It is as if you have been introduced to a number of different concepts, understand them superficially (like temporal logic) and then fail miserably at applying them. Bayesian analysis assumes you can assign probabilities to the underlying events, something that is not possible in a situation such as the Gregg scenario where you really know next to nothing in terms of facts. It is all supposition and bias, and therefore no better than arguing about it over a beer. And those facts, whatever they may be, are not temporal; they are not possibly true today bit false tomorrow. You are tangling yourself up in your own words, because you have no idea what those words mean. "Logic is the repudiation of tense" you say? There is a huge branch of logic all about tense, temporal logic which I referenced above. It has many applications such as computer systems and artificial intelligence, as well as philosophical constructs. You just keep proving that you have no idea what you are talking about. Try using simpler words. It might be more like what your brain can truly handle.

You must think that talking that way makes you sound smart. I used your citation, if it was more complex than that you should have said so in the first place. Reid taking the fall? Laughable. people have recommended me for jobs I got enthusiastic about. Hard to see the connection there, seems to be a non sequiter. And while a Bayesian analysis can do exactly what you say, it cannot do it in totally non-quantitative situations like this, where probabilities cannot be rationally assigned. I certainly know your probabilities and mine would be quite different. This isn't a math problem, quit watching so much of "Numbers".

So either Gregg is naive or Obama is naive, or both. Seems most unlikely. I will cite Occam's razor which states that when presented with 2 or more equally possible explanations, the simplest is most likely to be right. The simple facts are that he offered the job to Gregg, then took away the census portion of the job, then Gregg quit. We can leave it to everyone else to draw their own conclusions form that. And yes, I took tense to mean time, as in present tense, past tense, etc. Your original statement is still a nonsensical string of words that have no meaning when put together.

If America ever had a spirit of bi-partisanship it was subversive, and antagonistic to parliamentary clarity. The right wing put an end to such side switching for its part but continued the subversion of the other side. Into the mix leapt the neo-cons. Neo-Darwinism blended with laissez faire libertarians to find license in a perversion of the concept of "checks and balances" to support a notion of winner take all politics. But neo-Darwinism, an ideology not to be confused with scientific Darwinism, is, biologically, a recipe for extinction, and, politically, for civil war. While Republicans make a huge kerfuffle about Blagojavich over the corrupting effect of what would have amounted, maybe, to millions, Madoff is ripping off billions and the country is being ripped off for trillions. Predatory politics is no more validly tradition or convention than is predatory economics. And Gregg was putting his two cents in. But predation is no more availing in discussion, and the conflation of insolence with wit is hardly a recommendation of one's views.

The story is much more complex than that, and a bit sordid: http://firedoglake.com/2009/02/13/rahm-and-reid-who-gets-the-blame-for-judd-gregg/
And:
"Gregg, who once voted to abolish the office of commerce secretary, applied to Obama for the job, got it and then decided he was too principled for it." From Politico: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/18919.html

The prominence of the word "enthusiastic" belies the Reid origin, or end-runs it. Gregg had announced at the time of the nomination that he would recuse himself from voting on the stimulus package, thus reducing the Republican cloture power over it. Not the behavior of a man planning to withdraw his name to vote against the bill. And it is hard to see how Reid was the origin of his name if it turns out he was so "enthusiastic" for the job. It looks like Reid is taking the fall to stop (some of) the knives from flying around him. A simple Bayesian analysis merely assesses probabilities between possible causes and effects, estimating which possible cause is most likely to be responsible for the effect. It is indeed a murky business, but I think the evidence is sufficient to put the burden of explanation on Gregg. The alternative is to accept Gregg as a naive stooge who, after formally announcing he would not vote on the stimulus package, suddenly realizes that he forgot that we had to vote against it and so couldn't take the job at Commerce. But if that's the case, then what the hell's the census got to do with it? I did not raise the matter of logic, but when I pressed it I got cribbing in response. Tense is the grammatical form of time, not tension, or whatever it was taken to mean.

First off, I specifically said not a liberal partisan site, the Huffington Post is certainly that. None-the-less, you should read your own citation, it has contradictory accounts and in the end concludes:
"So, there you have it. Reid suggested Gregg after being prompted by Emanuel for names -- confirming a New York Times report from when the nomination was first floated. Gregg had, it seems, not aimed for the post until he was put forth by the Majority Leader.", completely blasting your whole argument based on Gregg initiating the scenario out of the water. Your really are something, but I cannot say what on here.

