Results 1 to 12 of 12
  1.    #1  
    A fine attempt by the dems to gain advantage in the politically delicate process of counting Americans. How nifty. This way, they could arbitrarily claim larger populations of people within their blue states which would mean more electoral votes in those states. So when it comes time for Obama`s re-election, blue states could have more electoral votes on their side. Rather than going door to door, these dems will just use computer models to manipulate the census however they want, create phony population counts or change districts to suit their agenda. See how this works? Lets say there are 10 million living in Illinois. Dems will say, lets make it a cool 12 million instead, who`s gonna know?

    Ah, scandal and corruption at its absolute finest! You can always depend on the dems to deliver it, folks. YES WE CAN! Change you can believe in, constitutional or not, change is comin! Never mind the fact that we are violating the law by circumventing the commerce secretary, change is coming!



    "The Congress, by law directed that:

    "The Secretary [of Commerce] shall perform the functions and duties imposed upon him by this title, may issue such rules and regulations as he deems necessary to carry out such functions and duties, and may delegate the performance of such functions and duties and the authority to issue such rules and regulations to such officers and employees of the Department of Commerce as he may designate."

    The POTUS has no role in the census whatsoever beyond, with Senate approval, selecting the Secretary of Commerce and, also with Senate approval, selecting the Director of the Census who " shall perform such duties as may be imposed upon him by law, regulations, or orders of the Secretary." Hhmmm... No president mentioned.

    The Secretary of Commerce does not even report his findings to the President, but rather is instructed to 'publish' them. It looks quite clear to me that any incursion by the White House after those two Senate approved appointments is clearly against the law.

    ...from Subchapter 1 section 9 "No department, bureau, agency, officer, or employee of the Government, except the Secretary in carrying out the purposes of this title, shall ..."

    PERIOD.

    A gov`t controlled census. Thats quite a change. Can anyone say Soviet Union? I think that you can.
    Last edited by treosensei; 02/12/2009 at 10:57 PM.
  2.    #2  
    How much do ya wanna bet ACORN is given a contract?

    Ah, the demulecrats.
  3. #3  
    This is old news; however, it does speak sharply of partisan politics. As we have a pleasant habit of saying, "Can you imagine what the democrats would have done/said/reacted had the republicans done this?" The political power this places in the hands of the president is tremendous - the final outcome: total control. Of course, no one on the left has a problem with it since the left is doing it.
  4.    #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    This is old news; however, it does speak sharply of partisan politics. As we have a pleasant habit of saying, "Can you imagine what the democrats would have done/said/reacted had the republicans done this?" The political power this places in the hands of the president is tremendous - the final outcome: total control. Of course, no one on the left has a problem with it since the left is doing it.
    Old news or not, its a valid concern. This is just another shameful display among many in Obama`s fledgling administration. The leftwing media would have,without question, been rabidly attacking Bush had he done this in his term. The change they intend on delivering appears to be totalitarianism.
    Oh yeah, lets close Gitmo and seize control of the census.
  5. #5  
    You also forget that he dropped charges on a bunch of bad dudes - all for political gain. What a guy.

    A few dropping out of his administration, bunches of bad people let go, and bunches of admin orders - just showing his strength and his ego.
  6. #6  
    The Census bureau has been long politicized. some of the most hardened political operatives have been appointed there by two successive Bush terms.

    I find this discussion unbelievable naive.

    Historic Fact:
    Every election thousands THOUSANDS of political appointment jobs in the Upper US government change at the same time. These are jobs filled by every administration with partisans the official term is ("non competitive appointment") vs certain other lower jobs reserved for "career" employees

    Certain administrations have chosen to have a person from the out of power party sever in the administration cabinet. There have always been negotiated agreements in such cases as to how much oversight these people would have over the political appointments below them. EG how much power a Republican commerce secretary would have over the census bureau which is not an independent agency but part of commerce! They are partisan jobs.

    Judd Gregg was asked to do the same thing with the partisan jobs as Cohen and Gates agreed and Gregg didn't agree.
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by treosensei View Post
    The leftwing media would have,without question, been rabidly attacking Bush had he done this in his term. .
    Appointing poltical partisans at commerce over the census bureau and appoint partisans at census? Since Bush did do so, what is your point?
  8. #8  
    But directly to the White House? That is the difference.
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    But directly to the White House? That is the difference.
    It isn't the difference. Census has been under a political appoint for decades. Under the Republicans the head of census was a political partisan Republican appointment (a white house appointment hired and fired by white house with no needed reason) and his direct boss was a Republican partisan appointment at commerce.

    Since they were appointing a Republican at commerce, they were wiling to give him a lot of latitude but not sole control over the census bureau after 8 years of partisan Republican control of census.

    The Bush administration moved many agencies to direct control by the white House as have other administrations. They didn't trust their own guy colin Powell at State and moved quite a few functions that would have been under his control to direct white house control!

    In the case of appointing someone of the opposite party such limits on the power of the opposition party appointment over certain aspects, are not remarkable at all.

    There are lots of changes pending at Census, lots of issues the Republican running census for past 8 years blocked, especially rework of inner city counting and other minority counting such as Latinos. Reversing partisan decisions over the past 8 years at census was part of the platform. Gregg would have had to support the presidents policy at Census (just as the prior commerce head had supported White House direction to the letter) and he may have said no.
  10. #10  
    Reversing partisan decisions? No really, you know as well as I do what the outcome will be. The left speaks of freedoms, yet works very hard to squash the opposition.
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    No really, you know as well as I do what the outcome will be. .
    Yes, As I explained it will be reversing the partisan decisions made by the last white houses partisan political appointments.

    It has zero to do with "left" and "right" since they do the same identical thing.

    I just point out how silly the thread topic is since there was a slew of partisan decisions about the census by the last white house as well.
  12. #12  
    No, but your buddy stated transparency. Your buddette stated transparency. No transparency. No change. Nothing new - old stuff that did not work in the past.

Posting Permissions