Czar Talk

He ordained 32 of them in 8 months of being in office. Bush used about 20 in 8 years. When will Obama stop is the question.

Jake, I am disappointed in your semantics on the use of the term “czar”.
I give you more journalistic credibilty than to just use the BBBBBB…..but Bush type reporting.

Oh, and love the title of this piece, Mr. Tapper. “Car Talk”— minus the Z– is my favorite Saturday radio show.

“Shared sacrifice” should apply to the government, too.
How does President Obama justify 32-34 Czars with staff and offices?

Do you righties have short memories, or are you really mean spirited? Case in point, this quote: “How does President Obama justify 32-34 Czars with staff and offices?”
First how about YOU tell us how outraged you were when Bush went through FOURTY-SEVEN czars during his administration.
Liars. Hypocrites.

So much for “transparency” of the Obama administration! It is evident that 32 or
rmore “czars” who answer only to Obama. Therefore he can obscure almost anything he does. There have been czars before, but, as “Thinking a Little HHarder” said, Bush had about 20 czars in 8 years, but Obama has 32 or more in 8 months. And this does not eeven take in the account the trillions of dollars used for a “stimulus”‘ which has done nothing but stimulate aanger and suspicions by a growing nnumber of Americans, some of wich are bblacks, hispanics, and a great number oof the heralded “middle class AAmericans”. I believe that as things aare going now, Obama is going to eexhaust his popularity, and then he wwill have to depend on prdinciples of aadmnistration, which he is sorely llacking.
I know that some readers of this comment will cry racism!!”But this epithet has been exhausted long since. If Obama were white, hispanic, oriental, native American, or any other race you could name, it is the policies and misguided principles that are energizing Americans to protest the mindless spending, the not transparent administration, and the conviction that Obama is attempting to dismantle the U.S. and will reshape America into a nation that is no longer American, and no longer by those who love and support
the country. I am a student of the Bible, and I see in what is happening as a fulfillment of latter day prophisy. And I don’t believe that many who profess to be of the Christian faith are even aware of what I mean!
We are, without doubt, living in the period of the latter days of time. I have be3lie3ved for more than 45 years that Christ would return in my lifetime. I am now age 74, and the belief is stronger now that it has ever been. My confolences to those who do not understand what I am writing.

Rudy’s post is just fine. What you need to do is check with FOX News where the truth is starting to emerge – to the detriment of your leader.
Name calling, as we all know, is a distraction. The opposition is no longer playing the Obama Supporters “distraction games.”
Go back, regroup, rethink and come back with a valid argument.
Otherwise, you are just irrelevant.

If the czar is just a focal point-person to target a specific area and just advises the president without any executive responsibilities, that is one thing. But if the czar is given full cabinet-like duties, with a staff, a budget, makes executive decisions, and has the authority to independently change policy, then I say that person most definitely requires senate confirmation.

1. A “mfg. czar” (Ron Blum) with ZERO manufacturing experience (except negotiating on behalf of unions)
2. A “green jobs czar (Van Jones) who does not understand renewable energy technology (his expertise is in “social” policy)
3. A former “car czar” (Steve Ratner) who has no automotive experience
…and these are just the “czars” who have received publicity…
What if Bush did this? The outrage from the Left would be deafening. Yet, the sheeple are all expected to go along with this, no questions asked…
BTW – Thank you Sen. Feingold.

I think some people confused, hence they are extremely fearful.
Czar is a russian word. But the czars weren’t communist.
When we use the word czar today, it is a way of describing an adviser whose job it is to focus on a specific issue. You could just as easily use the word “adviser” or “specialist” or, even, “secretary.”
I remember when I was younger, a paranoid schizophrenic neighbor who had similar fears about Elvis Presley becoming an actual King after reading a newspaper headline that referred to him as “The King”. Fortunately, in those days, the educational system was much better… and very few people bought into his theories about Elvis’ totalitarian ambitions.
If you know someone who shows excessive concern about these “czars,” the best thing to do is make sure, first, that you are safe. If you have any weapons or potential weapons in your home, put them someplace where they will not be readily accessible. And then call a counseling hotline and work on a sensible intervention. But, if at any point, you feel like you are in danger, leave immediately and contact law enforcement… but please make sure to explain that your loved one is mentally ill. You want to resolve these situations without escalating them.
Have a good day!

“A shadow government”?
It starts first with the czar stuff. But it quickly slides into all kinds of paranoid territory, where everything is connected.
Next people will be blaming the czars for things like stubbed toes and schoolyard fights.

It starts first with the czar stuff. But it quickly slides into all kinds of paranoid territory, where everything is connected.
Next people will be blaming the czars for things like stubbed toes and schoolyard fights.
Posted by: gobot | Sep 17, 2009 11:11:19 AM
***
No kidding. Have you heard the latest from Limbaugh, who even some conservative commentators are calling out today? “We need segregated buses. … [I]n Obama’s America the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering ‘yeah, right on, right on, right on.’” He went on to defend racism—or attack homosexuality, hard to tell which or if its both—by offering this gem: “If homosexuality being inborn is what makes it acceptable, why does racism being inborn not make racism acceptable?”
In Obama’s America— like Obama and his shadow government are responsible. But no,no, no, as many on here have proclaimed, Limbaugh never says anything racist or race-baiting and Glenn Beck has never lied. cough, cough, cough.

@ Alyson from Chicago -
> “What I do have a problem with is the right’s hypocrisy and Glenn Beck’s spin on it all”
Glenn Beck is the new Rush Limbaugh from DNC/OFA Talking Points Memo.
> “I LOVE the DNC’s new ad, which points out that Bush had 47 czars, and no one on the right objected!!”
Perhaps – just maybe – the DNC is incorrect – Could it be?
By my count, G.W. Bush had 47 APPOINTEES over an 8 year period (these are different from “CZAR TITLES”). Some “czars” (e.g., “AIDS Czar”) had multiple “czars” during the Bush Admin.)
> “Not sure where you all are getting the number “20″ although I’m aware that right wingers often just make stuff up”
Well, perhaps the DNC IS MAKING THINGS UP (and you fall for it hook, line, and sinker). By my count Bush had a TOTAL of 34 czar titles over 8 years in office. Note that many of these “czars” were targeted, short-term positions to address specific situations (e.g., “Bird Flu Czar” (2004-2006), ” Gulf Coast Reconstruction Czar” and “Hurricane Katrina Recovery Czar (held by same appointee, 2005-2008), “Health Czar for the World Trade Center (WTC)” (2006-2008)). By 2008 only 20 of these “czar titles” were still in place, the balance of positions had been discontinued.
Over 8 years Bush has a TOTAL of 33 “czar” positions, 22 of whom confirmed by Senate.
In 8 months Obama has 32 (or 33) “czar” positions filled, ONLY 9 OF WHOM CONFIRMED BY SENATE.
Can you see the difference? Can you understand the concern in Congress (on both sides of the aisle) and those of us paying attention? Throwing out “Glenn Beck” and “right wingers often just make stuff up” doesn’t cut it EVERY time…
What I love is how left-wingers take talking points from the DNC/OFA and run with them…

The sad thing is that media seems to have lost its conscience.
Sure, it’s biased to take sides against racism. But there are some things we should be biased again. Like, I don’t want “balanced” reporting on child rapists. They should treat these racists the same way… but instead they treat racism like it is a valid worldview, they bring on guests who defend it, and they always show restraint when reporting on it.
Posted by: gobot | Sep 17, 2009 11:44:28 AM
***
I agree. Great post :>)

“Of course you’d think it would be ridiculous that I would suggest that the press take sides against racists.”
Perhaps I should have clarified – This is ridiculous:
“All their attacks lately have a racial edge. But like experienced sex offenders, modern racists are good at being ambiguous, using innuendo, and creating an alibi.
The sad thing is that media seems to have lost its conscience.”
Racial edge? Are you kidding? With regards to the media, they have done nothing but carry Barry’s water for going on 3 years.

