The White House Bumbles Another Nomination
Judd Gregg was going to be the Cabinet member who proved that Barack Obama was a true bipartisan leader. Gregg is a fairly-conservative and well-respected Senator who replaced the former nominee who had to withdraw because he’s under criminal investigation for corruption.
Unfortunately, the President found that even though Gregg wasn’t a rock-ribbed conservative, he wasn’t willing to drink the whole cup of Kool-Aid. Gregg withdrew his nomination today and said, in part:
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.
In other words, the President blew Gregg off then dissed him by publicly saying he was going to meddle with Gregg’s oversight of the 2010 Census.
That’s not bipartisan. It’s not even competent. You don’t name a guy to a position of great responsibility, the submarine him in full public view before he’s even in the job. I know that and I’ve never held an executive position before (which makes me as qualified as our current President, come to think of it).
This, by the way, makes the third Cabinet nominee who withdrew early but only the first one who wasn’t a crook. So at least the President is getting better in that respect. Maybe in a few more months he’ll have the whole picking a Cabinet thing down.
Gosh, I sure wish we had known about his complete lack of executive experience before we gave him this job!
Ed Driscoll has the whole press release from Gregg’s office as well as some other very worthwhile links.
Related posts:
- For the White House, Lying About the Berwick Nomination is the Easy Way Out
- The White House's Official Church is the Church of Global Warming
- Which Came First, the Primary or the Nomination?
- Stop, Mr. President! Glass House! Glass House!!
Category: Featured, President Barack Obama
About the Author (Author Profile)
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
[...] More: “The White House Bumbles Another Nomination.” [...]
Obama should learn a valuable lesson here: Republicans cannot be trusted. They want to destroy this country and will do anything to do do it. They have foreign bank accounts that are immune to this country's failures. They will use those to buy America when it fails and has a low asking price. That's the Republican Plan.
That said, Gregg punked Obama in way way that deserves admiration. But it's the kind of admiration you'd normally reserve for a mafia boss. Regardless, you have to admire Gregg's scheming. But the next time Obama reaches his hand out to the Republicans, it better have a knife in it.
At this point, I'd negotiate with Syria before I'd ever negotiate again with the Republicans. The Republicans pose a far more serious threat to this country. The Syrians want to negotiate, the Republicans do not. The Syrians can at least accept religious pluralism (better than almost anyone, actually). The Republicans only accept Christianism. But at least the Republicans are sticking with their Likud allies. Both have become completely unreasonable.
Or, he can learn the lesson that you don't appoint a man to a position of trust then cut his legs out from under him in public.
That would be the one based on some semblance of fact.
"Or, he can learn the lesson that you don’t appoint a man to a position of trust then cut his legs out from under him in public. "
Obama never cut out Gregg's legs. Yes, he did say that the Census would be managed through the White House, but it has always been that way. The Republicans are now so desperate that they call out normal ways of doing things as radical new policy. George HW Bush did exactly the same thing. Will you criticize George HW Bush for doing exactly what Obama wants to do? And can you provide a statistical defense for not using the statistical sampling Gregg refused to do? The current Census techniques are intrusive and inaccurate. Which part of that do you like? The intrusiveness, or the inaccuracies? I will restate my position that the Census should be done in the most mathematically accurate method possible. And I will accept any proposal at face value. If you have a more mathematically accurate method, let's hear it. The current method can easily be proven to be remarkably inaccurate, so don't even try that one. The method that the Democrats have in the past few decades proposed is consistent with modern statistical methods. You must prove that prevailing mathematical theories are wrong and propose you own solution to modern mathematics in the process. So, bring it on! Do it, and you'll have a PhD in Mathematics. And it won't be ceremonial. If you can prove all of mathematics wrong, you'll be the most famous person in history. So try it.
The fact is, Gregg gamed the system from the start. He accepted the nomination in an effort to embarrass the President. He knew exactly what he was getting into. He knew exactly what would cause embarrassment. He knew exactly how to punk Obama. And he did it. Your only defense is that Gregg is profoundly stupid. And Gregg is not stupid. Misguided, yes. Stupid, no.
Oh piffle. Obama cut off communications with him then undercut him in a truly humiliating fashion. The fact of the matter is that Gregg supports exactly the same method of counting the Census that the Constitution demands and the courts have said must be done. The Democratic method of using software to make an educated guess will always be less accurate and the courts have recognized that.
The mathematically correct way of counting people is to count people, not count a few than make a good guess about how many of them are there. That's just the way it is.
"The Democratic method of using software to make an educated guess will always be less accurate and the courts have recognized that."
Show me court case.
"The mathematically correct way of counting people is to count people, not count a few than make a good guess about how many of them are there. That’s just the way it is."
Umm, no. Strict counting has bias. It's biased by who is willing to be counted. I exist, yet I may or may not have been counted in the last census. It's illegal for me to find out, so I don't really know. So if you want to tell me the way the count was done the last time, you need to verify whether I actually exist. And then you need to prove to me that my existence was cross-checked with my tax records. Given that you work with law enforcement officials (and are are socialist by working for the government), you can do that. You can tell me whether I exist or not. The IRS can tell me whether they think I owe taxes. But few people in the world can say I even exist. Show me my existence from the last Census, and I might believe they'll count me this time. As for the last time, I think I fooled them. But the IRS knows better, doesn't it?
I may be playing tricks with the Census, but the counting problem is real. Imagine two jars, both of which have an equal amount of things. How do you know how much each jar holds? We can make scientific approximations, but the real guess is still dumb luck. Even if it's just jelly beans. But what if it's cockroaches instead? You open up that jar, and how do you count them? They just run away. Not so easy now, is it? Those that are effective at running away don't get counted. That is the same problem we have in the Census. Identities that should be removed will not be removed, and those that don't want to be seen will not be seen. With a straight count, those effects will never be will be real. Just the way you want it. You want minorities to be disenfranchised, that's the Republican way. You are afraid of mathematical reality because it works against your favor. Just like Mathematics, Physics, Economics, Biology, and every other logical discipline works against you. Your theories have failed you, you ave nothing but pure faith to defend your theories. You have become nothing but aborigines, except you're you don't have their insight. They lack empirical knowledge like you, but they do have original knowledge that few people will believe. The only difference is that their original knowledge is valuable and results in tangible findings. By tangible, I mean gold, oil and gemstones. Try producing that with you conservative philosophy.
You'd think I could edit myself, but that's not the case. But the point still stands. You're insistence on mathematically incorrect proposals doesn't work unless those proposals can be proven mathematically. Try it. So write a paper to the relevant journals and have it approved. You obviously believe your math is superior to those who hold Nobel prizes, so prove your math on this page. There's a nice prize for it if you can do it. But until you can, I'll believe those that hold such prizes. The problem with your math is simple. You believe that large numbers are smaller than small numbers. Despite obvious numbers to the contrary, you think the economy grew faster under Bush than Clinton. But you don't believe in the value of numbers. You simply do not accept anything but the Bible. The Bible clearly states in Genesis that the number one is equal to the number seven. If both accounts of Noah are correct, that must be true. It's impossible to discuss anything with someone who believes such things. But Republicans really do believe such things. They think a $880 billion plan is too expensive, but a $3.1 trillion dollar plan is just fine. Republicans honestly think that 3 is less than 1. How do you talk to such people? The only way I can think of it it is this: I'll give you three one dollar bills, and you give me a ten dollar bill. You would obviously think you're getting the better deal given that you have more pieces of paper in your hand, right? But that may not be the case. After all, numbers can mean anything right? A million is the same as one. All numbers are the same if you believe Genesis. So a trillion dollar deficit is better than a hundred billion surplus, right? Numbers and money don't really mean anything to you, but it means something to me. When I'm designing your heart implant, I'll make sure to use your math. After all, God will make it work, won't He? You'll be perfectly happy with me using arbitrary numbers, won't you? But of course, you wouldn't want a qualified person like me designing your heart valves, would you? You want Joe the Plumber doing that work. Good luck with that. I'm really looking forward to you insisting that no qualified doctor work on you when you need medical treatment. After all, you insist that anyone qualified for anything be not allowed to help you. When you have the heart problems that will surely come to you, I'm sure you'll insist on a plumber over a cardiologist. That's the Republican way, after all.
You're on the ragged edge of trolling now. I suggest you knock it off.
I'm not even going to read fostert's "blog entry" because my time is too valuable to offer points that he will just ignore. If anyone took the time to read it, can you tell me if there were any new points he's made or is it more of the usual Republicans/Christians/Conservatives/Americans/White-people are evil; Muslims & other brown-people are sweet/smart/loving and oh-so-much-more-advanced/intellectual-than-we-are drivel?