LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteWhen exactly will we be able to discuss the current administration without constant reference to the previous?
Sounds ominous until you remember the last administration believed the executive was above the law. Where did you get the information salaries in the executive branch are not reported? I still don't get the hang upo. The President is responsible at the end of the day. It's a lot of smoke over nothing. One czar is too many if what you say is true and no one was bitching a till 1/09. As to the conference committee the Republicans have stated they are opposed no matter what and will do anything to slow the bill down so...booo hoo they got outflanked. Perhaps if they didnt view it's defeat as a path to power as they have publicly said and had tried to actual help craft a bill things would be different. When you admit defeat and obstruction are your goals then is it a surprise your opponent tries to sidestep you? Like you said legality can be challenged and we'll see how far that gets...Originally Posted by highsea
When exactly will we be able to discuss the current administration without constant reference to the previous?
When a non-democrat takes over the White House after Obama. Then the previous administration will be off limits.
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
I dont know. Maybe never. The last administration was blaming Clinton for high gas prices in 2008.
Its called politics.
Its called Tourist Season. So why can't we shoot them?
When the criticisms are not for actions less extreme or the same the sources of criticism approved of and justified in the last one. Note, I am not blaming just holding the hypocrisy mirror up to Powerline, Newsmax, Rush et al. When you show me their criticisms of a policy advisor getting the title Czar I will stop. I promise if you show me criticisms of the Unitary executive theory on this board pre 2008 by anyone who has cried power grab I will stop because then it will no longer be a double standard. Calling an advisor czar is a title and confers no special powers.Czar Search | FactCheck.orgQ: Does Obama have an unprecedented number of "czars"?
A: "Czar" is media lingo, not an official title. But our research shows that George Bush’s administration had more "czars" than the Obama administration.
FULL QUESTION
A friend of mine sent me a link claiming that Obama has more czars than any other president ever and he is trying to turn the USA into a dictatorship. Please give me confirmation so I can give it to her that she has no reason to fear. Does hiring czars allow a president to bypass Congress for approval? And does President Obama have more than any other president?
FULL ANSWER
It’s meaningless to ask a question about what "hiring czars" allows a president to do, because presidents don’t hire czars. "Czar" is a label bestowed by the media – and sometimes the administration – as a shorthand for the often-cumbersome titles of various presidential advisers, assistants, office directors, special envoys and deputy secretaries. (After all, what makes for a better headline – "weapons czar" or "undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics"?)
There’s been a certain fascination with calling Obama’s advisers and appointees "czars." Fox News host Glenn Beck has identified 32 Obama czars on his Web site, whom he has characterized as a collective "iceberg" threatening to capsize the Constitution. Beck and other television hosts aren’t the only ones crying czar, either. Six Republican senators recently sent a letter to the White House saying that the creation of czar posts "circumvents the constitutionally established process of ‘advise and consent.’ " Republican Sen. Bob Bennett of Utah issued a press release saying that czars "undermine the constitution." And Texas Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison wrote an opinion column in the Washington Post complaining about the czar menace, including the factually inaccurate claim that only "a few of them have formal titles."
The habit of using "czar" to refer to an administration official dates back at least to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, but the real heyday of the czar came during President George W. Bush’s administration. The appellation was so popular that several news organizations reported on the rise of the czar during the Bush years, including NPR, which ran a piece called "What’s With This Czar Talk?" and Politico, which published an article on the evolution of the term. The latter, written during the 2008 presidential campaign, points out that czars are "really nothing new. They’ve long been employed in one form or another to tackle some of the nation’s highest-profile problems." Politico quotes author and political appointments expert James Bovard saying that the subtext of "czar" has changed from insult to praise: "It’s a real landmark sign in political culture to see this change from an odious term to one of salvation.”
Now it’s turned odious again, with Republican senators calling czars unconstitutional and cable hosts like Beck and Sean Hannity characterizing them as shadowy under-the-table appointees used by Obama to dodge the usual approval processes. In fact, of the 32 czars Beck lists:
Nine were confirmed by the Senate, including the director of national intelligence ("intelligence czar"), the chief performance officer ("government performance czar") and the deputy interior secretary ("California water czar").
Eight more were not appointed by the president – the special advisor to the EPA overseeing its Great Lakes restoration plan ("Great Lakes czar") is EPA-appointed, for instance, and the assistant secretary for international affairs and special representative for border affairs ("border czar") is appointed by the secretary of homeland security.