Here’s a quote from this thread:”He ordained 32 of them in 8 months of being in office. Bush used about 20 in 8 years.”
Here’s how tjp from planet 612 explains it away–
1.” G.W. Bush had 47 APPOINTEES over an 8 year period (these are different from “CZAR TITLES”)”–
I’d point out that tjp doesn’t acknowledge that’s also true for the Obama admin, but that’s par for the course–
2. “By my count Bush had a TOTAL of 34 czar titles over 8 years in office. Note that many of these “czars” were targeted, short-term positions to address specific situations (e.g., “Bird Flu Czar” (2004-2006), ” Gulf Coast Reconstruction Czar” and “Hurricane Katrina Recovery Czar (held by same appointee, 2005-2008), “Health Czar for the World Trade Center (WTC)” (2006-2008)). By 2008 only 20 of these “czar titles” were still in place, the balance of positions had been discontinued.
Over 8 years Bush has a TOTAL of 33 “czar” positions, 22 of whom confirmed by Senate. ”
Okay, let’s say that’s true; it’s pretty different than Bush using 20 in 8 years, AND it uses a different methodology for deciding who was a czar in Bush’s admin and who is being called out as a czar in Obama’s admin
Now, let’s move on to where tjp assumes things about me and gets into all that personal jab stuff : “(and you fall for it hook, line, and sinker)”
Eyeroll. I actually think the DNC ad could’ve been better as it doesn’t fully point out the irony that not only did Bush had czars of his own, but that conservatives are criticizing executive czar-stuff after a Republican administration that expanded executive power way, way more than any other in recent history. The hypocrisy amazes.
Now,since you accused me of repeating DNC/OFA talking points when I was just saying I liked the ad, I’ll go there and repeat a line or two, since it’s funny:
“With apologies to Tom DeLay, and despite the railing you’re hearing from the Republican caucus room and Fox News, the GOP has been ‘dancing with czars’ for a very long time. The unmitigated hypocrisy of these attacks not only speaks to the credibility of this manufactured controversy, but to the inability of the Republican party to say no to the marching orders doled out by Glenn Beck and the far right’s noise machine,” said DNC National Press Secretary Hari Sevugan.
There. Now you’re actually right. I’m repeating talking points on cue, and don’t mind a bit, feel good about it actually :>)

@ Alyson from Chicago -
I’m interested to hear how you are going to spin a defense of The-One-We’ve-Been-For’s “czar-dom”.
Posted by: tjp612 | Sep 17, 2009 12:38:59 PM
***
And tjp from planet 612, I’m interested to hear how you are going to spin a defense for the hypocrisy of the party you now support after not voting like a responsible citizen for years and years.

@ Alyson -
(tjp) 1.” G.W. Bush had 47 APPOINTEES over an 8 year period (these are different from “CZAR TITLES”)”—
“I’d point out that tjp doesn’t acknowledge that’s also true for the Obama admin, but that’s par for the course—“
(tjp) I’m not sure what your point is here, it doesn’t make sense. Try again.
“Okay, let’s say that’s true; it’s pretty different than Bush using 20 in 8 years, AND it uses a different methodology for deciding who was a czar in Bush’s admin and who is being called out as a czar in Obama’s admin”
Weak. What methodology? Nice spin though, I’ll give credit for that.
“I actually think the DNC ad could’ve been better”
I thought you “loved it”??? Back-pedal, back-pedal, back-pedal…
“The unmitigated hypocrisy of these attacks not only speaks to the credibility of this manufactured controversy, but to the inability of the Republican party to say no to the marching orders doled out by Glenn Beck and the far right’s noise machine,” said DNC National Press Secretary Hari Sevugan.”
Well, at least you admit you are repeating talking point. Credit for that. I guess I was spot on that Glenn Beck is the new Rush Limbaugh.
You did not address a central issue with this debate: 22 of 33 Bush “czar titles” confirmed by the Senate.
ONLY 9 OBAMA “czar titles/appointees” CONFIRMED BY THE SENATE. Can you see the difference? Care to defend?

obammaba is a follower not a leader, that is why he needs “czars”, he listens to people instead of telling people, when he hears something that sounds good it, “hey i like it , let’s go with that!”

