Capitol Hill Turns Up the Heat on Criticism of President Obama’s “Czars”

The Costume Czar came thru with the white lab coats, imho.

“… but the White House declined to do so.”
Is this the proverbial “so sue me” from the White House? To what lengths will they go to avoid confronting this serious issue?

Jake,
“While past presidents have had “czars,” President Obama is facing particular criticism because of the high number of such appointees in his administration.”
What is a “high number” to you? Obama currently has 32 “czar’s” to G.W. Bush’s 31. Obama has 1 more. Czar being a term that doesn’t even appear in their respective titles or job descriptions. While Bush had 46 appointees to Obama’s 35. Bush has 11 more…you’re a joke. You just can’t to try and out-Drudge Drudge. Or maybe the “sages” at Politico. You constantly disappoint.

does anyone actually look into these people before they’re selected? It’s like they’re trying to pick outrageous choices.

Of course there’s nothing wrong with the ‘Czars’. Just another limp Weapon of Mass Distraction by the Republican noise machine. Facts don’t matter. History doesn’t matter. Make outrageous accusations, get the Fox/Murdoch/Moonie Press to repeat it over and over. Do it every week with some new bogus accusation and at best you’ll get lucky. At worst, you prevent Government from solving real problems….that is unless dysfunctional government is your ideology.
Great Plan! Why do Republicans hate America?
Fear, Hatred, Distortion, Distraction and Division. It’s all they’ve got.

thebob.bob,
The outrageous thing here is the dangerous people selected as czars. Stop blaming Republicans for the choices made by Team Obama. Distraction by Republicans? SOMEBODY better take a look at these czars.

In Senate testimony, constitutional experts say the president has the right to appoint independent advisors as long as the distinction between practical and legal authority is rigorously maintained.
Reporting from Washington – Five constitutional experts testified at a Senate hearing Tuesday that President Obama’s extensive use of policy “czars” is legal — as long as the officials do not overstep their authority.

Turns out, per the LA Times, that five constitutional experts testified at the Senate hearing that President Obama’s use of policy “czars” is perfectly legal — as long as the officials do not overstep their authority. A couple of quotes–
Bradley H. Patterson, a presidential scholar: “The president’s personal staff are independently responsible only to the president … And he is accountable to the American electorate.”
“John Harrison, a University of Virginia law professor, compared the czars to the position of White House chief of staff, saying both hold great influence and can speak for the president, but their legal powers are limited. Their ‘practical authority . . . is not legal authority, and as long as the distinction is rigorously maintained there will be no legal problem.’”

Obama still hasn’t appointed a Court Jester, much preferring to keep the responsibilities of that position for himself.
Trouble is, a lot of us aren’t laughing anymore.

Van Jones well serves as an icon of this serious problem with czars.
Democratic administration or Republican administration, czars need to be approved by Congress or eliminated entirely. Czars provide a tempting backdoor method to violate our Constitution.
We only need to look to Van Jones to instantly realize czars are a threat to our American way of life.

@thebob.bobidybobbob…
Yeah, I know, isn’t it so terrible and ridiculous when all those obviously fake accusations are made using video, audio, and the writings of those who are being so unfairly accused? Its SOOOOOO unfair to use their own history, video and quotes against them!!!
Only those EEEEvil old white male hating racist Repubs would stoop to tactics like using one’s own words and recorded actions against them! Someone’s own BOOK no less! Video of one’s own speeches!!! How horrible, unreasonable and unfair!
And the DEMOCRATS in congress now trying to investigate? Well, quite clearly they are secretly eeeeevil unreasonable republicans!! Its that vast right wing conspiracy in action yet again!!!

@ 007 | Oct 7, 2009 12:47:07 AM
Excuse me, but a review of lending practices and regulations isn’t in any way ‘science’ or ‘scientific.’
Clinton signed into law regulations that REQUIRED banks to lend a certain percentage of all of their mortgage lending to low income applicants or face fines and extreme pressure from the likes of Barney Franks and Chris Dodd in Congress.
The Bush administration adamantly warned of the dangers of these practices, and repeatedly introduced legislation to Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac and eliminate or drastically reduce bank lending to unqualified applicants. These bills were either filibustered by Dems such that they never could come to a vote or voted down by a majority of Democrats in Congress, along with a very few Repubs. sufficient to quash the bills.
Barney Franks and Chris Dodd, as recently as 2007 (perhaps even 2008), publicly and quite notably ridiculed the Bush Admin attempts claiming that Fanny and Freddy posed NO risk and were healthy and that Bush and his admin were wrong and absurd to worry about Fanny and Freddy and were fear-mongering towards the public by their attempts to rein these institutions and practices in.

Congressional oversight??
HA!
We don’t need no stinkin’ Congressional oversight!

“Fox and Glenn Beck are doing a service to America by reporting the news…”
Fox and Glenn Beck are doing themselves a really big service [$$$] by selling expensive advertising space during broadcasts which are just telling you what you want to hear.

