Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs

Friday, October 23, 2009 8:10 AM


By: Stephen Dinan, The Washington Times


The White House has told Congress it will reject calls for many of President Obama's policy czars to testify before Congress a decision senators said goes against the president's promises of transparency and openness and treads on Congress' constitutional mandate to investigate the administration's actions.


Sen. Susan Collins, Maine Republican, said White House counsel Greg Craig told her in a meeting Wednesday that they will not make available any of the czars who work in the White House and don't have to go through Senate confirmation. She said he was "murky" on whether other czars outside of the White House would be allowed to come before Congress.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

American1st

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Still, Mr. Craig spent two pages of his four-page letter to Miss Collins critiquing Mr. Beck's positions

LOL!

THE WAR ON CZARS: SIUSAN COLLINS ON THUSDAY'S SENATE HEARING
By Lynn Sweet

In the telling of Republicans, President Obama's appointment of some 30 policy "czars" -- aka the people the president has asked to spearhead various efforts -- is a serious threat to the republic. But if you don't watch Fox News, it's a threat you might never have heard of....

Of the 18 positions Collins is concerned about, 10 would have to testify if called and five have already, a spokesman for the White House said....b>
www.politicsdaily.com

The czar thing is a bit overblown. Bush had czars as did Clinton.

However, with Obama it's always a matter of degree. He takes the excesses of past presidents and increases them from anywhere between 25% to 400% (deficits for the latter).

"However, with Obama it's always a matter of degree. He takes the excesses of past presidents and increases them from anywhere between 25% to 400%"

Jeff, how many more has Obama appointed versus Bush or Clinton?

Johnny,


Going from memory...

Bush had 22 and Obama has 33.


I am not going to google it and I could be a bit off in my recollection. I do know that Obama has more than Bush though, and not just 1 or 2 more.

The backgrounds of more than a few leave serious questions at the least and are bordering on....


______________ at the most. Obama thought no one would look at his picks. Thanks FOX and Beck.


Fill in based on your koolaid flavor.

Independents? Make lemonade.

Feingold wants to take a look at it?

Glenn Beck's happy number was, last time I checked, 32 "czars," of whom 9 had been confirmed by the Senate and were not, therefore, "czars."

Czar Search
September 25, 2009

..."Czar" is media lingo, not an official title. But our research shows that George Bush's administration had more "czars" than the Obama administration.....

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."
(To be continued...)

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.

(more...)

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.
www.factcheck.org
(End of FactCheck.Org's statement)

While partisans tards try to make this about Beck vs. Obama vs. Bush vs. etc..., there must be some sort of legitimate concern (even if overblown by Beck types) if Feingold (D) seemed interested enough in looking into it.

One thing, I will say that you can't blame Obama for utilizing what was a common practice before. I support more and more accountability to be demanded of the White House, so I support efforts by Congress to examine these unelected officials, but republicans trying to make this all about Obama are kidding themselves.

"The president's promises of transparency"

Oh shit that's funny Hope Change and Transparency from Obama and look how many people fell for it...

SUCKERS...

LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL...

Post a comment
Comments are closed for this entry.
Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2009 World Readable