Enough!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/13/reid-spokesman-rahm-asked_n_166779.html

BTW, the joke's on you, Gary. I know you were spouting nonsense just to see how I would respond. However, I knew if I didn't you would probably end up hitting yourself over the head with your Birkenstocks. I just wouldn't have been able to live with myself if you had done that, because then I would have to start spending money at the Comedy Club again instead of just reading your stuff.

Finally, your statement about discussing "...the parameters of a Bayesian analysis of the timing of the events. The problem with logic in relation to politics, of course, is that politics is all tense, and logic is all repudiation of tense. You know what tense is, don't you?" Yes I know what tense is. And I know what you said is a load of crap. Politics is all tense?? I bet you could ask every politician in Washington what politics is and none would say it is all tense. You must teach at the U of Vt. And let's see what the definition of a Bayesian analysis is. "Bayesian analysis is a statistical procedure which endeavors to estimate parameters of an underlying distribution based on the observed distribution." (Wolfram Research) We are talking about discrete events here. Historical dates. There is no probability, it either happened on a certain day or it didn't. You have again proven yourself to be a blithering idiot. Your last sentence is even more nonsensical than the others, if that is possible. It says absolutely nothing. And I was quite specific in the longstanding traditions I was speaking of. Commerce has had the census for decades, and dozens of times politicians have negotiated that their replacement be of the same party.

With regard to Gregg asking for the job, I cannot find anything that agrees with that statement. In fact, I found statements by people that work with John Kerry and other Democrats that say the opposite, that Obama reached out to Gregg to be bipartisan and because he wanted a more conservative voice in that position. Even if you were right, did Gregg put a gun to his head? Does he have pictures? You are implying that Obama and his team are easily cowed or awfully naive to have offered it to Gregg simply because he asked for it, which I still don't know that he did. Please cite me a reference that is factual, not opinion from some left wing partisan hack.
(cont.)

Lots of big words Gary. Unfortunately they still make no sense. The bottom line is that you made it sound like what Gregg was doing in trying to insure his seat stayed in Republican hands was unseemly and slimy. You complain when republicans break the law, now you complain when they follow the law. You can want the law to be different all you want. that's fine. Work with Bernie to change it, I am sure he agrees with you. But while it is the law, it has to be followed and keeping the seat in the same party as people elected is not only normal for both parties, but one could make a strong argument that it is more ethical. You cna assume all you want that the people of New Hampshire would elect a Democrat, but they have a chance to do that themselves when Gregg's seat is up for election. Do I think there should be special elections instead? In fact I do, as long as there is at least a year left in the term. But until that law is changed, he followed the law, precedent, and common sense to the letter.
(cont.)

In any case, Obama is at least as free to administer the census within the prerogatives of his office as Bush was in attaching "signing statements" to bills he signed but stated in those statements he would not enforce as written. The other references you say are irrelevant are meant to highlight the nominal issue of this thread: partisanship.

The dates given roughly correlate with the amendments cited, if something else was meant perhaps it should have been made explicit. Amendment XVII explicitly recognizes the undemocratic method of selecting Senators prior to it, while, hypocritically, preserving a vestige of that injustice. What is good and worthwhile about America is the result of dissensus, not consensus. Read "A People's History of America", by Howard Zinn. It was Gregg who put himself forward for the job. Obama moved responsibility for the census after Paul Abrams suggested he might be after it (to prevent statistical estimates that would count more Democrats and more lower income households). While we are on the subject of logic, perhaps we could discuss the parameters of a Bayesian analysis of the timing of the events. The problem with logic in relation to politics, of course, is that politics is all tense, and logic is all repudiation of tense. You know what tense is, don't you? And until you specify this longstanding tradition you speak of I am justified in my intuition you are confusing is with ought, a common ethical fallacy.

As far as your other "facts", I have absolutely no idea what they have to do with anything we have been discussing in this thread. See someone Gary. You need help.

Wow Gary, you clearly failed simple reasoning and logic. I never said what Obama did was unconstitutional, I said that changing who performed the census was a change from 100 years + of precedent, and that it was clearly politics on his part that he did it after appointing a Republlican to Commerce. Remember, it was your post #7 that first claimed it was Gregg that wanted to get his "greedy little fingers" on the census. Yet it was Obama that asked Gregg to serve, so not sure how that works. I once turned down a job when it was not the job they promised. So not sure what your point was in citing the constitution, because again you failed to make one. And then you actually cite the 17th amendment which completely supports what happened in New Hampshire (which has happened many many times in other states as well, including the political negotiations) and then dismiss it as archaic! It is the law!!

What a guy. You really are a piece of work. Gregg was duly elected by NH, he was trying to answer Obama's seeming desire to include even conservative Republicans in his administration, and got blindsided by having one of the most important tasks of his department taken away. Did he think he could have some of his own agenda enacted if he was in Commerce? Of course!! What a shock. These guys (all of them) actually have egos and agendas. I know you are reeling from the revelation.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

I see two facts, one hundred fifty years, and one hundred years. The Fourteenth Amendment (1866) covers apportionment according to the census, but says nothing about the Commerce Dept. Amendment XVII (1912) covers replacement senators. It is a throwback to the days of appointed senators, and as such is hardly a meritorious icon of American blindness (antagonism?) to the democratic spirit. The fact is, the people of New Hampshire had to sit there and watch the misery play out, having just elected a much more progressive senator to fill its other seat.

Here are some other facts:
The housing bubble burst in sync with the effective date of the changes in bankruptcy law that hangs home owners out to dry. Inference: it was meant to.
Bush talked up the economy until the eve of the bank collapse, weeks before the election. Inference: He was trying to stall off the crisis until after the election.

Such facts, along with the antics of the Bush/Cheney years, makes claims of openness, reliance on fact, and respect of precedent fall a little flat.

One other fact: I use no alias.

As Petey would say, "right on!" David, but he would go on with some nonsense.

Gary, aka Petey, will likely retort with another fact free diatribe.

You guys are a riot, living in your made-up fantasy world. Of course you don't think those sites are biased, they agree with you. You always ignore the facts that I bring up, like Gary completely ignoring that there is over 150 years of history for what Gregg did to keep the seat in the Republican party. It is a 2 party system, Gary. That is how these things workm, and it was totally in the open. Burris was anything but in the open. And RU4real completely turning things on their head in that it was Obama that changed over 100 years of precedent. But then, I guess you are saying he and his team are so stupid and unable to see ahead that they didn't realize until after they asked Gregg to be head of Commerce he would have the Census? Seems most unlikely. Seems like all the machinations are on Obama's side on this one.

As for the census and partisanship, there is a way of eliminating the vitiating effect of the population survey on political redistricting. The fact is, politicians know exactly where the votes are, and they only use the census as a pretext for their machinations. A more complete census, which only occasions the redistricting process but does not determine it except to the extent population centers have altered, is less an influence on districting shape than it is on where federal money gets allocated. But if the House of Representatives were not a winner take all seat, but a vote in that legislature spread among the candidates according to their portion of the vote, and with reasonable limits upon the number of votes that would authorize that share of the vote (minor candidates could negotiate with others within or outside their district to amass a reasonable portion of a vote of one congressional district). The result would be to make party membership more critical to the vote, but it would also render the shape of the district irrelevant. The beauty of the notion is that no one, or relatively few voters, would have to endure 'representation' they might regard as hostile to their own interests.

It is a relief to find I am not alone in my views, though I have gone it alone against whole gangs of ranters on other websites. Thanks for the positive vibes. I expected David to say exactly what he did about the comparison of Burris to Gregg, but I cannot agree that a political expedient is less corrupting than a bit of venality. If it is corrupt to sell a seat in the Senate to someone more or less within the range of the expressed will of the people, is it any less corrupt to make a deal for a legislator so clearly contrary to that expressed will? Believe me in one thing, Gregg doesn't have a chance to win reelection. This is subtext to his "offer" to assume the role of Commerce chief. I cannot agree, either, that there is no evidence of his mendacity in this. His offer to assume Commerce was made at a time when the stimulus package was sufficiently complete that his pushing his candidacy forward (and his suggesting his own nomination is undisputed) can only mean he was either in substantial agreement with it or had ulterior motives in doing so. The Obama administration clearly intuited the possibility of something underhand and took measures to test Gregg's commitment. Gregg flunked the test. It is a strong inference, though admittedly not a complete certainty, that it was the shift of the census out from under him that caused him to withdraw his name. It may not be direct, red-handed proof, but it is forensically elegant evidence. When dealing with people who have control of the facts such forensic methods are necessary. I would urge Ms. Gladstone to make some rigorous concept of forensic journalism an ongoing theme of her program.