OK, name the bill the Republicans tried to pass and explain how the Democrats then stopped it. With solid Republican majorities a Democrat Senate filibuster would be the only way -and you’re not going to find one because it never happened. The fact is that the Republicans made no serious effort to regulate anybody while they had control in Washington because they opposed government regulation in principle despite Bush’s alleged concerns. If anything the opposite is true. I actually love this part of right-wing revisionist history: Barney Frank, with his imposing personality, says “Boo” and the Republicans scatter. It was the Federal Reserve under Bush that intentionally relaxed its oversight duties and allowed banks, mortgage underwriters, and other lenders to flagrantly re-prioritize so their ability to repackage mortgages as securities replaced the standards for the ability of the borrowers to repay them. This is where the majority of the sub-prime loans originated–in the private sector. Trying to blame it all on Barney Frank and Chris Dodd is ridiculous.
The Republicans didn’t want to stop the housing bubble. It was the force behind the artificially bloated DOW, the high numbers at the time being their evidence that the economy was supposedly strong. It was a runaway gravy train that the GOP wanted to ride to the finish at the ultimate expense of the American people–which they did.

“The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 29% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-seven percent (37%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -8.”
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Oct 7, 2009 9:36:42 AM
Of course, the Obama cultists on this site will complain how Rasmussen polling is invalid, because they don’t sample twice as many Democrats as Republicans–the way CNN, CBS, and NY Times polls do.

Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Oct 7, 2009 9:36:42 AM
Of course, the Obama cultists on this site will complain how Rasmussen polling is invalid, because they don’t sample twice as many Democrats as Republicans–the way CNN, CBS, and NY Times polls do.
Posted by: Leg-. Tingling Media | Oct 7, 2009 9:45:33 AM
***
Actually, what I find more intriguing is that he didn’t mention the daily tracker yesterday, or the latest AP poll. Selective poll reporting. LOL. Keep watching Fascist, and posting on days that you like the result– when they found the “likely voters” that respond as you’d like them to.
It’s beyond ridiculous.

I suppose Frist, Bloomberg, Schwarzenegger and everyone who supports health care reform or Obama policies is “astroturf” or something more nefarious from the perspective of certain types (teapartiers, neocons)– but Obama had nothing to do with experts selected. You read the post here, right? (eyeroll.) And I actually know several doctors who support single payer. I think the loyal opposition is just ticked cuz support of health care reform as envisioned by Obama and the Dems in Congress is up at least five points from the faux drama in August, and folks like Schwarzenegger, Bloomberg and Frist are supporting it, too. Meanwhile, Betsy McCaughey has become a joke. Onward!

Gallup: “Obama clings to 50% approval.”
Politico: “All that’s enough to convince some observers that the economic recovery is faltering and could be heading for a “double dip” recession. And that would mean the recent green shoots of recovery turn out to be just a pause in a much longer economic slide.”

OK, name the bill the Republicans tried to pass and explain how the Democrats then stopped it.
***
Good post, Skip. I love how these folks think repetition of Fox News talking points makes distortions “true.” It’s actually more incriminating that Bush foresaw a problem and did nothing. Nothing! Many, most, experts agree that the administration could have done much, much more to curb excesses in the housing market, and much more to police Wall Street. It was his appointees on the Federal Reserve Board, at HUD, Fannie and Freddie, at the SEC and so on. It was he who lauded the housing bubble and chose his first two Treasury secretaries who lacked the kind of Wall Street expertise that might have helped them raise red flags about the use of complex financial instruments at the heart of the crisis. Why not talk about what the Republican Study Committee to kill Oxley’s bill in 2005, or how Barny Frank is the dude that finally got a bill passed? Oh, I know… because that doesn’t fit in with their take-no-responsibility, point-the-fingers-at-Dems, support-Fox-News-talking-points agenda,

Yeah, there they go with that pesky Constitution again.
We don’t need no stinkin’ Constitution, do we?

Again – Alyson and Skip are clueless as to how the housing crisis and resulting recession was caused by Barney Frank and the Democrats. He pushed back on Bush’s attempt to regulate the out of control Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. John Snow also testified about the anticipated crisis.
The video is : Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown

I found a great way to save some federal dollars currently being spent foolishly. Eliminate Obama’s so-called “Press Secretary”. Besides childish jibberish, all the press can get out of one of his “Press”…or is it “press” briefings is a bit of child’s play for an hour or so…………the word is “stupefying!”.anyone in this “executive” branch who tells me that there are more important things to do than follow the “czar” story simply ADDS to the story, doesn’t he?????

-Undeterred, Mr. Raines now works for another Harvard Law School graduate, Mr. Barack Obama’s presidential election campaign — as an advisor on mortgage and housing policy matters.-
Barry sure hires the best!

So to recap…Republicans were outraged about some Acorn workers advising fake pimps and prostitutes but when it comes to actual rape they vote AGAINST holding companies responsible for restricting their employees rights.
Posted by: Ryan C | Oct 7, 2009 12:05:12 PM
************
And obama said he’d do something about DADT and lesbian and gay rights in the military; on obama’s watch, Vic Fehrenbach was discharged from the Air Force. Will obama do something about it?

Ryan C., the Republicans voted against the amendment because they maintained that the amendment overreached into the private sector and may volate the due process clause of the U. S. Constitution. It is reported that even the Defense Department opposed the amendment.

