The "Czar" Debate settled once and for all.

[DiveCon]

Wish Upon a Czar | The American Prospect

Look at this article from 2007. There's many more articles out there if you actually cared to look.

and again, it was fucking stupid of Bush to do what he did
but that Wiki page even called the Director of OMB a Bush Czar
LOL

 

[Modbert]

of course its a flawed argument
but that page even list the director of OMB as a "Czar"
WTF???????

Here you go Dive:

From above:

In the United States the title "czar" is an informal term for certain high-level officials who direct or oversee federal operations on a given topic or who coordinate policies between different departments on a given topic. Examples are drug czar for the head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and cyber-security czar for the highest-ranking Department of Homeland Security official on computer security and information security policy. Czar is also used to denote certain high-level, specialized advisors to the President, such as counter-terrorism czar for a Presidential advisor on terrorism policy, and war czar for the President's advisor on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The term "czar" has also been applied to officials who are not members of the Executive Branch, such as Elizabeth Warren, named to a Congressional commission to oversee the Troubled Asset Relief Program in 2009 and described as an "oversight czar",[4] and Senate-confirmed positions, such as the Director of National Intelligence, described as the "intelligence czar" in 2004

 

[paperview]

sorry, but that page has had so many recent edits, that i bet a number of the bush ones are made up bullshit

Who cares if they are made up. It's still a flawed argument. I'm surprised no one else here has caught on yet...

of course its a flawed argument
but that page even list the director of OMB as a "Czar"
WTF???????

Hmmm...

Business Week:

MAY 21, 2001 <------

GOVERNMENT/Online Extra
Back to Main Story
Q&A with the OMB's Mitch Daniels
Bush's budget czar talks about the $1.35 trillion tax cut plan, clearing regulatory underbrush, entitlement reform, and more

[FONT=arial,helvetica,univers] White House Budget Director Mitch Daniels, the man President Bush affectionately calls "The Blade," hasn't cut a big public swath through Washington. Daniels likes it that way. He plans to keep a low profile at the Office of Management & Budget. But that's not to say he doesn't have big plans for the agency.

[/FONT]http://www.webcitation.org/5jYP3429Z

 

[RadiomanATL]

Who cares if they are made up. It's still a flawed argument. I'm surprised no one else here has caught on yet...

Care to share with the rest of us? Not sure how my "argument" is flawed though I'm willing to bet you have misunderstood what my "argument" is.

Just this:

You're comparing Bush's 35 Czar's to Obama's 33. You even provided the differing years in which they acted in their czarist capacity. There's yer flaw.

It Bush took 8 years to rack up 35, and Obama has hit 33 in only 9 months.

At this rate and trend, Obama is going to hit over 120 by the end of his first four years, and 240 if he's reelected.

See the flaw now? Ya might want to back off comparing the number of Bush czars to Obama czars.

 

[Modbert]

your argument is that its ok because BOOOOOSH did it too

You are a fool then who is too busy neg repping and calling people morons to actually read posts if you believe that. If you had read my post, you would see that I called both Obama and Bush's Czars wrong. However, you're too busy trying to insult me to read such things called facts.

 

[WillowTree]

The president can appoint as many as he wants. Who cares. It is not unconstitutional in my view. The president can have as many advisers (which is what a czar essentially is) and give them as much authority as he legally can if he so chooses. Every president realizes that these people when given authority are acting in their name, and the president is taking the risk politically that this person will stick their foot in their mouth and make the administration look like fools. Which is what has happened with good ole Van.

Now, having said all this, Robert your list in the OP is bullshit. If you don't realize the flaw in your argument then I'll be happy to point it out to you.

Where in the Constitution does it say the President can appoint a Czar?

Same place where it allows him to appoint a Press Secretary.

not the same at all. Now here is my position. if a Czar,, and I don't care which President he is appointed under can unilaterally make decisions that effect the USA and bypass the three branches of government then it is unconstitutional. If he or she acts soley as an advisor to a President and the decisions are subject to being overseen by congress then it would be constitutional.

 

[Modbert]

Just this:

You're comparing Bush's 35 Czar's to Obama's 33. You even provided the differing years in which they acted in their czarist capacity. There's yer flaw.

It Bush took 8 years to rack up 35, and Obama has hit 33 in only 9 months.

At this rate and trend, Obama is going to hit over 120 by the end of his first four years, and 240 if he's reelected.

See the flaw now? Ya might want to back off comparing the number of Bush czars to Obama czars.

You don't think I realized that? It would matter if I worshipped at the altar of Obama and were a Democrat. However, I'm not so it doesn't matter to me. The fact is, Bush had a very high amount of Czars, yet nobody gave a flying fuck.

 

[DiveCon]

Who cares if they are made up. It's still a flawed argument. I'm surprised no one else here has caught on yet...

of course its a flawed argument
but that page even list the director of OMB as a "Czar"
WTF???????

Hmmm...

Business Week:

MAY 21, 2001 <------

GOVERNMENT/Online Extra
Back to Main Story
Q&A with the OMB's Mitch Daniels
Bush's budget czar talks about the $1.35 trillion tax cut plan, clearing regulatory underbrush, entitlement reform, and more

[FONT=arial,helvetica,univers] White House Budget Director Mitch Daniels, the man President Bush affectionately calls "The Blade," hasn't cut a big public swath through Washington. Daniels likes it that way. He plans to keep a low profile at the Office of Management & Budget. But that's not to say he doesn't have big plans for the agency.

[/FONT]http://www.webcitation.org/5jYP3429Z

sorry, your link doesnt say anything of the sort

BW Online | May 21, 2001 | A Budget Chief Called "The Blade"

 

[WillowTree]

Just this:

You're comparing Bush's 35 Czar's to Obama's 33. You even provided the differing years in which they acted in their czarist capacity. There's yer flaw.

It Bush took 8 years to rack up 35, and Obama has hit 33 in only 9 months.

At this rate and trend, Obama is going to hit over 120 by the end of his first four years, and 240 if he's reelected.

See the flaw now? Ya might want to back off comparing the number of Bush czars to Obama czars.

You don't think I realized that? It would matter if I worshipped at the altar of Obama and were a Democrat. However, I'm not so it doesn't matter to me. The fact is, Bush had a very high amount of Czars, yet nobody gave a flying fuck.

don't start with that bullshit again. you have never posted an opinion that was anything but obama ass kissing partisan hacky..

 

[RadiomanATL]

Just this:

You're comparing Bush's 35 Czar's to Obama's 33. You even provided the differing years in which they acted in their czarist capacity. There's yer flaw.

It Bush took 8 years to rack up 35, and Obama has hit 33 in only 9 months.

At this rate and trend, Obama is going to hit over 120 by the end of his first four years, and 240 if he's reelected.

See the flaw now? Ya might want to back off comparing the number of Bush czars to Obama czars.

You don't think I realized that? It would matter if I worshipped at the altar of Obama and were a Democrat. However, I'm not so it doesn't matter to me. The fact is, Bush had a very high amount of Czars, yet nobody gave a flying fuck.

Yeah, but Obama is on track to have 400% more than Bush. Thats like saying yeah, a Bentley is expensive at $300,000, but so is a Cadillac (at $75,000).

They're not in the same league. Hell, they're not even in the same ballpark, stadium or state.

 

[Modbert]

Dive, follow the second link:

WebCite query result

Also Willow, I have spoken out against what I considered was wrong of Obama several times already. You on the other hand are one of the biggest partisan hacks on this board. When's the last time you even dare took something other than a Republican position loudly as you do against Obama?

 

[paperview]

Well this was interesting. Looking up Bush's OMB Czar.

Dick Cheney's Dick Cheney

[SIZE=+2] Meet OMB Director Mitch Daniels: The most powerful man in the Bush administration you have never heard of.

[/SIZE]When George W. Bush signed his $1.3 trillion tax cut into law, he thanked three people first: "Mr. Vice President, Secretary O'Neill, and Director Daniels." Mr. Vice President? Yup. We all know Cheney. Secretary O'Neill? Sure. That silver-haired guy who used to run the aluminum company. Director Daniels? Hmmm...

Most people don't know Mitch Daniels, director of the Office of Management and Budget, but they should. The OMB chief has the most critical but unheralded job in government. He gets to stick his fingers in almost every federal pie, and Daniels has accumulated remarkable power since his swearing in. He has developed a close relationship with the president and inspired confidence among those around him. In fact, he has been deeply connected with all the decisions that have defined the Bush administration so far. He helped design and defend the Bush tax cut; he was the main architect of Bush's budget; he presides over decisions on which Clinton-era regulations stay and which ones go.

<snip>
When Daniels was appointed, Washington insiders murmured that he got the job because Bush just wanted a low-profile loyalist. Such speculation increased significantly when the White House transition team didn't hold a press conference to announce the appointment.

"Dick Cheney's Dick Cheney" by Nicholas Thompson

Washington Monthly July/August 2001 <----

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

This thread is to settle the Czar debate once and for all.

The first President to really have Czars was FDR. He had 12 Czar Jobs and 18 appointees. Over the years, every single President has had at least one. Nixon had the most since Harry Truman with 2 Czar Jobs and 4 appointees.

Bill Clinton had 6 Czar Jobs and 9 appointees.

Barack Obama has currently Thirty Two (32) Czar Jobs and 34 appointees.

But what about Dubya?

He had THIRTY FIVE CZAR JOBS (35) and FORTY FIVE (45) appointees. My question is the following:

Where was the outrage when Bush was in office? Where was Glenn Beck? He wasn't crying on television about how the Republicans were trying to conquer this country with Socialism or Facism or whatever.

The List of Czars under President George W. Bush and their years:

An Abstinence Czar (2006-2007)

THREE different AIDS Czars (2001-2002), (2002-2003), and (2006-2007).

Bank Bailout Czar (2008-2009)

Bioethics Czar (2001-2005)

Bird flu Czar (2004-2006)

Birth Control Czar (2006-2007)

THREE different Budget Czars (2001-2003), (2003-2006), and (2006-2007).

TWO Clean Up Czasr (2001-2004) (2005-2008)

Communications Czar

TWO Cyber Security Czar, Cyber Czars (2001-2003), and (2008-2009)

Democracy Czar (2005-2008)

Domestic Policy Czar (2004-2006)

Drug Czar (2001-2009)

FOUR Faith-Based Czar, Faith Czars (2001) (2001) (2002-2006) (2006-2008)

Food Safety Czar (2007-2008)

TWO Global AIDS Czars (2003-2006) (2006-2009)

Health Czar for WTC, World Trade Center Health Czar (2006-2008)

Health IT Czar (2004-2006)

Homeland Security Czar (2005-2009)

Homeless Czar, Homelessness Czar (2002-2008)

Gulf Coast Reconstruction Czar, Hurricane Katrina Recovery Czar (2005-2008)

TWO Intelligence Czars (2005-2007) (2005-2009)

TWO Manufacturing Czars (2004-2007) (2007-2008)

Policy Czar (2005-2006)

TWO Public Diplomacy Czars (2005-2007) (2008-2009)

Reading czar (2001-2005)

TWO Regulatory Czars (2001-2006) (2006-2009)

Science Czar (2001-2009)

Terrorism Czar (2001)

Terrorism Czar, Counterterrorism Czar (2001-2002)

War Czar (2007)

Okay Republicans, where's your outrage. Waiting for it. Waiting for it. Still waiting.

The Czar thing is nonsense, without regard to which 'Progressive' it was that appointed them... But it is cool to see the Left running to point out the Leftist tendencies of GW Bush.

With that said... one has to chuckle when one reads down your list... IMAGINE THE POWER VESTED IN THE "READING, Science and Abstinence" Czars...

Why it's as if these are comparable to the litanny of power thugs set up by this Marxist fuck...

LOL... Funny stuff.

 

[paperview]

of course its a flawed argument
but that page even list the director of OMB as a "Czar"
WTF???????

Hmmm...

Business Week:

MAY 21, 2001 <------

GOVERNMENT/Online Extra
Back to Main Story
Q&A with the OMB's Mitch Daniels
Bush's budget czar talks about the $1.35 trillion tax cut plan, clearing regulatory underbrush, entitlement reform, and more

[FONT=arial,helvetica,univers] White House Budget Director Mitch Daniels, the man President Bush affectionately calls "The Blade," hasn't cut a big public swath through Washington. Daniels likes it that way. He plans to keep a low profile at the Office of Management & Budget. But that's not to say he doesn't have big plans for the agency.

[/FONT]http://www.webcitation.org/5jYP3429Z

sorry, your link doesnt say anything of the sort

BW Online | May 21, 2001 | A Budget Chief Called "The Blade"

WebCite query result

Works for me.

You think I just typed all that up?

 

[WillowTree]

Hmmm...

Business Week:

MAY 21, 2001 <------

GOVERNMENT/Online Extra
Back to Main Story
Q&A with the OMB's Mitch Daniels
Bush's budget czar talks about the $1.35 trillion tax cut plan, clearing regulatory underbrush, entitlement reform, and more

[FONT=arial,helvetica,univers] White House Budget Director Mitch Daniels, the man President Bush affectionately calls "The Blade," hasn't cut a big public swath through Washington. Daniels likes it that way. He plans to keep a low profile at the Office of Management & Budget. But that's not to say he doesn't have big plans for the agency.

[/FONT]http://www.webcitation.org/5jYP3429Z

sorry, your link doesnt say anything of the sort

BW Online | May 21, 2001 | A Budget Chief Called "The Blade"

WebCite query result

Works for me.

You think I just typed all that up?

were President Bush's tax cuts subject to congressional oversight or not?

 

[paperview]

sorry, your link doesnt say anything of the sort

BW Online | May 21, 2001 | A Budget Chief Called "The Blade"

WebCite query result

Works for me.

You think I just typed all that up?

were President Bush's tax cuts subject to congressional oversight or not?

You little goal post mover you.

 

[Modbert]

Yeah, but Obama is on track to have 400% more than Bush. Thats like saying yeah, a Bentley is expensive at $300,000, but so is a Cadillac (at $75,000).

They're not in the same league. Hell, they're not even in the same ballpark, stadium or state.

That's true, however one has to consider the certain Republican mood toward the Czars. Now, if that's the way they were acting when Obama is doing it, then shouldn't be acting the same way when Bush was doing it? Of course they aren't.

The majority of people in this thread seem to be not getting my point. If these Czars are a step towards a Dictatorship and Socialism then shouldn't the reaction towards Bush been a lot more harsher in general in the past and on this board?

Where were the Republicans complaining between 2001-2009? Where were the Republicans on this board complaining about the Czars beforehand? I mean did any of you Republicans even know about these Czars before people like Glenn Beck went on television and cried about it?

 

[WillowTree]

WebCite query result

Works for me.

You think I just typed all that up?

were President Bush's tax cuts subject to congressional oversight or not?

You little goal post mover you.

didn't move a thing. that's the whole debate.. do czar's circumvent the balance of power or do they not?

 

[WillowTree]

Yeah, but Obama is on track to have 400% more than Bush. Thats like saying yeah, a Bentley is expensive at $300,000, but so is a Cadillac (at $75,000).

They're not in the same league. Hell, they're not even in the same ballpark, stadium or state.

That's true, however one has to consider the certain Republican mood toward the Czars. Now, if that's the way they were acting when Obama is doing it, then shouldn't be acting the same way when Bush was doing it? Of course they aren't.

The majority of people in this thread seem to be not getting my point. If these Czars are a step towards a Dictatorship and Socialism then shouldn't the reaction towards Bush been a lot more harsher in general in the past and on this board?

Where were the Republicans complaining between 2001-2009? Where were the Republicans on this board complaining about the Czars beforehand? I mean did any of you Republicans even know about these Czars before people like Glenn Beck went on television and cried about it?

consider this robtard.. President Bush's four czars seemed to lay well below the radar. Didn't seem to raise any red flags.. weren't as controversial as eugenicists and communists and race baiters.. maybe now because of these things folks are snapping to attention. figure? yep,, I thought so.

 

[paperview]

were President Bush's tax cuts subject to congressional oversight or not?

You little goal post mover you.

didn't move a thing. that's the whole debate.. do czar's circumvent the balance of power or do they not?

"Dick Cheney's Dick Cheney" by Nicholas Thompson