Posted by gurusmom on Sat, Aug 1, 2009, at 4:52 PM:
Obama's 32 Czars
"The biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that's what I intend to reverse when I'm president of the United States." -- Sen. Barack Obama, March 31, 2008
To say President Obama failed to follow through on this promise is an understatement. By appointing a virtual army of "czars" -- each wholly unaccountable to Congress yet tasked with spearheading major policy efforts for the White House -- in his first six months, the president has embarked on an end-run around the legislative branch of historic proportions.
The administration has a Mideast peace czar (not to be confused with the Mideast policy czar), a Sudan czar and a Guantanamo closure czar. Then there's the green jobs czar, sometimes in conflict with the energy czar, who talks to the technology czar, who sometimes crosses paths with the urban affairs czar. ... the Great Lakes czar or the WMD czar, who no doubt works hand in hand with the terrorism czar. The stimulus accountability czar is going through a rough time right now, as is the TARP czar -- but thankfully they have to answer to the government performance czar. And seemingly everyone falls under the auspices of the information czar.
The point here is not that President Obama's reliance on czars is illegal (although it does raise significant, unresolved constitutional issues). ... It's that we have not been able to vet them, and that we have no idea what they're doing. It's that candidate Obama made a pledge to keep Congress in the light. Yet less than six months after his inauguration, the president appears intent to keep Congress more and more in the dark. Dozens of czars at a time.
LOL! Ridiculous! Where were all of you when the Bush and Cheney Czars were acting all totalitarian? LOL! Rubbish, simple rubbish. Why did you wait until Obama took over to complain?? Should have been complaining then as I see it.
I really find it hard to find the political sincerity AFTER Bush is out of office. Sounds more like partisan disgruntlement to me.
I look at it more like this. It's medicine time folks! After eight years of the Bush BS, it's time to pay the piper!
-- Posted by Grandpa_Sassy on Sat, Aug 1, 2009, at 6:20 PM
Hey Grandpa, there are several of us on record that were very vocal in our critism of the Bush administration, especially GurusMom and James (Hilleco).
Just a couple of weeks ago my long gone friend Megalomaniac and myself had a good long conversation regarding this very topic.
We acknowledge that Bush set the table, but that doesn't change the fact that SuperPrez ran his campaign on changing the secretness and unconstitutional behavior of the Bush adminstration. I know that there were several serious discussions in libertarian circles regarding this campaign promise made by candidate Obama. He won millions of votes through this deception that he otherwise wouldn't have sniffed in his wildest dreams.
Those are candidate Obama's own words that Mom used to open this thread.
Not only has SuperPrez broke this promise, but he has expanded Bush's programs to new lows.
-- Posted by Lumpy on Sat, Aug 1, 2009, at 8:41 PM
I don't think the article included all 32 czars, DAB ...
Asked Pops, and he didn't know either ... When did the czar thing start ... Did Congress approve it, or what? Maybe I'll find time to research that.
Yes, James, due in part to the fact that it's possibly not constitutional, and that the czars are not accountable to Congress ... One czar is one too many!
I think, Grandpa, that part of the reason it's come to light in articles such as this, and people are beginning to notice and feel cheated ... lied to even, is because Obama did in fact promise in his campaigns to reduce the size of the federal government (if I recall, going 'line-by-line' to weed out unnecssary people/departments) ... but it's now obvious that he is actually enlarging it ... Did you read the entire article? Do you think we would be better off without the czars? You know, we can play the Blame Game continuously, but the mistakes of past presidents (or congress) cannot be erased ... and it's becoming apparent that evidently, in this case, they are being added to.
Aw, lumpy! You would remind people that I'm a critical person, when it comes to politicians, wouldn't you? ~sigh~ I do try to be fair though ... like giving credit where credit is due ... Just seems like it's really hard any more to find anything much credit-worthy to praise from our seemingly power-mad politicians.
And you're absolutely right ... Obama talked about transparency and openness ... the czar system certainly seems to negate those concepts. And I do admit I didn't know much about czar-dom until reading this article.
-- Posted by gurusmom on Sat, Aug 1, 2009, at 11:14 PM
Lump/Guru/Nall
Here is a real simple question for you. Let's be honest here, and lay our cards on the table though shall we. Did any of the three of you vote for Obama? Or did you vote for McCain? (who infact would have been more of the same) Or did you step outside the box and vote for another candidate? A simple question, that deserves a simple and honest answer.
And so we know where we all stand, I'll even go first. Initially, I supported, donated, and voted for Huckabee. Why? Fair Tax, and my perception he would steer this country back to a more moral and "conservative" (not republican) Christian foundation.
After his political demise, I then switched to Obama. Why? I feel that Obama DOES have a foundational Christian morality, AND his view on Nationalized Healthcare, AND his talk of change.