“while U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigators continued to investigate alleged accounting irregularities.”
I’m glad you mentioned the good ol’ SEC. They’re the ones who during Bush’s term waived the leveraging rules for Bear Sterns, Lehman Bros, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs [do these names sound at all familiar?] so they could go on a greed binge. While Frannie and Freddie avoided the unconventional loans these companies loaded up on them and started leveraging 30 and even 40 to 1… Once investors became aware of what was going on the end came quickly as these firms started collapsing and almost took the rest of Wall St. with them. In the end Freddie and Frannie, despite their huge size, only required comparatively modest funds to stabilize them while Goldman Sachs seems to to be the only one to have actually benefited by the whole thing.

Ryan C., the Republicans voted against the amendment because they maintained that the amendment overreached into the private sector and may volate the due process clause of the U. S. Constitution. It is reported that even the Defense Department opposed the amendment.
Posted by: James Danley | Oct 7, 2009 12:18:55 PM
***
So, to recap, per Ryan’s post and Think Progress and others, in 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones, who was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad, was gang-raped by her co-workers, detained in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food or water and warned that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job. Al Franken introduced an amendment yesterday to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts from companies “if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.” . Jeff Sessions, a Republican (of course) argued against the amendment, because it was unfair to poor Halliburton, one of the largest contributor to the GOP in American history. Franken explained that the amendment did not single out a single contractor, but would defund any contractor that refuses to give a victim of rape their day in court– and some republicans have a PROBLEM with that? James, do you defend that? Let’s just, ahem, screw the American worker in favor of the uber-rich, the powerful and the crooked and unconscionable defense contractor. The utter hypocrisy sickens.

“ACORN, Obama’s political launch vehicle,”
ObamACORN | Oct 7, 2009 1:03:15 PM
Obama’s “political launch vehicle”? What a joke.

“And obama said he’d do something about DADT and lesbian and gay rights in the military; on obama’s watch, Vic Fehrenbach was discharged from the Air Force. Will obama do something about it?”
I am disappointed in the deliberate pace of action by the Obama administration with that issue.
Can you explain why 30 Republicans voted against denying contracts to military contractors who don’t allow victims of rape their day in court or even what the admin’s slow pace on DADT has to do with my post?

“Bush warned of the impending doom and tried to create a federal agency to regulate. The democrats stopped it. Namely, Barney Frank. It’s easy.”
How did the Democrats stop it when they were the minority power?
Was there a fillibuster? Nope.
Did the Republicans ever bring a bill to the floor? Nope.

Can you explain why 30 Republicans voted against denying contracts to military contractors who don’t allow victims of rape their day in court or even what the admin’s slow pace on DADT has to do with my post?
Posted by: Ryan C | Oct 7, 2009 1:15:17 PM
**********
It’s all about hypocrisy. You pointing fingers shows that your judgment is clouded when it comes to sins of your party. It is good to be an Independent and make either party PROVE their integrity and that they deserve to be in office. If not, the vote goes to Nader.

Alyson, I am not fully versed on the entire case. But based on what was stated in these comments, Jamie Leigh Jones could have–and should have–immediately sought medical treatment and reported the rape. Did she really want to stay at a job where her employer wanted to protect and cover up the rape? There are already legal remedies–i.e., sexual harrassment laws and wrongful termination laws–that she could have pursued after seeking medical attention.
Now as for Sen. Franken’s amendment, many companies have binding arbitration clauses. Arbitration clauses are meant to limit costs during disputes by avoiding lengthy and costly civil lawsuits. Sen. Franken says his amendment only seeks to eliminate arbitration in cases of rape. However, it’s possible that it might not end up being so limited in scope and could eventually eliminate all arbitration clauses.

How did the Democrats stop it when they were the minority power?
Was there a fillibuster? Nope.
Did the Republicans ever bring a bill to the floor? Nope.
Posted by: Ryan C | Oct 7, 2009 1:18:25 PM
**********
You know the truth in your gut, Ryan, but you choose to ignore it. I feel sorry for people like you that choose to support a president and party that are for a weakened United States, a weakened dollar, and a weakened people. You are all out of touch with with want Americans want. We are a strong people and a strong nation and will be once again. How many crises has obama and rahm emmanual created to seek more power? The economy (fix by a stimulus with lots of pork), the global warning “crisis” (fix by passing a tax hike), health care (fix by creating a system with more corruption to gain more power). Push back has been hard against this administration and it will continue until they get it.

Alysons writes more than two sentences and a right winger complains!
Sorry Alyson, if its not a headline with a red siren next to it, the right wingers lose interest.
But rest assured others enjoy your posts.
Posted by: Ryan C | Oct 7, 2009 1:21:22 PM
***
Thanks, Ryan :>) I’ve missed you! You always make me smile– grin, actually. And laugh.
As for Jenny’s post, you know, a week or two ago, I had folks asking for specifics and details. I can’t seem to please the Republicans, neocons, cons, tea partiers and mommy patriot PUMAs on these comment boards. How odd. (LOL.)

30 Republicans voted against restricting contracts to military contractors who prevent rape victims from having their day in court.
Posted by: Ryan C | Oct 7, 2009 1:29:11 PM
**********
How many Democrats voted against putting the health care legislation online for at least 72 hrs. – one of your dear leader’s campaign promises.
How many Democrats voted NOT to defund the corruption organization ACORN?
How many Democrats including obama voted to kill fetuses who survived after an abortion?
Let’s keep going Ryan; this is fun.
Pointing fingers is dangerous Ryan.

Jack-don’t delete my article which I spent to search a correct information for 30 min.
WHY OBAMA ADMIN. HAS NEEDED SO MANY CZARS WHICH THEIR QUALIFICATION NEVER BE FILTERED BY CONGRESS OR ANY GROUP, BUT BY ONLY VALERIE JARRETT who was born in Shiraz, Iran w/American parents.
JARRETT has been Senior Advisor to the President and Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Relations and Public Liaison HAD INTRODUCED VAN JONES WHO IS THE COMMUNIST, RACISM, AND INSULTING OF AMERICA, FORMER THE PRESIDENT AND THE PARTY OF USA TO OBAMA.
1. Herb Allison-TARP Czar
2. Alan Bersin-Border Czar
3. Dennis Blair-Intelligence Czar
4. John Brennan-Terrorism Czar
5. Carol Browner-Energy Czar
6. Adolfo Carrion, Jr-Urban Affairs
7. Ashton Carter-Weapons Czar
8. Aneesh Chopra-Technology Czar
9. Jeffrey Crowley-AIDS Czar
10. Cameron Davis-Great Lakes Czar
11. Nancy-Ann DeParle-Health Czar
12. Earl Devaney-Stimulus Accountability Czar
13. Joshua DuBois-Faith-based Czar
14. Kenneth Feinberg-Pay Czar
15. Danny Fried-Guantanamo Closure Czar
16. J. Scott Gration-Sudan Czar
17. Richard Holbrooke-Afghanistan Czar
18. John Holdren-Science Czar
19. Van Jones Green-Jobs Czar
20. Gil Kerlikowske-Drug Czar
21. Vivek Kundra-Information Czar
22. George Mitchell-Mideast Peace Czar
23. Ed Montgomery-Car Czar
24. Dennis Ross-Mideast Policy Czar
25. Gary Samore-WMD Czar
26. Todd Stern-Climate Czar
27. Cass Sunstein-Regulatory Czar
28. Paul Volcker-Economic Czar
ALL ABOVE CZARS HAVE RECEIVED CHECK BY CITIZENS’S TAXES.
Posted by: Unhappy w/unqualificated CZARS. | Oct 7, 2009 1:23:50 PM

But based on what was stated in these comments, Jamie Leigh Jones could have–and should have–immediately sought medical treatment and reported the rape. Did she really want to stay at a job where her employer wanted to protect and cover up the rape? There are already legal remedies–i.e., sexual harrassment laws and wrongful termination laws–that she could have pursued after seeking medical attention.”
James,
I want to be fair and you should read the story. Google her name and read up on it.
But if you again try to blame the rape victim for not getting justice, we will tangle.

“Explain to me how the Democrats stopped reform when the Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress and the Executive branch.”
Alyson and I spent quite awhile last night trying to get them to do just that to no avail. The closest explanation I could discern is that they were just plain intimidated by Barney Frank.

“How many Democrats voted against putting the health care legislation online for at least 72 hrs. – one of your dear leader’s campaign promises.”
“How many Democrats voted NOT to defund the corruption organization ACORN?”
You mean the unconstitutional punishment of a single entity?
75 Democrats in the House and 7 Democrats in the Senate.
“How many Democrats including obama voted to kill fetuses who survived after an abortion?”
Zero.
How many Republican Senators voted for continuing to fund military contractors who prevent rape victims from their day in court?
30.

The closest explanation I could discern is that they were just plain intimidated by Barney Frank.
Posted by: Skip | Oct 7, 2009 1:47:49 PM
***
LOL! You got more out of it than I did. I thought maybe they were throwing fairy dust at us and clapping in hopes that if they just said the same thing over and over again and wished upon a star, we’d forget there was no substance to their arguments or that they hadn’t refuted ours.

“How many Democrats voted against putting the health care legislation online for at least 72 hrs. – one of your dear leader’s campaign promises.”
Jenny | Oct 7, 2009 1:33:22 PM
Obama never promised to have bills in Congress put online for 72 hours before they are voted out of committee, or even on the floor of Congress. You are lying. Actually, you are slandering Obama, “bearing false witness” in classical terms by accusing him of saying things he never, ever did.

“How many Democrats voted against putting the health care legislation online for at least 72 hrs. – one of your dear leader’s campaign promises.”
Jenny | Oct 7, 2009 1:33:22 PM
Obama never promised to have bills in Congress put online for 72 hours before they are voted out of committee, or even on the floor of Congress. You are lying. Actually, you are slandering Obama, “bearing false witness” in classical terms by accusing him of saying things he never, ever did.
Posted by: jhw539 | Oct 7, 2009 2:04:59 PM
*******
Calling me a liar? Call the man you support as president a liar. He lied when he said he would post legislation online for at least 5 days before he signs it. He also said everything would be televised and the dems have had secret meeting after secret meeting. Come join those of us who have integrity and value the truth.