@ Alyson –
“Reality: Many of the arbitrarily labeled “czars” on Beck’s list are Senate-confirmed appointees or advisory roles carried over from previous administrations.”
Agreed, there are some carry-overs (BTW – I did not get my info from Beck, I’ve never been to his site)
“Republicans have supported these positions in the past. “ – Agreed. There are holdovers from prior administration such as “AIDS Czar”, “Cybersecurity Czar”, etc. But there are now many NEW positions – Here is a sample of the new “czars” in the Age of Obama:
Auto Recovery Czar, Autoworker Czar (nod to unions), Climate Czar, Compensation Czar, Pay Czar, Energy Czar, Climate, Global Warming Czar, Great Lakes Czar (nod to unions), Green-Jobs Czar, Guantanamo Base Closure Czar (actually – regardless of where on stands on this issue – I think this is good use for “czar” given it is a focused, time-constrained activity), Iran Czar, Middle East Czar, Performance Czar, Science Czar, Urban Affairs Czar, Weapons Of Mass Destruction Czar, Nonproliferation Czar
Many/Most of these positions not confirmed by Senate…see why Congress (Dem. and Rep.) are concerned.

@ Alyson from Chicago –
“there’s no point in arguing with you tjp from planet 612. You blame others when you don’t understand things (like some of Obama’s appointees are not czars but the right maintains that they are while simultaneously claiming that Bush’s appointees weren’t all czars, forehead slap!)”
Alyson, Alyson, Alyson. Let me hold you hand and walk this through with you.
- Bush had (by my count) 46 CZAR APPOINTEES (think “people” here if it helps)
- These 46 APPOINTEES served in 33 CZAR POSITIONS over an 8 year period.
- Some POSITIONS had MULTIPLE APPOINTEES. Example: There were 3 “AIDS Czars”: S. Evertz (2001-2002), J. O’Neill (2002-2003), C. Thompson (2004-2006).
By contrast, Obama has made 30+ APPOINTEES for 30+ POSITIONS in a period of 8 months. ONLY 9 OF THESE APPOINTEES CONFIRMED BY THE SENATE!
Do you get it? Yes, Bush had 46 (or so) “Czars”, but they only filled 33 “Czar” positions over an 8 year period! Does this make sense?
“I maintain that Republicans are hypocrites and that that’s been proven over and over and over. If you can’t understand that, it’s a waste of time for us to converse, as I’ve said before.”
This coming from an ardent Democrat Party and Obama supporter, entities who have taken “hypocrisy” to an entirely new level (let’s not get into “no lobbyists in my house” promise, “most transparent administration ever”, “major legislation will be online 5 days”, Geithner, Rangel, Dodd, etc., etc., etc.).
“Here’s a tip: When you don’t get it, ask for clarification rather than betraying your weak hand by overbluffing.”
Huh? Ok, move along.

an ardent Democrat Party and Obama supporter, entities who have taken “hypocrisy” to an entirely new level (let’s not get into “no lobbyists in my house” promise, “most transparent administration ever”, “major legislation will be online 5 days”, Geithner, Rangel, Dodd, etc., etc., etc.).
***
I can see why you’d think that if you haven’t voted since 1992 and nothing in the Bush admin made you take notice. I’ve been paying close attention for a long time, and would say I’m more progressive and anti-GOP than ardent Democrat, but bygones. I do like Obama, and hope he does well. I believe he deserves a fair shake rather than a hit job.

Jake, while you’re running around asking questions about czars and such, when congressional oversight comes up, perhaps you can ask why it’s taking so long for Congress to confirm Tom Perez. Is it perhaps because he is a voting rights advocate and would work toward correcting the gross shift that took place during the Bush admin when political appointees — or as former Bush Civil Rights Division head Bradley Schlozman referred to them, “real Americans” — shifted the Civil Rights division’s emphasis away from its indended and historic focus to pursue “reverse discrimination” and religious discrimination cases against whites and and Christians. AND when, also, Schlozman violated civil-service laws by hiring by political affiliation and lying to Congress about it.

All this finger pointing between the parties reduces to little more than tu quoque. Whether Democrat or Republican, we need to know more about the President’s advisors, exactly what their responsibilities and powers are, and if they can make decisions or enforce policy on behalf of the President, then according to the Constitution, they must be subject to Congressional review.