Right on!

You can look back at David's comments for segment after segment on this website:

No matter who is quoted or what is linked, if David didn't make the post, count on him to whine about how biased it is.

He is perpetually infatuated with himself, with an emphasis on "fat," as in fat-headed.

...and get this: he actually fancies himself an intellectual.

I'm beginning to think some republican PAC, or maybe Limbaugh or Hannity, pays this idiot to blow flatulence onto the websites of the few respectable shows available.
I can think of no other explanation for his determined stupidity, coming back again and again when no one agrees with his asinine remarks (except Jeff, who seems to be an ever present side-kick... maybe David just has two e-mail addresses he switches between so he can agree with himself). Pathetic.

I fully agree with Gary.

What's more, I have little doubt that some in the Obama administration found that Republican leadership was already scheming and laughing about Obama having handed over the reins to the commerce department, and the easiest way to correct the mistake and have Republicans stop salivating was to simply remove the census from under Commerce department oversight.

Before David starts frothing at the mouth, let me admit freely that these hypothesized machiavelian machinations are strictly conjecture by me, based solely upon my absolute mistrust of the Republican leadership, and on what they have shown themselves capable of in the past.

Screw Gregg, I'm glad he's gone.

David is the most partisan contributor I see on this site.

Gary, you must really be a moron. You really cannot see how making sure (in Gregg's case) that the governor of another party will appoint someone that is of your own party, especially when the Senate is nearly filibuster-proof already, is different (Burris' case) than being told you can have the Senate seat only if you hit people up for money, agreeing to do it, then lying about it (twice!!)?? Especially when it was completely obvious that Blag was on his way out, and was looking to further pad his own nest with this money? PUH-LEEZE. Not even the liberal press had an issue with Gregg wanting to make sure the replacement was from his party, as has happened numerous times with other Republicans and Democrats over many many years. Your statement was almost too stupid to comment on, but not quite.

And my point is you cannot take supposition (and that is all Abrams has, he has no facts at all) from a highly biased source and use it to try and buttress your argument. It has no value whatsoever. As I said in another post on a different issue, that would be like citing Hitler as the authority on Jewish people. What is a FACT is that the census has been with Commerce for many many decades, and Obama pulls it from the department when there is going to be a Republican there. You are certainly free to believe they are unrelated events, but you would be in a very small minority.

I suppose ROFLMAO makes it easier to stick YHUYA. But if anyone thinks Paul Abrams is lying about the Gregg nomination I'd be more inclined to believe this if I was given evidence of it than mere impertinence. As far as the Gregg nomination goes, it is hard to see how Gregg's negotiating a deal about his successor is any different from Blagoyjavitch's. If Buris should resign, why shouldn't Gregg? But I only posted the Abrams story for those who might otherwise be discouraged by partisan ranting.

The point I was making is that what is called 'bipartisanship' is little more than disloyalty of some party factions to the party and its leadership. And that when that party disloyalty gets suppressed by the party, as Reagan did of the Republicans in the eighties, and Gingrich in the nineties, and Bush in this decade, that suppressed party disloyalty reemerges as a parliamentary disloyalty, as we have seen in the activities of the Republicans so far in this Congress, pushing the very policies that have generated the current crisis. Only subversives think like this. It is no coincidence, for instance, that the Republican governors that are planning to refuse the stimulus funds are those where those funds will mostly go to relieve the plight of minorities.

OMG Gary, are you really citing the Huffington Post?? Yes, now there is a nice, unbiased source. ROFLMAO

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/judd-greggs-attempt-to-gr_b_166566.html

Jeff - Exacty right. Typical liberal response by Gary, they see things through the most unbelievably filtered lens. Clearly it is Gregg that is being unreasonable for objecting to the removal of what is probably the most important task of the Commerce Department, and one that it has had since the department was created in 1903, as I understand it, and essentially since the country's inception in the similar cabinet posts predating Commerce. I would love to see him deny that if a Republican President had done exactly what President Obama has done, i.e. what has happened but just in reverse, that he would not be apoplectic about it, accusing the Republican of shameless power grabbing and fixing of the districts, etc. God knows it goes on anyway; maybe I should give President Obama credit for being more upfront about it, at least.