“The Department of Defense let me know to oppose this amendment. There are a number of reasons: because it goes far beyond the issue raised by my colleague from Minnesota. It eliminates arbitration for any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act, any claim resulting from negligent hiring, negligent supervision or retention of an employee–virtually any employment dispute that is now resolvable under arbitration, which the U.S. Supreme Court has said is good. Statistics show that employees get final judgment and actually win more cases under arbitration than they do going to the expense of a Federal court trial.”
This is directly off the transcripts from the vote senate. Ryan C there is your proof that the Department of Defense opposed it. There was also an Amendment in 2009, the National Defense Authorization Act that has protection for these employees that bacame law. But you knew that didn’t you, you just want to harp on 30 Republicans voting against the new amendment.
Ryan C and Alyson, your personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with you is very offensive. I am wondering if you get paid for how many responses you get. It could also be that you are learning from Obama, Gibbs, Pelosi, etc. They personalize and demonize anyone who disagrees with them also.

Ryan C., where in my comment did I blame the Jamie Leigh Jones. My point was regardless of what her employer threatened, she should have immediately sought medical attention and reported the rape. I certainly understand why some rape victims don’t want to report a rape. And I know that doctors are required to report suspected abuse and rape cases, so maybe that is frequently used as an excuse for not seeking medical attention. But if someone wants justice and to see those who committed the rape to be punished for their crime, the rape must be reported.

Most right-wingers may not believe it but there really are people who are motivated to do things for other reasons than monetary gain.
Posted by: Skip | Oct 7, 2009 2:56:08 PM
***********
Put a name on the boogeyman, Skip! Right-wingers are an easy target. But again, your boogeymen are all over. I’m a former Clinton campaigner. Clinton people have been hired by the white house. We know your tactics.

Most right-wingers may not believe it but there really are people who are motivated to do things for other reasons than monetary gain.
Posted by: Skip | Oct 7, 2009 2:56:08 PM
LOL! Oh, we believe it. We just wish you would accept and appreciate monetary gain. If you did, you wouldn’t want the socialistic agenda you are so heavily pushing!

“Ryan C., where in my comment did I blame the Jamie Leigh Jones. My point was regardless of what her employer threatened, she should have immediately sought medical attention and reported the rape.”
James Danley | Oct 7, 2009 2:52:05 PM
I didn’t catch your earlier post, but in those two lines above you blamed Jamie Leigh Jones for being unable to get justice BECAUSE she did not immediately seek medical attention and report the rape. We’re talking basic English comprehension here. You are blaming the lack of any justice against the rapist on the rape victim for not immediately seeking medical attention after she was raped to document her rape. At least have the courage to not play stupid and accept what you are saying.

“You mean the unconstitutional punishment of a single entity?” posted by Ryan
That’s hilarious. The constitutional prohibition against bills of attainder, which prohibits Congress from declaring persons guilty of a crime and punishing them without trial, has nothing whatsoever to do with the right, indeed the duty, of Congress to insure that federal money is not wasted on dispensing advice on the finer points of setting up child prostitution rings and evading the payment of taxes on the profits.
Always love it when left wingers pimp for ACORN.

==”Explain to me how the Democrats stopped reform when the Republicans controlled both chambers of Congress and the Executive branch.”
The democrats (Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Chris Dodd, Meeks, Schumer, etc) repeatedly killed any attempt at reform in committee on the basis that reining in Fannie and Freddie would limit “affordable housing”. It’s well documented. A reform bill would not have had 60 votes in the Senate and would have been killed.
Our government has this interesting mechanism called “checks and balances” to limit the ability of one party or politician to enact legislation without debate.

I don’t see a reason to bother ‘debating’ someone who just makes up lies and slander to support her opinion. It’s a waste of time -
Posted by: jhw539 | Oct 7, 2009 3:33:51 PM
I can back you up on the waste of time with the particular liar you’re talking about. No. substance.

I think Alyson’s real job is attempting to write children’s books. Good luck with that, Alyson. Maybe you can get a job with Kevin Jennings’ czar office and write those transgender cartoons for kids? Big sellers those will be after Jennings gets fired.
Posted by: Jenny | Oct 7, 2009 3:14:43 PM
**
Children’s books, huh? That’s pretty funny, though I do write fiction as a hobby. I have no idea what all the gobbly gook about Jennings is about. Homophobia?

“Because you are plain out of arguments for a debate. The Republicans asked for 3 days (72 hrs) which is LESS than obama proposed (5 days).”
Jenny | Oct 7, 2009 3:44:08 PM
Obama NEVER proposed any such period for legislation in Congress. Can you make any argument WITHOUT lying? Don’t parents teach this anymore? I would be ashamed if my nieces acted like this in front of me and they’re only 10.

Obama NEVER proposed any such period for legislation in Congress. Can you make any argument WITHOUT lying? Don’t parents teach this anymore? I would be ashamed if my nieces acted like this in front of me and they’re only 10.
Posted by: jhw539 | Oct 7, 2009 3:48:24 PM
**********
Oh yes he did. And it makes you angry that he lies too. Admit it, you’ll feel better.

“I will be here to call you on your lies and bring the truth to light. I will not allow you to spew your lies here.”
Jenny | Oct 7, 2009 3:48:26 PM
I clearly cited and documented your lie. Can you document my lie – should be easy enough, as I did to document your clear and obvious lying in my post at Oct 7, 2009 3:33:51 PM, everything I’ve written is still on this page for reference. Although I suppose just tossing around more made-up accusations is easier for a troll whose just bored and trying to irritate people online for kicks.

Still no “Sunlight before Signing”
Updated: Wednesday, February 4th, 2009 | By Angie Drobnic Holan
When President Obama signed his first bill without posting it to the Web for five days of public comment, we gave him his first Promise Broken.
For his second bill, Obama signed an expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which provides health coverage for low-income children. He signed it on Feb. 4, 2009, just hours after it was finalized in Congress.
This time, though, the White House had posted the text of the working bill to its Web site on Feb. 1, 2009, with the following note : “Since this version of the bill is expected to pass the House of Representatives in the coming week, we are making the legislation available for public comment now.”

ROFLMAO!
Right wing independent who campaigned for Clinton!
Posted by: Ryan C | Oct 7, 2009 3:54:39 PM
***********
Playground bullying doesn’t work here, Ryan. But keep it coming, maybe I can help you through your issues “ROFLMAO”! How cute you are!

“The democrats (Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, Chris Dodd, Meeks, Schumer, etc) repeatedly killed any attempt at reform in committee on the basis that reining in Fannie and Freddie would limit “affordable housing”. ”
How did they do that when the Republicans controlled the chair and had the majority?

Can you offer even that barest bit of reality to support your two minute hate?
Posted by: jhw539 | Oct 7, 2009 3:56:52 PM
*****
We asked the White House about this matter on Jan. 29, when Obama signed his first bill. Five days later, on the day of the SCHIP signing, we got a reply via e-mail from spokesman Tommy Vietor:
“During the campaign, the president committed to introducing more sunlight into the lawmaking process by posting nonemergency legislation online for five days before signing it. The president remains committed to bringing more transparency to government, and in this spirit the White House has posted legislation expected to come to the president’s desk online for comment. We will be implementing this policy in full soon; currently we are working through implementation procedures and some initial issues with the congressional calendar. In the meantime, we will continue to post legislation on our Web site for comment as it moves through congress over the next few weeks.”

That slander is in NO WAY supported by Obama’s completely separate pledge on a 5 day waiting period before the President signs a bill. When a police officer requests your drivers license do you think giving her your library card is the same thing?
Posted by: jhw539 | Oct 7, 2009 3:59:46 PM
*********
Oh really? You are fooling yourself but not fooling me or anyone else.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) confirmed this afternoon that Democrats will break their transparency pledge by bringing the stimulus bill to a vote tomorrow morning, giving lawmakers and the public significantly less time than the 48 hours promised.
The House is scheduled to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow and is expected to proceed directly to consideration of the American Recovery and Reinvestment conference report. The conference report text will be filed this evening, giving members enough time to review the conference report before voting on it tomorrow afternoon.

More GOP Congressman and their staff have been convicted in the last 5 years than people working for ACORN.
Posted by: Ryan C | Oct 7, 2009 3:53:25 PM
***********
That’s because the people doing the convicting are Democrats right now. Tim Geitner, Charlie Rangel, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, Tom Daschle should all be in jail.
Wait til 2010.

“House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) confirmed this afternoon that Democrats will break their transparency pledge by bringing the stimulus bill to a vote tomorrow morning, giving lawmakers and the public significantly less time than the 48 hours promised.”
Jenny | Oct 7, 2009 4:04:20 PM
So was it 72 hours, 5 days, or 48 hours? Did Obama promise it or Hoyer? Maybe Pelosi – everyone hates her so I’m sure you can work her in somehow. You do understand the wave your hands and yell random facts doesn’t work so well on the internet where WHAT YOU ACTUALLY SAID is documented and verifiable by anyone who cares.
You lied:
“How many Democrats voted against putting the health care legislation online for at least 72 hrs. – one of your dear leader’s campaign promises.”
Jenny | Oct 7, 2009 1:33:22 PM
So you meant Hoyer is my “dear leader”?? And 48 hours = 72 hours? Keep waving those arms. At least it slows down your lying.
And I am still waiting for you to back up your personal slander directed at me in you Oct 7, 2009 3:48:26 PM. Please cite the post in which (you wildly claim) I lied. It shouldn’t be hard, they are all archived here.

“Do I really need to explain to you the difference between a criminal trial pursuant to which one is found guilty and punished; versus a decision to withhold federal money to which it has no constitutional or legal entitlement, from an entity that has demonstrated shocking abuse and mismanagement of those funds?”
Actually I wish you could explain why we still give Haliburton billions of dollars when they have ripped us off and why the right wing focuses on ACORN which received $53M over the last 10 years instead?

Ryan C, the amendment covers far more than gang rape. As you pointed out the wording of the amendment includes: “…or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.” THAT is very vague. Anyone could raise the issue of “negligent hiring” for any dispute. THAT alone could eliminate arbitration clauses for companies who receive federal contracts.

