The GOP’s czar war
Has President Obama named too many policy ‘czars,’ or are Republicans overreacting?
Demonstrators hold a sign during a march to protest health-care reform in Washington, D.C.
(EPA/Corbis/Michael Reynolds)
President Obama’s White House has “an unprecedented 32 czar posts,” said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in The Miami Herald. This “new class of federal officials” is largely free from congressional oversight and approval—a clear and “dangerous" affront to the separation of powers laid out by our Founding Fathers. If Obama insists on having a “car czar,” “pay czar,” and “information czar,” to name a few, they need to be "vetted”—just look at Van Jones.
Unprecedented? President Bush appointed 46 people to 36 “czar” positions, said Steve Benen in The Washington Monthly. “If even just one Republican lawmaker or Fox News personality had expressed even the slightest concern” then, this “absurd” Glenn Beck–driven “tantrum” over “entirely routine” offices—some created by Congress, others confirmed by the Senate—would have more credibility.
There were in fact “lots of complaints about czars” in the Bush years, said Jazz Shaw in The Moderate Voice, “particularly from Steve Benen.” On the other hand, I couldn’t find any from Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey, who just “jumped on the bandwagon of Republicans” decrying Obama’s czars as a “dangerous trend.” So what does that tell us? “Czars are good! No, they’re bad! No, they’re good! Who the hell knows?”
Part of the problem is that there isn’t “any real agreement on what constitutes a czar,” said Katie Connolly in Newsweek. They’re special assistants, advisors, or envoys, and presidents have had them since at least Coolidge. “Lack of accountability for public officials” should always concern us, but the GOP getting “all hot and bothered” over this, and the Democrats’ “going nuts in response,” smacks of “partisan hackery.” (watch the DNC’s “Dancing With the Czars” ad)
Show: Oldest | Newest
10 Comments
Posted by Ellis Daye, Thursday, September 17, 2009, 8:57 am Why even report on what the so called republicans think? We have moved beyond that trash. There will always be insane people getting in the way of progress.
Posted by Coyotefred, Thursday, September 17, 2009, 11:16 am I enthusiastically voted for Obama, but this is just one more example of how he has, on balance, been a dramatic disappointment, continuing far too many of foolish and constitutionally questionable practices of Dubya. Granted he's still better than the McCainPalin trainwreck, but I was hoping for so much more. The substance of these posts are one thing, but to continue this incredibly stupid practice of calling them czars 'monarch' or 'emperor'...??? WTF... ? is hard to explain. I expect that from someone like Bush, but Obama...sigh...
Posted by steven harnack, Thursday, September 17, 2009, 11:54 am I can't figure out what it is they are complaining about. Is it the word czar, the russian word for caesar, as I've seen in some articlescommies in the white house ? Surely the Republicans can't think the president needs their approval to have advisorsBush and Cheney wouldn't even say who their's were ?It seems they really DO just watch tv to see what they should get worked up about today.
Posted by mjg, Thursday, September 17, 2009, 1:46 pm Personally, I favor a new czar who should be called Nicholas III, in honor of Saint Nicholas II. Nicholas II, his wife, his son, his four daughters were all killed by the Bolsheviks on July 17, 1918. This led to the canonization of Nicholas II, his wife the Empress and their children as martyrs by the Russian Orthodox Church. He could communicate daily with Sarah Palin from her front porch and keep the lines of communication open between our two nations. And God save Karl Marx.
Posted by dj spellchecka, Thursday, September 17, 2009, 2:46 pm the russians czars were KILLED by the communists..the people holding that sign in the photo need a history lesson...and defense of steve benen.....he was writing that bush appointed czars in leiu of actually fixing various problems...a variation on the time honored washington tradition of saying, when things go wrong 'well, we propose forming a committee to study the probem.' as for morrissey, even some of his old fans think he's simply drinking malkin's kool aid now
Posted by BWMorlan, Thursday, September 17, 2009, 2:54 pm Way too much of the left wingnut rhetoric is reminiscent of the Russion communist political officers depicted in movies. When their oxen are being gored, they revert to name calling and other ad hominum attacks, like using the label leftwingnut, rather than presenting even a single shred of principles based reasoning for their outcries. The Republicans may be in disarray but the Democrats are in the way of any grassroots moves to regain freedoms and protect liberties.
Posted by emilypost.com, Thursday, September 17, 2009, 3:03 pm Dear BWMorlan, apparently you are not aware that wingnut refers ONLY to RIGHT wingnuts, who have been scientifically found to be far nuttier than their brothers on the left. Please do not use the world left together with wingnut since it offends those of us in polite society.
Posted by NeoCon Republican, Thursday, September 17, 2009, 3:18 pm These czars have the potential to save America money. You neocons have been annoying the truly responsible, compassionate Christian paleocons for decades. You lack a true Christian moral compass and bicker, moan, bitch and complain about affronts to your ignorant complacency from people who have much better reason to believe what they believe. Take a look around you and you'll find knuckleheaded pocketbookfirst, Jesussecond hellbound cretins who have nothing better to do than to paralyze national dialogue at townhall meetings. For shame.
Post a Comment