• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

czars sure allot of czars

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
But the latest controversy has also given Republicans more ammunition to attack the number of czars in the Obama administration. By some counts, Obama has more than 30 czars managing everything from the restructuring of the domestic auto industry to closing the Guantanamo Bay prison to ending the genocide in Darfur.

Pence called on Obama to suspend appointment of additional so-called "czars" until Congress has a chance to examine the background and responsibilities of such individuals, as well as to determine the constitutionality of such appointments.
Jones' full title is "special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation" at the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

"Congress, Republicans and Democrats, have been asleep at the wheel on this," Peters said. "The appointment of 30-plus czars is an attempt to short circuit the Constitution to get around Congress.

"If Obama loves this country and respects the Constitution, he needs to knock it off with the czars and obey the Constitution," he added.

foxnews.com


Now here's a novel approach for DC- following the Constitution!!
what'll they think of next.

I know OT- it's Bush's fault
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Lonecowboy said:
But the latest controversy has also given Republicans more ammunition to attack the number of czars in the Obama administration. By some counts, Obama has more than 30 czars managing everything from the restructuring of the domestic auto industry to closing the Guantanamo Bay prison to ending the genocide in Darfur.

Pence called on Obama to suspend appointment of additional so-called "czars" until Congress has a chance to examine the background and responsibilities of such individuals, as well as to determine the constitutionality of such appointments.
Jones' full title is "special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation" at the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

"Congress, Republicans and Democrats, have been asleep at the wheel on this," Peters said. "The appointment of 30-plus czars is an attempt to short circuit the Constitution to get around Congress.

"If Obama loves this country and respects the Constitution, he needs to knock it off with the czars and obey the Constitution," he added.

foxnews.com


Now here's a novel approach for DC- following the Constitution!!
what'll they think of next.

I know OT- it's Bush's fault

Maybe they should be holding hearings and allowing Obama to fill his cabinet and department posts the Repubs have put a hold on- and he wouldn't need the czars....

And GW did do the same- except he didn't call them czars- they were all part of Roves "advisors" and operated in the shadows instead of the open.....
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Lonecowboy said:
But the latest controversy has also given Republicans more ammunition to attack the number of czars in the Obama administration. By some counts, Obama has more than 30 czars managing everything from the restructuring of the domestic auto industry to closing the Guantanamo Bay prison to ending the genocide in Darfur.

Pence called on Obama to suspend appointment of additional so-called "czars" until Congress has a chance to examine the background and responsibilities of such individuals, as well as to determine the constitutionality of such appointments.
Jones' full title is "special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation" at the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

"Congress, Republicans and Democrats, have been asleep at the wheel on this," Peters said. "The appointment of 30-plus czars is an attempt to short circuit the Constitution to get around Congress.

"If Obama loves this country and respects the Constitution, he needs to knock it off with the czars and obey the Constitution," he added.

foxnews.com


Now here's a novel approach for DC- following the Constitution!!
what'll they think of next.

I know OT- it's Bush's fault

Maybe they should be holding hearings and allowing Obama to fill his cabinet and department posts the Repubs have put a hold on- and he wouldn't need the czars....

And GW did do the same- except he didn't call them czars- they were all part of Roves "advisors" and operated in the shadows instead of the open.....

So name us Bushes Shadowy science czar and his shadowy Green Job Czar and a few others.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Big Muddy rancher said:
Oldtimer said:
Lonecowboy said:
foxnews.com


Now here's a novel approach for DC- following the Constitution!!
what'll they think of next.

I know OT- it's Bush's fault

Maybe they should be holding hearings and allowing Obama to fill his cabinet and department posts the Repubs have put a hold on- and he wouldn't need the czars....

And GW did do the same- except he didn't call them czars- they were all part of Roves "advisors" and operated in the shadows instead of the open.....

So name us Bushes Shadowy science czar and his shadowy Green Job Czar and a few others.

Bush didn't believe in science or anything green...
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Lonecowboy said:
But the latest controversy has also given Republicans more ammunition to attack the number of czars in the Obama administration. By some counts, Obama has more than 30 czars managing everything from the restructuring of the domestic auto industry to closing the Guantanamo Bay prison to ending the genocide in Darfur.