And I am still waiting for you to back up your personal slander directed at me in you Oct 7, 2009 3:48:26 PM. Please cite the post in which (you wildly claim) I lied. It shouldn’t be hard, they are all archived here.
Posted by: jhw539 | Oct 7, 2009 4:19:15 PM
********
I think you get the gist of the promise/pledge. In fact, if you read any of my posts, there was a quote from the white house spokesperson.
Keep trying ….

As terrible an ordeal as that has been for Ms. Jones, it does not warrant the Congress stepping in and passing a bill that could eliminate arbitration clauses.”
Except the amendment does not do that. I posted the language.
And if companies were not so brazenly abusing arbitration for purposes it was not intended for the bill would have been unnecessary.
BTW when are right wingers gonna turn their ire on Haliburton for wasting taxpayer money?
Will that ever happen?

“…or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.” THAT is very vague”
Meaning if you hire rapists and thieves that then rape and steal, the company cannot use arbitration to protect themselves from the victims of those crimes on the basis of the victim losing their job should they pursue legal action.
Basically it means the company cannot make arbitration mandatory and your only means of redress.
I would think we could agree on that.

I imagine you feel even more anger towards David Vitter who cheated on his wife with a prostitute or John Ensign who tried to keep the husband of his mistress quiet by giving him a lobbying job.
“Wait til 2010.”
But I thought you were an independent.
I guess the hood came off…whoops…did I say that.
Posted by: Ryan C | Oct 7, 2009 4:30:02 PM
************
Oops I forgot Elliot Spitzer and Bill Clinton!

Maybe I haven’t been banned after all. :)
Anyway, I’ve been trying unsuccessfully to post a response to Ryan C. Here we go one more time.
“Actually, I wish you could explain why we still give Haliburton billions of dollars when they have ripped us off”
You guys are in the ones in charge now, Ryan. Anytime you want to start explaining, I’m all ears.
“and why the right wing focuses on ACORN…”
Voter fraud in favor of the Democrats would be the short answer.

“Voter fraud in favor of the Democrats would be the short answer.”
Yeah, and I’ve got a buddy who’s afraid of Republican vampires. You probably already know that there has never been a case of voter fraud directly attributable to anybody associated with ACORN, ever, do you not?

Get your obama campaign/george soros database ready so you can copy and paste answers here. You’re going to need it.
Posted by: Jenny | Oct 7, 2009 3:48:26 PM
LOL. So, YOU’RE the one being paid by the word? Too funny. You would think they’d get someone who didn’t conflate arguments and do the whole lather, rinse, repeat thing without furthering their arguments or refuting others’. But, hey,it works for me. Here’s one problem (of many) I have with your arguments, not that you’ll read this as it will likely be too long for your attention span, as you’ve noted.
You’re right about Obama not measuring up fully to his campaign promise — the one Politifact calls promise no. 234. The credit card bill of rights and Lily Ledbetter Act were both signed without the five day break. But you don’t seem to get the difference between this :
“..Steny Hoyer (D-MD) confirmed this afternoon that Democrats will break their transparency pledge by bringing the stimulus bill to a vote tomorrow morning, giving lawmakers and the public significantly less time than the 48 hours promised.” and this “”How many Democrats voted against putting the health care legislation online for at least 72 hrs. – one of your dear leader’s campaign promises.”
and Obama’s separate pledge.
They are two different things and you are conflating them and mispeaking. I personally think the Dems should have supported putting health care legislation online for at least 72 hrs. I’m disappointed in those who voted against it. But I’m missing how you’re connecting to that Obama and his separate pledge. You haven’t connected any dots for your argument to make any sense. As someone else, (jhw I think) said, is the “dear leader” supposed to be Steny Hoyer?
Rather than explain and actually make your argument, you do seem to start flapping your arms.

Ryan C – You Tube Barack Obama “Public will have 5 days to look at every bill that lands on my desk.”
Next time do your own homework.
You’re welcome Jenny!

I tried to copy and paste such a link for something else and it wouldn’t post so I assumed I wasn’t allowed to do it.
Posted by: Jenny | Oct 7, 2009 5:47:08 PM
*********
I don’t think they will let you post sites. That’s why I typed it out.

Yeah, and I’ve got a buddy who’s afraid of Republican vampires. You probably already know that there has never been a case of voter fraud directly attributable to anybody associated with ACORN, ever, do you not?
Posted by: Skip | Oct 7, 2009 5:14:58 PM
LOL!!! Remember when John McCain paid $175,000 of campaign money to to the firm of Nathan Sproul, a firm accused of massive voter registration fraud in several states? As others have said, the Republican crusade against voter fraud is a strategic ruse. Seriously. According to available stats, from 2002 to 2005 only one person was found guilty of registration fraud. One. There were also twenty people found guilty of voting while ineligible and five people found guilty of voting more than once. That’s another 26 making 26 criminal voters total — the voters that Republicans fearmonger about– voters who vote twice, impersonate other people, vote without being a resident. Meanwhile thousands of people get turned away at the polls. Voter suppression is the REAL problem we have.