It is ironic that he starts off being ridiculously partisan, and then tries to explain how bipartisianship, or lack thereof, has evolved under a liberal democracy (I think. Hard to tell what his point was exactly).

Talk about partisan hacks. Nice work Gary. Census has always been run out of the Commerce Dept. Now Obama is putting it under WH control, citing executive privilege again, no doubt. I guess it's just the kind of partisanship you prefer.

Firstly, the Republicans have chosen to be partisan, as typified by the Gregg fiasco. It turns out he meant to make himself a Trojan Horse, hoping to retain control of redistricting for the Republicans by getting his greedy little fingers on the Census.

The two parties historically were a politically ambiguous division of America. Jacksonian Democrats and conservative Republicans might once have worked together in a strange alliance on farm supports, foreign policy, and against civil rights, while they might divide on economic issues and taxation. Northern New England was solid Republican and the South solid Democrat simply in memory of the Civil War. The Civil Rights movement ultimately undid this contradiction and brought a clearer political division to the social division of the country. Partisanship is not intrinsically pernicious. It is parliamentarian. But, just as the concept of parliamentarian government had to come to grips with the problem of continual internal opposition, and so invented the concept of a loyal opposition, the myth of bi-partisanship, now clarified in a much more stark contrast between the parties, has to come to grips with the liberty that mythic bi-partisanship permitted, encourage, even necessitated, to disloyalty in opposition.

What?! What are you talking about?

Do you not know what parliamentary procedure means?

petey your comment only makes sense if Congress turned into a parliament, which it has not.

Pay attention Matt! The Republicans were able to affect the bill considerably in exchange for their three sacrificial lambs. The amount of the stimulus was reduced considerably, and the mix of tax cuts was also altered significantly.
What? Did you think Republicans should have gotten to write half the bill?
Americans didn't vote Republicans out of office so that they could continue to dictate the key elements of legislation.

PJ, as much as it may seem otherwise, Congress does substantial work. Substantial work. So much so that no cocktail or superbowl party should change the substance of a bill or support there of. Media overtures do not constitute bipartisan compromise or attempts as crafting a bipartisan product. Since when did the actual text of the legislation stop to matter? As Speaker Pelosi said, Dems wrote the bill with no Republican input, so much for mugwamps when the text of the bill cannot be goodie goodie for anyone except democrat special interests.

After Barack Obama's many overtures to the conservative press and concessions to the Republican party, I can't fathom how any media pundit can credibly construe the Republican opposition to the stimulus bill as Obama's failure. How do they get away with this construction? One can't be BIpartisan alone. It's the Republicans who have demonstrated they have absolutely no intention of meeting the President even partway. Whatever he might do to entice them, they see more political advantage in spurning him. It's appalling that they can claim to be principled when it is so clearly the opposite of the truth.

What Morone doesn't say, is that despite the fact that the parties have always tended towards bipartisanship with regards to voting on issues, Congressmen from both parties historically talked to one another, lunched with one another, and with occasional exceptions, respected each other and were civil to one another.

Republicans, under the tutelage of such notorious figures as Gingrich, Delay, Rove, and Norquist, changed what Morone calls the "tone" of bipartisanship in Washington. These figures actually censured members of their party for even talking to the opposition. Delay even got his nickname, "the Hammer," by ensuring that no Republican ever stepped out from the party line or across the aisle, lest they face his wrath.

Republicans ensured a new level of bipartisanship by such inane and childish tactics as dodging Democratic comittee members by hiding behind furniture to make meeting rooms look empty, or by running room to room. They turned parliamentary procedure into trickery, and used it to an unprecedented degree to shut out any opposition; they formed K-street, to ensure that Dems were circumvented in the ridiculous, but all important lobbying process.

Republicans introduced a new level of bipartisanship to Capitol Hill which had never before been seen as habitual behavior, much to the detriment of this country.

They also are trying to ensure the continuation of bipartisan stupidity when the country needs unity of purpose, as evidenced by Obama’s attempts at reconciliation. Boehner directed all Republicans to vote against Obama’s stimulus bill, even before they met to discuss compromise.

Morone is right that Obama is trying to change the "tone" of bipartisanship in Washington, but he's just trying to find the tone Congress knew BEFORE the Republican Revolution ruined civility.