Pence called on Obama to suspend appointment of additional so-called "czars" until Congress has a chance to examine the background and responsibilities of such individuals, as well as to determine the constitutionality of such appointments.
Jones' full title is "special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation" at the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

"Congress, Republicans and Democrats, have been asleep at the wheel on this," Peters said. "The appointment of 30-plus czars is an attempt to short circuit the Constitution to get around Congress.

"If Obama loves this country and respects the Constitution, he needs to knock it off with the czars and obey the Constitution," he added.

foxnews.com


Now here's a novel approach for DC- following the Constitution!!
what'll they think of next.

I know OT- it's Bush's fault

Maybe they should be holding hearings and allowing Obama to fill his cabinet and department posts the Repubs have put a hold on- and he wouldn't need the czars....

If only the democrats held the majority in the House of Representatives and had a veto-proof majority in the Senate the repubs couldn't block those department posts.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Whitewing said:
Oldtimer said:
Lonecowboy said:
foxnews.com


Now here's a novel approach for DC- following the Constitution!!
what'll they think of next.

I know OT- it's Bush's fault

Maybe they should be holding hearings and allowing Obama to fill his cabinet and department posts the Repubs have put a hold on- and he wouldn't need the czars....

If only the democrats held the majority in the House of Representatives and had a veto-proof majority in the Senate the repubs couldn't block those department posts.

It takes 60 Senate votes--Democrats don't have 60 Senate votes--yet..

This is just one of several they have been blocking- including other with the Interior Dept....

GOP blocks Obama Interior nominee
Posted: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 11:22 AM by Mark Murray



Senate Republicans have successfully stalled the confirmation of President Obama's nominee to the No. 2 post at the Interior Department, David Hayes. On a procedural vote that required 60 votes to advance the nomination, most Republicans united to opposes the nomination. The vote was 57-39.


A procedural vote requiring 60 votes to advance the nomination for Hayes to be the No. 2 at the Interior Department failed today, in part, because three Senate Democrats were not here for the vote. The vote was 57-39, with two Republicans joining the Democrats. (It would have been 58 votes in support, but Majority Leader Harry Reid switched his vote to "no" for procedural reason in order to call for a vote again later.)

Democratic Sens. Kerry, Mikulski and Kennedy were not present for today's vote. Republicans Kyl and Snowe voted with the remaining Democrats in a losing effort to advance the nomination.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Along the same lines of the post I made immediately above, here's how such stories are often reported........AND REPEATED:

REPUBLICANS BLOCK OBAMA INTERIOR DEPARTMENT NOMINEE

Republicans blocked President Barack Obama's pick for the No. 2 job at the Interior Department Wednesday in a dispute over oil and gas leases, but Democrats signaled they would soon make a second attempt to win confirmation.

The 57-39 vote was three short of the 60 needed to advance David Hayes past Republican objections, and made him the first of Obama's top-level nominees to be sidetracked on the Senate floor.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/republicans_block_obama_interior_kfOOBxZaRJS5tf2eBDLeyL

==============================

Now, remember, there are what, 40 repub senators?

Further down in that same story:

Three Democrats, Sens. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland as well as John Kerry and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, did not vote. Their presence would have left Hayes with 60 votes, the total needed to overcome GOP objections.

But, alas, this blocked nomination is the fault of repubs. :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Whitewing said:
The 57-39 vote

Sounds like bipartisan opposition to me. :lol:

Don't know why Mikulski and Kerry weren't there-- but Kennedy had a pretty good excuse- he was dying :roll:

The Dems made a mistake...Didn't think the Repubs were going to pull all the partisan BS- so instead you get czars.... :wink:
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Whitewing said:
The 57-39 vote

Sounds like bipartisan opposition to me. :lol:

Don't know why Mikulski and Kerry weren't there-- but Kennedy had a pretty good excuse- he was dying :roll:

The Dems made a mistake...Didn't think the Repubs were going to pull all the partisan BS- so instead you get czars.... :wink:

So let me make sure I understand the logic here.

Reid changed his vote as a procedural move so the nominee could be brought up again, but all the other dems voted for Hayes. Two pubs also voted for Hayes.

But, the pubs "pulled all the partisan BS".

Is that how this reads?
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Article from 2007 so this is not the first time a president has been criticized for his "czars"

When it comes to food safety and public health, it's been a rough spring. Just over the last several weeks, highly publicized E. coli outbreaks, poisoned pet food, and other bacterial contaminations have undermined the public's confidence in the monitoring of the nation's food supply. Worse, these problems have led to the deaths of three people and possibly hundreds of pets, and many more illnesses.

President Bush, however, has a plan. He could, of course, endorse stronger federal regulations, or perhaps commit to improving a flailing Food and Drug Administration that, by its own admission, has known about domestic contamination problems for a while now but insists it's too overwhelmed to act. But the president prefers a different tack: He has appointed a new "food safety czar."

Last week, the administration announced that Dr. David W.K. Acheson, who had been the chief medical officer at the FDA's food safety center, would immediately assume the responsibilities of the newly-created position. Acheson vowed to quickly evaluate how the FDA identifies at-risk food products for closer inspection. "We're in the process of re-examining that whole scenario," he said.

In isolation, this announcement may help reassure those Americans who eat food. But the decision fits into a familiar and not-so-distinguished pattern for the Bush administration. First: A public policy controversy erupts, usually as the result of administration incompetence, hackery, or both. Second: The public demands swift action to address the concern. Third: The president creates a new "czar."

Invariably, this White House response turns out to have rather little to do with addressing the problem and almost everything to do with public relations. It's reminiscent of the episode of "The Simpsons" in which Springfield Mayor Joe Quimby, confronted with a local crisis, announced the creation of a "blue-ribbon commission." One character responded earnestly, "Did he say a blue-ribbon commission?" -- prompting another to say, "Well, you can't do any better than that!"

Instead of a useless committee, with his constant stream of new policy "czars" the president creates managerial positions of dubious utility. Bush, after all, already has a massive federal bureaucracy, with agencies and officials in place to address policy problems. But as our MBA President sees it, when those officials fail, there's no reason to replace them with someone better or rethink a policy approach -- it simply means it's time to add a new layer of upper management. It gives the appearance of progress without actually having to achieve any results.

When it comes to monitoring the food supply, the Bush administration already relies on the FDA and the Department of Agriculture. As recent controversies have helped demonstrate, both have been ineffective of late. Of course, to follow the White House's reasoning, the problem isn't outdated models for food safety, but rather, the lack of a czar to oversee those outdated models for food safety.

It's a familiar tactic with this crew:

* In 2001, with escalating concerns about possible attacks on our information technology infrastructure, Bush named a "cybersecurity czar."

* In 2003, the president's desire to help his corporate benefactors led to the creation of a "regulatory czar" at the Office of Management and Budget. Around the same time, Bush named his first "AIDS Czar." (He didn't choose wisely -- Bush tapped Randall Tobias, the administration's former top advocate of global abstinence-only policies, who was recently forced to resign after procuring "massages" from a controversial Washington escort service.)

* In 2004, faced with growing discontent over the nation's struggling manufacturing industries, Bush appointed a "manufacturing czar." (He chose the chief executive of a Nebraska company that had laid off manufacturing employees and built factories in China.)

* 2005 was a banner year for czars. In February, Bush responded to revelations about failed national security intelligence by creating an "intelligence czar." Shortly thereafter, we had a "bird-flu czar." A few months after that, following the tragically botched handling of the response to Hurricane Katrina, there was a "Katrina czar."

It's become a common enough strategy to become the butt of jokes. Newsweek satirist Andy Borowitz recently suggested that the White House needs a "lying czar" to "oversee all distortions and misrepresentations."

Perhaps the most startling -- and revealing -- position on the White House's wish list is the creation of a "war czar," a position which reportedly would be responsible for coordinating intelligence and military policy in Iraq and Afghanistan. (As The Daily Show's Jon Stewart recently joked, "So there you have it folks -- five years into the global war on terror, the president believes it is now time for someone to be in charge of it.")

The fact that the administration would even admit to desiring such a position defies comprehension. The federal government already has a Defense Secretary, Secretary of State, and National Security Agency. Indeed, Bush already employs National Security Advisor Stephen J. Hadley, whose job sounds eerily similar to that of the unfilled "war czar" position.