“‘They are unelected, un-vetted, and unaccountable,’ Sessions said in response to the hearing today.”
Good stuff, coming from someone who is staunchly opposed to accountability when it comes to gang rape.

and the other with Obama. He can wait five days to sign something already voted on, and that’s what his promise related to. He hasn’t lived up to that. He can’t promise that Congress will wait to vote on something, that’s what the Dems voted down (and we both seem to disagree with) and it really isn’t directly related to Obama’s pledge.
Posted by: Alyson | Oct 7, 2009 6:04:23 PM
******************
I knew exactly what you and the other person would try to argue as I wrote it. You were playing “gotcha.” To me, all the Democrats are lying right now; when obama ran, and pelosi, reid, dodd, kerry, edwards – all of them endorsed obama, they were also endorsing obama’scampaign promises like transparency. People like you lay in waiting to say “it was obama who promised that, not the Democrats in congress.” Whether obama said 72 hrs or 5 days, or that Congress didn’t promise that at all doesn’t matter. The point is that the leader of the Democrat party (obama) promised it and it is REASONABLE and RESPECTFUL to the American people to do so. We know Congress will not respect us but we hope obama will honor his promise and allow the American people to read the bill before he signs off…

You were playing “gotcha.”
***
No, I wasn’t. You don’t seem to understand the term, which is funny given how much you use “you don’t understand” to buy time to find something, anything to back up your parroted talking points that don’t hold water. Your argument was very unclear because you were conflating. That’s why your whole thing about accusing me of muddying the waters was so funny. Maybe you don’t do it on purpose, but you’re credibility would be greater if you made good, solid arguments and didn’t rely on assists from your co-workers who comment here. There are good arguments to be made from the loyal opposition. Unfortunately many of you muddy the waters via conflating, distortion, exaggeration, and so on- what you’re saying here still sounds like tossed salad. I have no idea if you understand or not– just that you think you do. Gotta say it’s no surprise you relate to Palin. LOL.

Jordan & Jake,
Do you ever do your homework? Per the LA Times today: “the Five constitutional experts testified at a Senate hearing Tuesday that President Obama’s extensive use of policy “czars” is legal — as long as the officials do not overstep their authority.”. Missed it huh? Again. Apparently so. Although you constantly seem to “miss the bus” you don’t seem to ever tire of carrying republican water! It’s amazing what you’ll fall for. Oh let’s not forget the NJ Congress Daily headline:”Experts Say Policy ‘Czars’ Fall Within Presidential Authority”. Seriously they pay you for this stuff? Humph.

d,
I understand the point you are getting at but the republicans are good at staying on message with their scare tactics and the democrats, for fear of scaring their idea of the “center”, are good at succumbing to republican scare tactics. People like Jake Tapper and the usual beltway crowd perpetuate the storyline in their rush to try and outdo Drudge and his ilk.

Let’s see how Bush and Obama compare. We’ll do this in two posts.
# Obama Czars = 33
Holbrooke, Richard
Crowley, Jeffrey
Rattner, Steve
Bloom, Ron
Montgomery, Ed
Allison, Herbert
Bersin, Alan
Stern, Todd D.
Browner, Carol
Feinberg, Kenneth
Rosenthal, Lynn
Kerlikowske, R. Gil
Volcker, Paul A.
DuBois, Joshua
Davis, Cameron
Jones, Van
Fried, Daniel
DeParle, Nancy-Ann
Kundra, Vivek
Blair, Dennis
Ross, Dennis
Bloom, Ron
Mitchell, George
Zientz, Jeffrey
Sunstein, Cass
Holdren, John
Devaney, Earl
Chopra, Aneesh
Brennan, John O.
Carrion, Adolfo
Lute, Douglas
Carter, Ashton
Samore, Gary

It looks like 33 Czars for Obama and 46 for Bush.
Is that correct?

He knew that coming in, but unfortunately those who voted for him looking for their “Messiah”
Posted by: Shoe
only republicans use the ‘messiah’ canard as it suits their purposes. .. losing and not being part of curing america of the past 8 years is all they have..
btw: ‘ children are being murdered right out in the streets of “their city”
you don’t travel or read the news about the rest of america do you?
Come on, you know what I meant. I realize their is crime in other areas. The point is he was trying to get “their city” to be on top, to make him look good. Once that fell through, Chicago turned into the crime, corruption laden city it has come to be known as. The city is GOOD IF it helps OBAMA LOOK GOOD. If not, then it’s just Chicago. Get it???

Bush 46 vs Obama 33
Here’s another comparison: Bush 96 vs Obama 8 — as in months in office!

Czars are For socialist silly president.

Nothing in the constitution prohibits “czars.” They’re entirely lawful. In my opinion they become somewhat dangerous when the president’s party controls both houses of congress, because they will never be called to testify about what they’re doing. But that’s why we have elections.

But that’s why we have elections.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena
exactly, Nov 2008 to be specific…..

“An Atlas exclusive with a former ACORN employee.”
ROFLMAO!
The independent Clinton campaigner who reads the right wing nutjob site Atlas Strugs.
Whose principle owner and blogger Pamela Gellar stated that Obama was ineligible to run for office because when the Constitution was written, black people were considered only 3/5 of a person.

I think Tsarist Russia preceded Communist Russia.