Fifteen of the "czarships" Beck lists, including seven that are in neither of the above categories, were created by previous administrations. (In some cases, as with the "economic czar," the actual title – in this case, chairman of the president’s economic recovery advisory board – is new, but there has been an official overseeing the area in past administrations. In others, as with the special envoy to Sudan, the position is old but the "czar" appellation is new.)
In all, of the 32 positions in Beck’s list, only eight are Obama-appointed, unconfirmed, brand new czars.
These new "czars" include the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan; the director of recovery for auto communities and workers; the senior advisor for the president’s Automotive Task Force; the special adviser for green jobs, enterprise, and innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality; the federal chief information officer; the chair of the Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board; the White House director of urban affairs; and the White House coordinator for weapons of mass destruction, security and arms control. Or, as Glenn Beck would have it, the Afghanistan czar, the auto recovery czar, the car czar, the embattled green jobs czar, the information czar, the stimulus accountability czar, the urban affairs czar and the WMD policy czar.
Some of these new positions would have been meaningless in a previous administration. Previous presidents didn’t need an Automotive Task Force or a Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board. These positions are similar to George W. Bush’s "World Trade Center health czar" and "Gulf Coast reconstruction czar" in that they are new advisory positions created to deal with temporary challenges facing the administration. Others do represent new long-term concerns (urban affairs, climate change), but the act of appointing advisers to manage new areas of interest is hardly unique to the Obama administration. The Bush administration, for instance, created the "faith-based czar" and the "cybersecurity czar."
Another thing: Beck counts among his 32 "czars" three who have not been called "czars" by reporters at all, except in stories claiming that the Obama administration has lots of "czars." We’ve compiled a FactCheck.org list that discounts these positions, which seem to be "czars" only in the context of media czar-hysteria. (Our list also adds three czars Beck’s research didn’t find – a "diversity czar," a "manufacturing czar" and an "Iran czar.")
As for Obama having an unprecedented number of czars, the Bush administration had even more appointed or nominated positions whose holders were called "czars" by the media. The DNC has released a Web video claiming that there were 47, but it’s counting multiple holders of the same position. We checked the DNC’s list against Nexis and other news records, and found a total of 35 Bush administration positions that were referred to as "czars" in the news media. (Our list of confirmed "czars," with news media sources cited, is here.) Again, many of these advisory positions were not new – what was new was the "czar" shorthand. Like the Obama czars, the Bush czars held entirely prosaic administrative positions: special envoys, advisers, office heads, directors, secretaries. The preponderance of czars earned both ridicule and concern in editorials and in media, but no objections from Congress.
Read FactCheck.org’s list of confirmed Bush and Obama czars
Update, Sept. 25: To be sure, Republicans are not the only ones complaining. We would be remiss not to mention a Feb. 25 letter from Democratic senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, in which he cautioned Obama against appointing too many czars.
-Jess Henig
Sources
"List of Obama’s Czars." Glennbeck.com. 21 Aug 2009, accessed 21 Sep 2009.
Lerer, Lisa. "GOP senators seek end to czars." Politico. 16 Sep 2009.
"Bennett Says President’s ‘Czars’ Undermine the Constitution." Press release. Utah Sen. Bob Bennett. 15 Sep 2009.
Hutchison, Kay Bailey. "Czarist Washington." The Washington Post. 13 Sep 2009.
"Food: The Tenth Czar." Time. 5 Apr 1943.
"What’s With This ‘Czar’ Talk?" NPR All Things Considered 16 May 2007.
Lovley, Erika. "Czar (n): An insult; a problem-solver." Politico. 21 Oct 2008.
"The Bush Czars." Democrats.org. 16 Sep 2009, accessed 21 Sep 2009.
Dunn, Anita. "Reality Check: The Truth About Czars." White House blog. 16 Sep 2009, accessed 21 Sep 2009.
nah I am just pointing out the double standard you are using.
And what are those?
At least I don't point to one bad behavior to justify another bad behavior.
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Where are your criticisms of Bush Czars? Why is it now an issue. I say it was a non issue then and now. I am consistant. The courts seemed to knock the old unitary executive power grab down at every turn yet you said nothing. Now we have accusations of a power grab yet the courts are silent and you cry the sky is falling. There is plenty for Conservatives to disagree with but the destruction of our democracy or virtual dictatorship is BS and a hypocrisy on top of being bs.