Anyway...to explain my mutt politics would take a better part of a night over beer and pizza. That being said...I voted how I voted.
So here's your chance, the chips have fallen...so there's no harm in telling me how you all voted. Unless...you presumably voted for No Change McCain. That's where this whole Czar thread will begin to crumble.
-- Posted by Grandpa_Sassy on Sat, Aug 1, 2009, at 11:58 PM
Hey Grandpa,
I don't understand what disclosing who I voted for in the last general election has anything to do with the promises that got SuperPrez elected, and that he dropped as soon as he took the oath of office. It sounds like you are getting everything that you wanted out of your candidate, so what's the beef? Is he above critism, and you feel the need to defend him?
Or are you having a little buyer's remorse?
-- Posted by Lumpy on Sun, Aug 2, 2009, at 6:45 AM
Change???
"If my people which are called by my name shall humble themselves and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from
heaven, and forgive their sin, and heal their land." (II Chronicles 7:14) I'm for real change, and czars are out of the question, I would say.
-- Posted by memories on Sun, Aug 2, 2009, at 7:03 AM
Oh come on now Lump. You skirted around answering the question. Plain and simple man, who did you vote for? It's not a big national secret. Here's my point. If you didn't vote for Obama, and you DID vote for McCain, then the political sincerity on this "Czar" issue is a moot point.
McCain=McSame DID NOT campaign on a slogan of change. And IF you did not vote for Obama, then he really didn't lie to you and his promises were moot in that respect, because you didn't vote for him anyway.
Again, I'm still curious...who did you vote for? No one's going to take away your library card if you tell.
-- Posted by Grandpa_Sassy on Sun, Aug 2, 2009, at 8:26 AM
Also Lump, I'm not the one with the beef. Obviously, you folks are...or you wouldn't be bashing Obama, instead of bashing government period. Buyer's remorse? Not yet, I voted for him. Now, I will have "buyers remorse" as you call it if he don't get this UHC passed through.
This was my WHOLE point with the "Tea Parties." This had NOTHING to do with anti-government, this was ALL about Republicons trying to find a nitch to "fearmonger" the electorate away from Obama's policies. All the Anti-Government folks that I know, are that....they want NO government. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Constitution, none of them. (which will are probably is more where I am heading)
These "Tea Parties" should have been held when your REAL RIGHTS were being taken away with George W. Bushes Patriot Act, and John McCain and his cronies dismantling the foundational provisions of the Magna Carta and Habeas Corpus (a point I've made for over 3-years now, which is NEVER addressed by Republicans on this forum)
Bush was tapping phone lines, taking folks into custody without due process, and allowing Cheney (THE VP) to dictate policy over the Iraq War. Pushing stuff through?? Ha! The past 8-years were nothing more than Totalitarian government at it's best. Where were the talks of Czars, Tea Parties, and big government then??
-- Posted by Grandpa_Sassy on Sun, Aug 2, 2009, at 8:47 AM
Hey Grandpa,
You know that this area is always at least 10 years behind the times, and chronic Republicans. Just because there were no protests against Bush's unconstitutional policies held in Capaha Park doesn't mean that they weren't held in larger metropolitan areas.
-- Posted by Lumpy on Sun, Aug 2, 2009, at 9:01 AM
Hey Grandpa,
It sounds like you have all the makings of a new political movement - Anarchists For UHC.
-- Posted by Lumpy on Sun, Aug 2, 2009, at 9:10 AM
Nall,
"I am, for the most part, an anarchist along the lines of Lysander Spooner."
Thank you! Now those are the words I'm looking for.
Lumpy,
"It sounds like you have all the makings of a new political movement - Anarchists For UHC"
Lysander himself was labeled as an individualist anarchist, but he also a supporter of the Labour Movement. (which centers around collectivism)
See...proof you CAN be for and against something all at once.
-- Posted by Grandpa_Sassy on Sun, Aug 2, 2009, at 10:56 AM
Answer: NO. Instead, get rid of the Cabinet!
-- Posted by vietnamvet on Sun, Aug 2, 2009, at 12:31 PM
Hey Grandpa,
I have read interpretations of Spooner's work that even goes so far as to label him a socialist, but that is fodder for another discussion.
-- Posted by Lumpy on Sun, Aug 2, 2009, at 1:28 PM
certainly enough polical fodder in the world to grow some huge crops, and feed us all.
-- Posted by Grandpa_Sassy on Sun, Aug 2, 2009, at 3:05 PM
Okay, Grandpa ... Everyone knows I'm a Republican who couldn't bring myself to vote for Palin ... I mean McCain! And yes, I've been chastised by many whom I love and/or respect for not seeing them as being a good team in our government.
Now ... I voted for Bush ... and I was as quick to criticize some of his actions as I was to criticize Clinton or Nixon or Reagan or ...
Who we voted for is basically irrelevant, as long as we use our own intellect when it comes to 'party loyalty.' Saying "the political sincerity on this 'Czar' issue is a moot point." No, it isn't ... not to people whose party loyalty doesn't supercede their ability to be honest. It doesn't matter who voted for whom ... Obama didn't make promises JUST to those who voted for him ... he made public statements promising what he would do IF elected president. Your thinking processes are making me dizzy, Grandpa!
BTW ... Do you believe we should abolish the Czar system ... regardless of who the president might be, or what party he belongs to? You're making this a 'party issue,' and it shouldn't be ... although ... can you honestly say you approve of Obama having 32 czars ... read the darned article, Grandpa, before you answer that! If yes, you believe it's okay for any president of any party ... Then tell us why?
Thanks for the link, Spank ... The article was dated July 10, so does that mean 11 more czars have been appointed between then and this article that mentions 32?
-- Posted by gurusmom on Sun, Aug 2, 2009, at 3:45 PM
Guru,
Shouldn't be making you dizzy, if you didn't vote for Obama. (You still didn't directly answer my question)
It's like this. (common sense) Let's say Kmart has a Blue Light Special on pancake mix, and I ask you to come along, but you tell me to go s.c.r.e.w. myself because you are loyal to Walmart and will always shop there.
Now...I go on to Kmart, buy my pancake mix, and then get home only to out that the contents contained salt. That being the case then...does that give YOU the right to call the BBB on Kmart for false advertising?
My point is, apparently promises (false or not) is really a moot point to those who didn't vote for him anyway. You weren't supporting him or his promise anyway, so hence...the promises were moot.
Let's take GWB, I voted for him...TWICE even. That being the case, (and with the high expectations that were before him) he failed miserably.
Eight years later, we still have "moral" issues, that Bush could have dealt with regardless of the Iraq War or not. And...in voting for him, hence...I had due cause to whinge, and whinge I did.
-- Posted by Grandpa_Sassy on Sun, Aug 2, 2009, at 4:51 PM
Oh..and in regards to the Czars, I've made my position on government clear on many, many, many occasions. All or None. It's really that simple.
In simpler terms: I don't care if he has a million czars, if things are getting done and the constituency gets what they want. But...if we're going to "down size" government, I suggest getting rid of ALL OF IT. (not just a downsize) Top to bottom, Federal, State, and Local. This is ultimately, what I would prefer.
-- Posted by Grandpa_Sassy on Sun, Aug 2, 2009, at 4:56 PM
These "Tea Parties" should have been held when your REAL RIGHTS were being taken away with George W. Bushes Patriot Act, and John McCain and his cronies dismantling the foundational provisions of the Magna Carta and Habeas Corpus (a point I've made for over 3-years now, which is NEVER addressed by Republicans on this forum)
Bush was tapping phone lines, taking folks into custody without due process, and allowing Cheney (THE VP) to dictate policy over the Iraq War. Pushing stuff through?? Ha! The past 8-years were nothing more than Totalitarian government at it's best. Where were the talks of Czars, Tea Parties, and big government then??
-- Posted by Grandpa_Sassy on Sun, Aug 2, 2009, at 8:47 AM
Hey Grandpa, I was one who hammered Bush's dictatorial policies relentlessly. I wrote in Ron Paul for prez. But I ask you: why doesn't Obama and his democrat controlled congress repeal the Patriot Act and the other oppresive legislation? In fact Obama voted for re-authorizing the Patriot Act. Why doesn't Obama end the war in Iraq? He is escalating the war in Afghanistan. 43 more needless military deaths in July.
The bottom line is, you said Bush took away real rights (which I agree with by the way),so why aren't you demanding that Obama restore those same rights? My answer is Bush just handed the baton to Obama who is putting the finishing touches on the growing Police State. Obama is not much different than Bush except Obama is spending even more money and he can speak a proper sentence.
-- Posted by Thought Criminal on Sun, Aug 2, 2009, at 5:40 PM
Info...there is only "one" thing I wish for Obama to get accomplished in his 4 or 8 years. If he gets that done, I'll be a happy camper. If not...I'm moving to Darfur to get the good medical benies.
-- Posted by Grandpa_Sassy on Sun, Aug 2, 2009, at 5:45 PM
Yes G-Mom the czar system should be abolished. The czars should not have that much power.
The modern day czar could better be described as a type of political commissar. They rule through intimidation and fear. The modern Czars are not elected and are not vetted by anyone in congress.