It all begins to resemble rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. When it comes to food safety, having an FDA commissioner isn't enough; we also need a "food-safety czar." Faced with the threat of an avian-flu outbreak, having a director of the Center for Disease Control isn't enough; we also need a "bird-flu czar." When it comes to losing manufacturing jobs, having a Secretary of Labor isn't enough; we also need a "manufacturing czar." The underlying problems remain the same, and the president's policies are unchanged, but now there are additional managers in place -- so the public is supposed to feel better.

As it turns out, the administration appears to have gone to the well one too many times. At least three retired four-star generals have been approached by the White House about the "war czar" job, and all declined -- including retired Army General Jack Keane, who directly helped shape the president's current policy in Iraq. "The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going," said retired Marine General John J. "Jack" Sheehan, a former top NATO commander who was approached about the position.

Given the number of "czar" titles created by the White House, it's a quote with broad applicability.



So where is the CHANGE? :???:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Murkowski and Bennett had placed a hold on Hayes, objecting to the Obama administration's overall approach to Interior Department policies, especially the decision by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to withdraw oil and gas leases offered on 77 parcels of public land near Arches and Canyonlands National Parks.

Three Democrats weren't present who would have voted for Hayes: Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., who is ill, and Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Barbara Mikulski, D-Md. Kerry was at a funeral in Massachusetts; a spokeswoman for Mikulski said she was absent to "work on health care issues."


"This is not a personal matter, anybody out to get Mr. Hayes, if you will," said Murkowski, who's particularly concerned about an Interior Department decision to wait 180 days before acting on the Bush-era five-year plan for oil and gas exploration on the nation's outer continental shelf. "This is really about what is happening within the department. All of these various actions within the Department of Interior, within a very short time period, cause great concern about the direction of our nation's energy policy."

But Salazar himself, who was a U.S. senator from Colorado before he was appointed to head the Interior Department, called Wednesday's vote one of "bitter obstructionism."

"It may be uncomfortable for some to watch us have to clean up mess after mess -- from corruption to lawbreaking -- that is the previous administration's legacy at Interior, but to cast a vote against such a qualified and fine person is the height of cynicism," he said in a statement.

"We have answered every question and worked to find common ground on difficult issues, but the American people rightfully want change from the Obama administration and from the Department of the Interior. We will deliver that change," he said. "The American people will know, once again, that the Department of the Interior is wisely managing their treasured landscapes and their natural resources on their behalf."

Salazar on Wednesday acknowledged that the Republican-led effort to block Hayes was tied directly to the decision to withdraw the Utah leases, but offered no apology for the move.

"The decision we made on the Utah sale was correct. I have no regrets," he said during a House Interior Appropriations subcommittee meeting, even as an aide handed him a note alerting him of the outcome of the Hayes vote.

Hayes is up for the job as the No. 2 Interior Department official. The deputy serves as the chief operating officer of a federal department that has 67,000 employees and an annual budget of $16 billion. It's of particular concern in Alaska, where the Interior Department has wide oversight over 155 million acres of federal lands under the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Salazar sent a last-minute letter to Murkowski and Bennett on Wednesday in an effort to persuade them, along with other Republicans, to change their votes. In his letter, Salazar told Murkowski he's committed to a "balanced agenda" at the Interior Department, which promotes the "responsible extraction of valuable energy supplies from our public resources, but that protects the public interest, that is based on sound science and that complies fully with the law."

The hold is purely politics, said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., the majority whip.

"This isn't about the nominee," Durbin said, "this is about slowing down the assembling of President Obama's team to bring real change to Washington."
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Lonecowboy said:
But the latest controversy has also given Republicans more ammunition to attack the number of czars in the Obama administration. By some counts, Obama has more than 30 czars managing everything from the restructuring of the domestic auto industry to closing the Guantanamo Bay prison to ending the genocide in Darfur.

Pence called on Obama to suspend appointment of additional so-called "czars" until Congress has a chance to examine the background and responsibilities of such individuals, as well as to determine the constitutionality of such appointments.
Jones' full title is "special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation" at the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

"Congress, Republicans and Democrats, have been asleep at the wheel on this," Peters said. "The appointment of 30-plus czars is an attempt to short circuit the Constitution to get around Congress.

"If Obama loves this country and respects the Constitution, he needs to knock it off with the czars and obey the Constitution," he added.

foxnews.com


Now here's a novel approach for DC- following the Constitution!!
what'll they think of next.

I know OT- it's Bush's fault

Maybe they should be holding hearings and allowing Obama to fill his cabinet and department posts the Repubs have put a hold on- and he wouldn't need the czars....

And GW did do the same- except he didn't call them czars- they were all part of Roves "advisors" and operated in the shadows instead of the open.....

So are you saying this is a good reason for obama to disregard the Constitution?
simple question- yes or no!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Lonecowboy said:
Oldtimer said:
Lonecowboy said:
foxnews.com


Now here's a novel approach for DC- following the Constitution!!
what'll they think of next.

I know OT- it's Bush's fault

Maybe they should be holding hearings and allowing Obama to fill his cabinet and department posts the Repubs have put a hold on- and he wouldn't need the czars....

And GW did do the same- except he didn't call them czars- they were all part of Roves "advisors" and operated in the shadows instead of the open.....

So are you saying this is a good reason for obama to disregard the Constitution?
simple question- yes or no!

Where in the Constitution does it say he can't appoint as many advisors as he wants- without Congress's approval.... If the house will fund them in the budget- nothing wrong....In fact the Constitution speaks little toward Cabinet members or the lower appointees...

As far as history of this type action- I'm not sure how far it went back...Nixon is the first one that his inside the Whitehouse advisors drew much attention- with the "plumbers" and other groups made up of mostly attorneys and nonofficial "advisors" on the payroll....
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
What's bothering most folks is not that a prez employs advisors, he clearly has a right to do so.

I suspect that what's bothering most folks is the fact that he's employed an avowed communist as an advisor. Some wonder how many more communists/Marxists are there who escaped the attention of the Congress and the general public.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I forgot- Andy Jackson... He didn't trust his VP- Calhoun- and threw out most of his cabinet who didn't do what he wanted... He then began using his old allies and friends as advisors- who since when they showed up at the White House came thru the back kitchen door- and became known as his "kitchen cabinet"....
Kennedy, LBJ, and Reagan had advisors that were not cabinet appointees :

Ronald Reagan had a kitchen cabinet of allies and friends from California who advised him during his terms. This group of ten to twelve rich businessmen were all strong proponents of the free enterprise system. His wealthy, conservative California backers included: Alfred Bloomingdale, Earl Brian, William French Smith, Charles Wick, auto dealer Holmes Tuttle, beer baron Joseph Coors, philanthropist Earle Jorgensen, and about four to six others. Coors was the major funder and most active participant. He also funded many think tanks and policy institutes at about this time, including the Heritage Foundation.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Whitewing said:
Oldtimer said:
Lonecowboy said:
foxnews.com


Now here's a novel approach for DC- following the Constitution!!
what'll they think of next.

I know OT- it's Bush's fault

Maybe they should be holding hearings and allowing Obama to fill his cabinet and department posts the Repubs have put a hold on- and he wouldn't need the czars....

If only the democrats held the majority in the House of Representatives and had a veto-proof majority in the Senate the repubs couldn't block those department posts.

The Democrats do have the majority, and those aren't department posts - those are Obama inventions that are designed to circumvent the system of checks and balances and to give him power that the Constitution doesn't allow.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Whitewing said:
Oldtimer said:
Maybe they should be holding hearings and allowing Obama to fill his cabinet and department posts the Repubs have put a hold on- and he wouldn't need the czars....

If only the democrats held the majority in the House of Representatives and had a veto-proof majority in the Senate the repubs couldn't block those department posts.

The Democrats do have the majority, and those aren't department posts - those are Obama inventions that are designed to circumvent the system of checks and balances and to give him power that the Constitution doesn't allow.

SH, I'm new here. With time you'll come to see that I tend to use a lot of sarcasm when making political points or discussing politics in general. As for the department post comment, I was referring specifically to the Interior Department No. 2 spot that OT mentioned.

We probably agree on most other things. :wink:
 
Top