Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
February 5, 2009
POLITICS: Entrenching Begins

Hey, remember when we ran a RedState editorial predicting ways the Democrats would seek to skew the democratic process in their favor?

Well, covering items #7 & 9 on our list, George Will reports on unconstitutional Democratic efforts to give a House seat to DC, while Dan Spencer notes that Obama is leaving the door open to use the equally unconstitutional "census sampling" method in the 2010 census by taking control of the Census Bureau away from the Commerce Secretary and having it report directly to the White House, in light of Obama having named as his second pick for Commerce Republican Senator Judd Gregg, who in 1999 passed an amendment that defunded sampling efforts (as I have noted before, running the census is one of the major jobs of Commerce). Meanwhile, #1 on the list, the card check bill, is on its way, and Obama's appointee for Labor Secretary is tied to lobbyists for the bill. And this is before we get into all of the payoffs to liberal interest groups in the inaptly named "stimulus" bill.

Don't say you weren't warned.

UPDATE: On the Gregg thing, as Neil Stevens points, out, of course, the Obama Administration certainly can control an executive agency it wants from the White House; that's the essence of the unitary executive theory, under which all executive power is ultimately wielded by and accountable directly to the president under the plain terms of Article II. And I don't object to Obama treating Cabinet bipartisanship as a transparent sham; I rather prefer he be out in the open about that. What concerns me is the substantive goal of using census sampling.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 12:31 PM | Politics 2009 | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

Anyone here want to point out the difference between what Blago and NH's Gregg did?
Seems they both wanted to make a deal on who gets the open Senate seat.

Posted by: Berto at February 5, 2009 1:36 PM

There's a point to that, although technically speaking, Gregg wasn't exercising any official power, other than agreeing to resign one job and accept another. The guys who were doing that were Obama and, in particular, Lynch, the guys making the appointments. Regardless of whether that makes a legal difference, I'd agree that all three of them are in a similar ethical position, to the extent you think of Gregg offering to switch jobs in exchange for getting a nominee of his party to take his place.

Blago's is still much more clear-cut, since he was offering official favor in exchange for either campaign cash or a personal benefit, as opposed to more ordinary partisan political horse-trading.

Posted by: Crank at February 5, 2009 1:51 PM

Wait. It is news to you and the boys at Red State that the Democratic Party has been in favor of giving a HoR seat to DC? I've lived here for almost 30 years and that has been an issue for that entire time. (I happen to agree on the constitutionality issue, but it is not -- by any means -- a "new" story.)

On the census, and the issues of drawing congressional districts, that is an issue that has been along even longer. Elbridge Gerry, anyone? C'mon, DeLay's do-over in Texas was kosher? Did you criticize that Crank? Or, because it gored the other guy, you were too busy to write about it?

Posted by: Magrooder at February 5, 2009 4:28 PM

"And this is before we get into all of the payoffs to liberal interest groups in the inaptly named "stimulus" bill."

There are quite a few things I don't like about the current stimulus bill, but if you are going to talk about interest groups, talk about them on both sides, or better yet, don't talk about them at all.

For example, take the "cash for clunkers" proposal. This proposal was designed to encourage the purchase of new, fuel efficient vehicles, but only from domestic auto firms.

Conservative republicans oppose it. Why? Is it because it is a bad proposal on the merits, or is it because foreign automakers don't like it, and they just happened to be clustered in states that are represented by conservatives? See

This is why I rarely ever listen to arguments that rely on the fact that a specific "interest group" is in favor of it. Just about every policy has interest group that is in favor or not in favor it.

Posted by: MVH at February 6, 2009 10:17 AM

Constitutional fix for DC Rep: DC citizens should be exempt from federal taxation, end of story.

Posted by: Brad at February 9, 2009 4:24 PM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg