|
|
||
Let's keep politics out of the 2010 Census Date published: 2/23/2009
EVERY 10 YEARS, the population So much depends on how many we are and where we live: representation in the House, for example, and how federal-aid funds are doled out. Then there are ancillary uses for the census. State governments use it to determine the makeup of their legislatures (see above) and the recipients of state aid. Sociologists, political scientists, even journalists study trends reflected in the report. The stakes are high enough that, predictably, as soon as the numbers are released, political operatives can be found bent over drawing tables, pencils in hand, constructing weirdly shaped districts to benefit their own parties. President Obama has now had a taste of census gamesmanship. Attempting a pass to the right, he launched the secretary of commerce post (home turf to the Bureau of the Census) to GOP Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire. The Democratic defense scrambled to intercept, and the White House tried a midair re-direct, saying the census director would report straight to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.--i.e., to Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. That sent an angry Mr. Gregg storming from the field--and play has been stalled since. Here's an idea: Let neutral parties carry the ball. Would Democrats have liked it had a GOP president named Karl Rove captain of the census? A university professor, a statistician, even a bureaucrat would be a better overseer of the census than someone who lives and breathes political strategy. Fairness demands it. The public should require it. Mr. Obama should see to it.
lobbied to get it, spoke in support of the stimulus, and then backed out because he couldn't be a team player. This is entirely on Gregg's shoulders, and is not some nefarious conspiracy on the part of the Obama administration. FLS editors love twisting this garbage, so expect more of the same in the future.
actively sought the nomination. He lobbied the Obama Administration to put him in at Commerce. In this interview with CNBC (http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/02/white_houses_census_interest_g.html) Gregg blames HIMSELF, and describes the divisive issues as "mostly" the economy. The reason WH wanted a close eye on the census was Gregg's past hostility to its very existence. It was never clear that Commerce would NOT include census, only that the Census would directly report to the WH.
I recalled him at a presser saying explicitly that was NOT why he pulled his name, but can't find any linkies. Your's is no good for FLS auto-censor, though. How can anyone explain that Gregg had a SERIOUS INTEREST in conducting the census, when in 2000 he was interested in DEFUNDING it? And how to refute Useful's valid point on redistricting? Another non-issue hyped by the reactionary FLS editors. They live to create conflict - it sells papers.
The ref. did not post correctly. Paragraph 4. Gregg speaking: "It has become apparent during this (nominating) process that this will not work for me as I have found on issues such as the stimulus package and *THE CENSUS* (my emphasis) there are irresolvable conflicts for me."
You asked: "If the census was the reason Gregg withdrew his name, why didn't Gregg say anything about it?" He did.
( .... http://community.marke[*#@!]ch.com/goups/us-politics/topics/heres-why-gregg-resigned-1 .......paras 2 and, especially 4). It was not the FLS editorial staff that knew Gregg's mind better than Gregg. It was the FLS editorial staff that probably knew Gregg's quote better than you.
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