I disagree with plenty of Bush policies and his czars. It's just that Obama has way more czars and way more policies that I disagree with, which make me sound like I agree with Bush on everything.
What czars did Bush have? I can only recall the drug czar. I don't like the drug czar. I think we're wasting money on the so-called "war on drugs."
Give me a list of Bush czars and I'll tell you why I think they are a waste of tax dollars.
For the record, I've said many times that I think DHS should never have been created and I disagree with the Patriot Act.
Now, is there anything that you disagree with Obama on?
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Yea, not closing Gitmo. Their time would be far worse in isolation in a supermax and it would end communication between them. SCOTUS decided Gitmo was like being in the US so the whole purpose of going to Gitmo in the first place was lost. All the dont bring them here is BS they'd be more secure and do harder time here.
Not pushing Holder to drop the torture investigation. It's gone silent but, I'd of far preferred a clearcut case be brought into court so the courts could rule on the constitutionality of it than any effort been wasted on investigating criminal behavior. Those responsible were in the Highest office nothing will, could or should be done about them at this point. let Cheney bark and Bush Barbq
A good start would be when critics of Obama stop jumping up & down about things that barely illicited comment or were actually defended under Bush ('czars', high govt spending, trashing the constitution, questionable foreign policy etc.).
Another point might be when Bush supporters stop blaming Clinton for stuff like 9/11.
Just a few thoughts.
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C
GN, thanks -I see your perspective clearer now.
Essentially you don't trust (for want of a better name) Czars having the same sort of impact as (Cabinet) at least as far those appointments not being vetted. I.E 'third party' oversight on potentially powerful appointments?
From that perspective relating to Australia's system of government, the thing that differentiates our system of Government is we don't have the 'executive' I.E presidential role - instead we have cabinet which is usually formed by front benchers (from safe electoral seats) that invariably form policy shifts & decisions. The theory is that these people are elected by the electorate in the general electorate(but their appointments are more & more done by the PM) In times of an election from opposition, these people often hold the shadow portfolio's they are to assume - not always though.
The thing about the U.S system, that I do like, is the limited ability for the Executive branch to give the proverbial birdie to congress. Congress might disagree rabidly, but that does not stop the likes of Nixon for instance. That is, in the U.S system, there is some sole "prerogative" power (may I use that?) invested in the executive. Unlike say in the board for illustrative purposes, where sub comms must gain the approval of the board, the problem with the Czars is there is a consensus of one?
So when I put the two together, side by side (Westminster & U.S systems of Gov) There is some considerable distinction in the way appointments are made. If the President does not want his appointments to be vetted because of say a hostile congress (lame duck president?) Would he be bothered to try appoint Czars? that may have severe implications for an executive being able to function on it's prerogative taking away that apparent advantage of the U.S system?
In a Westminster system this is not so much a question as an automatic function - we take it for granted because it's a constitutional function of forming government.
How would you - in order to protect the perceived power of POTUS be able to give oversight to appointees and protect that? From *my* perspective through the viewing glass that seems to be the advantage of the U.S system? Aside from our shared dislike of pollies
Last edited by Chunder; 09 Jan 10, at 02:22.
Ego Numquam
So Obama can't be criticised for something because Bush also did it? Give me a break.
Not remotely, but criticising Obama for something that you didn't criticise Bush for invites the question 'why now'? & raise questions about the value of the criticism in the first place. Is it based on anything more than partisan sniping?
Gunnut is actually providing us with a textbook example above. He has criticized Obama's 'Czars' long & loud & given it as a specific example of Obama overstepping his brief. Yet he was apparently unaware of over 30 similar Bush appointments. In fact, many of Obama's 'Czars' were inherited from Bush. Criticising ex post facto really doesn't cut it. If it wasn't important enough to even know for 8 years then it doesn't magically get to be a issue now.
A broader point is that we are 1 year into a new Administration. Comparisons to the immediate past are inevitable. Indeed, we ar always comparing current politicians & governments to those past. Doesn't get Obama off the hook for poor decisions, but it does put some criticism of him in context.
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C
Because it is now. As far as I can recall I've never personally criticised the Roman annihilation of the Carthaginians. That does not preclude me from damning the actions of Pol Pot. Likewise I've never criticised Lyndon B Johnson, but that can't be used to prevent me offering up a serve to Bush.
You can't deny other debaters points simply because they don't meet your hierachy of historical posting.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: