce Secretary. MOVING THE CENSUS TO ANOTHER DEPARTMENT WOULD ALLOW OBAMA TO GET HIS NOMINATION APPROVED BY THE SENATE DEMOCRATS WHO WOULD OTHERWISE VOTE AGAINST HIM BASED ON GREGG'S HOSTILITY TO THE CENSUS.
5. When Gregg learns that one key area which he wanted to control -- the census -- is now out of the Commerce Secretary's jurisdiction, he decides he doesn't want the job anymore and so he withdraws his nomination!
There is NOTHING suspicious or nefarious about Obama's bending-over-backwards in order to try to fulfill Gregg's request to be Commerce Secretary -- compromises that were necessary to get Gregg's nomination through the Senate -- but there's a huge amount that is suspicious in Gregg's behavior! He tried to to scam us by taking control of the census, but when he learned that his manipulative ruse failed, he scampered away, defeated.

emmb of MI 2:27AM February 16, 2009

As an independent, a lot of us voted for Bush as the least harmful of two totally
inept candidates. I believe time has proven that Bush was demonstrably inept and Gore is a bona fide nut with money. He has a mental condition referred to as hardly excogitative, given
his looney co-opting of the enron hydro carbon scam. As for Obama, who can vote for president a mature adult who knows not "when life begins". That it is debatable? Elections are not won based on the qualifications or vision of the candidates (they are neither wise nor virtuous)
but on their ability (like Obama) to exploit the ignorance, complacence and outright stupidity of the electorate. Obama had enough money to be elected if he ran as a "HAM SANDWICH".BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMA an elected means for the REQUIEM OF OUR NATION.Look a the three stooges running the congress? Pelosi, Reid and the ACLU!

Richard Whelan of NH 2:18PM February 15, 2009

The Chicago machine takes over the White House. Uggh.
Can't wait until that Blago case comes to fruition -- come on Mr. Fitzgerald -- we know Rahm is wrapped up in it. Let's move this along.

smc of NY 4:23PM February 13, 2009

Last I checked the Commerce Department is part of the Executive Branch. Why wouldn't the White House be interested?

Honestman of FL 11:33AM February 13, 2009

Es beginnt immer denselben (It begins always the same)
When one hears, in the clap of hands, only one hand, beware!

Feral Grognard 2:03PM February 12, 2009

Are you saying because of the Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore there is no validity to the point of Obama not being an Article 2 "natural born citizen" or "res ipsa loquitur" placing the burden on BHO to provide the withheld birth certificate?

Ted of MA 7:12PM February 11, 2009

Who knew that Ted believed the Constitution had any relevance in politics? The President who never actually won the election in question appointed by coincidence the man who "saved" his election to the Supreme Court? The administration who found the Constitution filled with irrelevant topics about rights of individuals in relation to government spying? The administration who unilaterally decided to stop honoring the treaties the government had signed with other nations? The group who decided "habeus corpus" was irrelevant to our legal structure?
Looks like only some politicians are allowed to claim a mandate from the people...those not necessarily the ones who "won" the election in question. Life is tough all over!

Elizabeth Deogratias of VA 5:04PM February 11, 2009

First, the comparison of the GOP supposedly "breaking fundamental laws of our constitution" during the Bush Administration as a justification for the unconstitutional usurpation of the Presidency itself by someone not lawfully eligible under Article 2 (if you desire to challenge the point of Obama not being an Article 2 "natural born citizen" or "res ipsa loquitur" placing the burden on BHO to provide the withheld birth certificate, be my guest) is absurd and fraudulent.
Second, the winning of the elections by Obama and/or Congressional Democrats (albeit with the fraudulent coverup and bias of the main stream media but we can leave that issue for another day) misses the point entirely of constitutional usurpation.
Third, GWB deficits were largely caused by defense build up to compensate for Clinton years of defense and security drawdowns resulting in 9/11. (And, on the other hand, Clinton surpluses largely resulted from Reagan winning the Cold War, no thanks to the Dems, enabling a substantial reduction in defense expenditures, as well as the GOP taking over Congress in 1994.)
Fourth, I wouldn't call it a "horrible job" of governing by Bush when no one would have predicted after 9/11 his success of stopping all further acts of terrorism in the nation during his tenure, as well as has having a growing economy until, that is, the Dems took over Congress in 2006 -- beginning the precipitous fall. (If anything, the GOP can be blamed for not fighting hard enough against the likes of Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and company for their generating the economic melt down by forcing banks to give NINJA loans (no-income/no-job/no asset) loans bought up and traded off by Dem-controlled Fannie and Freddie under the false guize of being federally backed securities.)
Fifth, while it certainly seems doubtful that if the elections were held today, the Dems (including Obama) would be in such a winning position, again, the election results are besides the point since we are a Constitutional Republic.
Sixth, here I'll agree with you to the extent that Republicans "dropped the ball" which is why the nation is paying the price now.

Ted of MA 3:05PM February 11, 2009

Additional to above comment. If President Bush and the republician party had not doubled the national debt over the last 8 years, plus leaving the entire economy in a total meltdown that, if not corrected, could lead to a worldwide depression greater than that of the 30s, then I might be willing to listen to republicians like Mr Fund. The fact that our country broke not only our own laws, but international treaties by torturing prisioners-we tried and convicted both Germans-the Nuremburg trials established that illegal orders are nop defense against war crimes-and Japanese soldiers for the crime of waterboarding-and the fact that we also disobeyed articles in the constitution, tell me that republicians who went along with or still believe in what their party did have no basis for complaint now that the people have spoken and voted out the criminals

timr of TX 2:19PM February 11, 2009

On the other hand, John Fund is a republician, they had power-and used it destructivly for 8 years, to the point of breaking fundemental laws in our constitution. When Mr DeLay was his-republician-parties leader in the house, he attempted to change the law by forcing Tx to hold a mid term redrawing of districts and so packing more republicians into congress. Portions of this forced redristricting were found to be illegal, but because he forced a mid term realignment of congressional districts, there are now more Tx members in the minority than if he had just left things alone. Karma is wonderful, is it not?
However Mr Fund complains, the dems won this election-and won pretty big by getting 7 more senate seats along with a bigger majority in the house-so any and all complaints by Mr Fund and all other republicians are just the sore loser syndrome.
If the republicians had governed better and not left a $1Trillion dollar deficit, 2 wars being run on borrowed money and a total runaway in earmarks, then I might listen. But the people have spoken, the republician party did a horrible job when they controlled both the executive and legislative branches, so now it is the dems turn. The entire nation-outside Washington DC supports President Obama-66% in national polls-, yet the minority republicians have decided that total obstruction is the way to go.
Finally, to the victor goes the spoils, the republicians went by that mantra for 6 years, they got arrogent and hubris set in, the people decided that the democratic party deserved a chance. You republicians lost, get over it. Oh, and BTW, President Obama-dispite spite from some-is a natural born citizen of the US, Hawaii is, after all, a state.

timr of TX 2:06PM February 11, 2009