Judd Gregg Withdraws from Consideration

[del]

like he didn't know what the policies were going to be when he asked for the job! lol...

Thank heaven he withdrew from consideration.

No one who thinks the Dept of Commerce shoud be abolished should be running the Dept of Commerce. That's just p'nuts.

And it's not like the dems were getting anything for it, either.

i've looked around and i can't find anyone except obama's spokesman who says that gregg put himself forward for the job. having said that, the job description did change as soon as gregg's name was put forward (removal of census). i think that he had a hard choice to make, made the choice that was right for him, and is willing to live with the consequences. how is that a bad thing?



why should the dems get anything for anything? is the whole govt now pay to play?

 

[jillian]

You aren't listening again. The Census was illegally removed from Commerce and moved to the White House. There is only one reason to do that, and that is so the President can play fast and loose with the numbers in the Census to gerrymander whole States.

I think you're right. I'm actually glad Gregg is going back to the senate, and I see his withdrawal as an act of conscience.

The census wasn't supervised by commerce under Clinton. There was an independent panel to make sure it was non-partisan. Bush put it under the commerce secretary to MAKE it PARTISAN.

illegal my butt... anything RGS doesn't like, he says is illegal.

and why wasn't RGS screaming when Baby Bush took the census away from the nonpartisan committee that was overseeing it?

 

[jillian]

like he didn't know what the policies were going to be when he asked for the job! lol...

Thank heaven he withdrew from consideration.

No one who thinks the Dept of Commerce shoud be abolished should be running the Dept of Commerce. That's just p'nuts.

And it's not like the dems were getting anything for it, either.

i've looked around and i can't find anyone except obama's spokesman who says that gregg put himself forward for the job. having said that, the job description did change as soon as gregg's name was put forward (removal of census). i think that he had a hard choice to make, made the choice that was right for him, and is willing to live with the consequences. how is that a bad thing?



why should the dems get anything for anything? is the whole govt now pay to play?

the dems had every right to expect that if Gregg was put in Commerce that the DEMOCRATIC governor of his state would appoint a democrat to fill the seat.

That isn't pay for play. That's politics.

You ever see a repub gov appoint a dem?

And I would fully expect that the DEMOCRATIC administration wouldn't allow a republican to play politics with the census.

And I have no issues with undoing what Bush did in terms of putting it directly under the supervision of the commerce secy.

so, given that gregg certainly knew about the financial pov of this admin... doncha think his reason for wanting commerce secy maybe was to help his repub buddies

i mean, after all, the guy sees no value in the actual commerce dept and tried to kill it.

So really I don't know why he was ever there in the first place. It is clear that the repubs have no interest in being bi-partisan.

 

[Valerie]

You aren't listening again. The Census was illegally removed from Commerce and moved to the White House. There is only one reason to do that, and that is so the President can play fast and loose with the numbers in the Census to gerrymander whole States.

I think you're right. I'm actually glad Gregg is going back to the senate, and I see his withdrawal as an act of conscience.

The census wasn't supervised by commerce under Clinton. There was an independent panel to make sure it was non-partisan. Bush put it under the commerce secretary to MAKE it PARTISAN.

illegal my butt... anything RGS doesn't like, he says is illegal.

Well, I'm sure you're right about the technical legality of it, but the end result is that Gregg found the conditions irreconcilable, so he felt compelled to withdraw and I don't blame him.

“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.

“Obviously the President requires a team that is fully supportive of all his initiatives.

“I greatly admire President Obama and know our country will benefit from his leadership, but at this time I must withdraw my name from consideration for this position.

.: United States Senator Judd Gregg :: Press Room :.

 

[jillian]

I think you're right. I'm actually glad Gregg is going back to the senate, and I see his withdrawal as an act of conscience.

The census wasn't supervised by commerce under Clinton. There was an independent panel to make sure it was non-partisan. Bush put it under the commerce secretary to MAKE it PARTISAN.

illegal my butt... anything RGS doesn't like, he says is illegal.

Well, I'm sure you're right about the technical legality of it, but the end result is that Gregg found the conditions irreconcilable, so he felt compelled to withdraw and I don't blame him.

“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.

“Obviously the President requires a team that is fully supportive of all his initiatives.

“I greatly admire President Obama and know our country will benefit from his leadership, but at this time I must withdraw my name from consideration for this position.

.: United States Senator Judd Gregg :: Press Room :.

see, you assume that he's being candid. I make no such assumption. I'm just glad he's not going to be running commerce.

So it's all good.

 

[Valerie]

The census wasn't supervised by commerce under Clinton. There was an independent panel to make sure it was non-partisan. Bush put it under the commerce secretary to MAKE it PARTISAN.

illegal my butt... anything RGS doesn't like, he says is illegal.

Well, I'm sure you're right about the technical legality of it, but the end result is that Gregg found the conditions irreconcilable, so he felt compelled to withdraw and I don't blame him.

“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.

“Obviously the President requires a team that is fully supportive of all his initiatives.

“I greatly admire President Obama and know our country will benefit from his leadership, but at this time I must withdraw my name from consideration for this position.

.: United States Senator Judd Gregg :: Press Room :.

see, you assume that he's being candid. I make no such assumption. I'm just glad he's not going to be running commerce.

So it's all good.

You have to love a win-win!


Hmmm Perhaps he's posturing for 2012 ???

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Do you know what?

I must say, this makes the guy look like a total wuss.

Does it? Now how does it do that? And please be as specific as your intellectual limitations allow...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

like he didn't know what the policies were going to be when he asked for the job!

{emphasis added}

What are you resting your assertion that the former appointee 'ASKED FOR THE JOB?'

(She has no basis in fact or reason to support this assertion.)

 

[jillian]

Actually, I do. Over the last eight years, I've found that repubs can't be trusted to tell the truth if their tongues are notarized.

I have less reason to think that obama has cause to lie about him ASKING for the job. In fact, I figure he ASKED for it so he could manipulate the census...particularly given he thinks the commerce dept should be abolished. It's not like he believes in it as an entity, is it?

Too confusing for your sick little, delusional brain, sweetheart?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I REALLY hate to break it to you but the House of Representatives has the duty to pass laws determining who, how and when ( limited to every 10 years though) the Census is taken. It is NOT an Executive power.

) The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Article one section 2. For those unaware Article one details what powers the Legislature has and Section 2 details the House.

So unless Congress has passed a law ceding their rightful authority over to a President some time in the past then no President can unilaterally do ANYTHING with who,when or how the Census is conducted. That would include Clinton, Bush AND Obama.

 

[jillian]

Again, why weren't you whining when Bush took it away from a NON PARTISAN group?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

like he didn't know what the policies were going to be when he asked for the job!{emphasis added}

What are you resting your assertion that the former appointee 'ASKED FOR THE JOB?'

(She has no basis in fact or reason to support this assertion.)

Actually, I do. Over the last eight years, I've found that repubs can't be trusted to tell the truth if their tongues are notarized.

Ok... so your stated basis for the assertion is a baseless conclusion subjectively suited to support your irrational feelings... which is perfectly fine and wholly predictable; but you have absolutely NOTHING FACTUAL on which to set this assertion... thus conclusively establishing this position of yours to be BULLSHIT.


Fair enough... that's all I was wanting you to prove. Great work!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Again, why weren't you whining when Bush took it away from a NON PARTISAN group?

Bush did not have the power to do any such thing, Congress would have had to approve of it. I do not see any approval from Congress on Obama putting it directly in the White House.

 

[jillian]

I don't care what he had the POWER to do... he did it anyway.

Where was your faux outrage then?

 

[jillian]

Well, I'm sure you're right about the technical legality of it, but the end result is that Gregg found the conditions irreconcilable, so he felt compelled to withdraw and I don't blame him.



.: United States Senator Judd Gregg :: Press Room :.

see, you assume that he's being candid. I make no such assumption. I'm just glad he's not going to be running commerce.

So it's all good.

You have to love a win-win!


Hmmm Perhaps he's posturing for 2012 ???

could be wabbit... could be.

 

[xsited1]

Just broke, no link yet.

Any bet that a liberal replaces him?

A liberal will have to replace him. Obama has made it very clear that he wants people who will march in lock-step with him on all major issues. The 'Stimulus' plan is a great example.

 

[del]

like he didn't know what the policies were going to be when he asked for the job! lol...

Thank heaven he withdrew from consideration.

No one who thinks the Dept of Commerce shoud be abolished should be running the Dept of Commerce. That's just p'nuts.

And it's not like the dems were getting anything for it, either.

i've looked around and i can't find anyone except obama's spokesman who says that gregg put himself forward for the job. having said that, the job description did change as soon as gregg's name was put forward (removal of census). i think that he had a hard choice to make, made the choice that was right for him, and is willing to live with the consequences. how is that a bad thing?



why should the dems get anything for anything? is the whole govt now pay to play?

the dems had every right to expect that if Gregg was put in Commerce that the DEMOCRATIC governor of his state would appoint a democrat to fill the seat.

That isn't pay for play. That's politics.

You ever see a repub gov appoint a dem?

And I would fully expect that the DEMOCRATIC administration wouldn't allow a republican to play politics with the census.

And I have no issues with undoing what Bush did in terms of putting it directly under the supervision of the commerce secy.

so, given that gregg certainly knew about the financial pov of this admin... doncha think his reason for wanting commerce secy maybe was to help his repub buddies

i mean, after all, the guy sees no value in the actual commerce dept and tried to kill it.

So really I don't know why he was ever there in the first place. It is clear that the repubs have no interest in being bi-partisan.

no, i haven't. i have seen the dem legislature rewrite the law so a the governor couldn't appoint a senator when it looked like kerry might be elected president and we had a repub governor. that was nifty.

i'll take your non-answer to my question about gregg asking for the position as proof of this assertion being non-existent except for the statement by obama's spokesman. and i should believe him because?

 

[jillian]

i've looked around and i can't find anyone except obama's spokesman who says that gregg put himself forward for the job. having said that, the job description did change as soon as gregg's name was put forward (removal of census). i think that he had a hard choice to make, made the choice that was right for him, and is willing to live with the consequences. how is that a bad thing?



why should the dems get anything for anything? is the whole govt now pay to play?

the dems had every right to expect that if Gregg was put in Commerce that the DEMOCRATIC governor of his state would appoint a democrat to fill the seat.

That isn't pay for play. That's politics.

You ever see a repub gov appoint a dem?

And I would fully expect that the DEMOCRATIC administration wouldn't allow a republican to play politics with the census.

And I have no issues with undoing what Bush did in terms of putting it directly under the supervision of the commerce secy.

so, given that gregg certainly knew about the financial pov of this admin... doncha think his reason for wanting commerce secy maybe was to help his repub buddies

i mean, after all, the guy sees no value in the actual commerce dept and tried to kill it.

So really I don't know why he was ever there in the first place. It is clear that the repubs have no interest in being bi-partisan.

no, i haven't. i have seen the dem legislature rewrite the law so a the governor couldn't appoint a senator when it looked like kerry might be elected president and we had a repub governor. that was nifty.

i'll take your non-answer to my question about gregg asking for the position as proof of this assertion being non-existent except for the statement by obama's spokesman. and i should believe him because?

I thought I answered it. And my answer is that I find it more credible. Does that mean I'm right? Maybe...maybe not. But I have zero reason to find Gregg credible.

But interesting... all of a sudden Gregg says he's probably not running for re-election in 2010.

Why would that be?

 

[del]

the dems had every right to expect that if Gregg was put in Commerce that the DEMOCRATIC governor of his state would appoint a democrat to fill the seat.

That isn't pay for play. That's politics.

You ever see a repub gov appoint a dem?

And I would fully expect that the DEMOCRATIC administration wouldn't allow a republican to play politics with the census.

And I have no issues with undoing what Bush did in terms of putting it directly under the supervision of the commerce secy.

so, given that gregg certainly knew about the financial pov of this admin... doncha think his reason for wanting commerce secy maybe was to help his repub buddies

i mean, after all, the guy sees no value in the actual commerce dept and tried to kill it.

So really I don't know why he was ever there in the first place. It is clear that the repubs have no interest in being bi-partisan.

no, i haven't. i have seen the dem legislature rewrite the law so a the governor couldn't appoint a senator when it looked like kerry might be elected president and we had a repub governor. that was nifty.

i'll take your non-answer to my question about gregg asking for the position as proof of this assertion being non-existent except for the statement by obama's spokesman. and i should believe him because?

I thought I answered it. And my answer is that I find it more credible. Does that mean I'm right? Maybe...maybe not. But I have zero reason to find Gregg credible.

But interesting... all of a sudden Gregg says he's probably not running for re-election in 2010.

Why would that be?

i believe he said he may not run, not that he definitely wasn't running. i wouldn't even begin to speculate on why he would or wouldn't run.

i'd have thought that there would have been something somewhere in the news that gregg had sought out the secComm job. the fact that i can't find anything, anywhere about it except for gibbs does not make it credible in my eyes. quite the opposite in fact.

 

[jillian]

no, i haven't. i have seen the dem legislature rewrite the law so a the governor couldn't appoint a senator when it looked like kerry might be elected president and we had a repub governor. that was nifty.

i'll take your non-answer to my question about gregg asking for the position as proof of this assertion being non-existent except for the statement by obama's spokesman. and i should believe him because?

I thought I answered it. And my answer is that I find it more credible. Does that mean I'm right? Maybe...maybe not. But I have zero reason to find Gregg credible.

But interesting... all of a sudden Gregg says he's probably not running for re-election in 2010.

Why would that be?

i believe he said he may not run, not that he definitely wasn't running. i wouldn't even begin to speculate on why he would or wouldn't run.

i'd have thought that there would have been something somewhere in the news that gregg had sought out the secComm job. the fact that i can't find anything, anywhere about it except for gibbs does not make it credible in my eyes. quite the opposite in fact.

that's what makes a ballgame, Del. It's like in court... jurors can hear one witness and get a totally different read on them.