This seems to me to be a violation of Article II Section 2 of the constitution."[The President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments." ( but what the heck, modern presidents don't follow the Constitution anyway)
-- Posted by Thought Criminal on Sun, Aug 2, 2009, at 6:07 PM
I repeat, Grandpa ... "Who we voted for is basically irrelevant," ... and not only that, it's really none of anyone's business who someone else voted for ... think I explained fairly clearly why it's irrelevant.
You have a very strange way of looking at some things ... and I don't mean that as an insult! Oh, and Grandpa ... I don't know who you were in your other SO/forum identity (suspicions don't count) when you "...made my position on government clear on many, many, many occasions." Hmm ... the only 'one' thing you wish for might be a clue! ~laughing~
Info ... Grandpa can't criticize Obama because he voted for him ... and anyone who didn't cannot criticize him because it's a moot point and he really isn't their president because they didn't. ~grinning~ Sorry ... I'm getting silly--out in the heat too long this afternoon maybe?
The article did mention 'unresolved constitutional issues,' and the czars not even vetted. This is the type of thing that makes me so sad, and yes, so angry, about our government. The very people we should be able to put our trust and faith in are the very people who apparently are the least trustworthy. We seem to have given more power to our elected officials than what they were meant to have.
Trying to fight for what is right and appropriate is a losing battle ... but I'm going to at least try, by talking about things like this, by writing letters to our representatives (not a good descriptive word there, obviously), by sharing these type of things on all the blogs and forums I visit ... All pretty useless and hopeless, but it's something I have to do anyway.
-- Posted by gurusmom on Sun, Aug 2, 2009, at 11:11 PM
Guru,
A strange way of looking at things? LOL! Common sense...strange? ooook. LOL! I love that excuse about irrelevancy and who's business it is. Classic *clapping* glad to see the typical inability of republican supporters to explain their positions and be "up front" in their answers still living and breathing.
Czar is really such a harsh title here, when we've just breeched ourselves out of the dictatorship of the past eight years.
Again, for the sake of re-reading my own posts I'll repeat myself. GWB constantly pushed policy over-riding congressional and senate houses, and basically told the constituency "FORGET YOU" on several occasions while continuing on head strong to his personal agendas.
Funny...of this Czarish, Socialist/Communist thing that you "republicans" are trying to pull off, I haven't seen anything faintly resembling the GWB Monarchy.
The biggest mistake I see with Obama was him being sucker in the beginning offering bi-partisanship to the GOP. That was just plain stupid! Those snakes in the grass should have been hung IMO. Maybe sent to Guantanamo as enemies of the state in the very least.
And you want to talk about "givening" over power to the government? Look no further than the GOP itself.
Lincoln would be a great start at the loss of liberties, GWB put the nail in the coffin with the Patriot Act.
-- Posted by Grandpa_Sassy on Mon, Aug 3, 2009, at 8:42 AM
I find it ironic that those who constantly bash GW Bush on all his "evil practices" now turn a blind eye to Obama expanding things like expanding "wire tapping" and other numerous expansion of executive powers. I guess Granpa feels that two wrongs do make a right as long as it is his beloved Obama carrying out his own agenda. So Gramps, keep defending Obama and his failed policies. Keep blaming those evil republicans who have been the minority in the house over the past few years and trying to justify Obama for expanding the same things you claim were so unjust by the Bush asministration. You only show your blind bias against things that are conservative and blind alligance for all things liberal.
-- Posted by luv2argue on Mon, Aug 3, 2009, at 9:59 AM
superbee,
Please show me the "proof" that Obama has expanded wire tapping.
Obama's failed policies? He's only been in office 7 months, please cite and list all of these failed policies please.
"You only show your blind bias against things that are conservative and blind alligance for all things liberal."
No no no no! Let's get one thing straight here friend, the "republicans" you speak of are NOT conservative. Sooo don't even TRY to pull that one off. GWB and the Republican's of the past eight years was about as conservative as Elton John.
In fact, if the Republicans were SOOOO Conservative, why did they nominate that Liberal Lieberman lover John McCain?? Why not Huckabee? Huckabee was against Gay Marriage, Abortion, Stem Cell research. A "REAL" Conservative my friend.
Funny all those "so called" conservatives were in charge for six years with GWB, and they never did anything to rid this country of abortion, or gay marriage. And infact, GWB signed a bill FUNDING stem-cell research.
If that's YOUR definition of being a Republican, and "conservative" I suggest you change parties. You'd make an out standing tree hugging liberal. What's more, I bet you think that Abe "The Liberal" Lincoln was an outstanding guy too.
All things liberal? Got another thing for ya. I'm a "CONSERVATIVE SOUTHERN BRED AND BORN "DEMOCRAT." and proud of it!
Soo superbee, you lose...thanks for playing. Come back when you have something else to present thats more "conservative" in nature. LOL! What a joke!
-- Posted by Grandpa_Sassy on Mon, Aug 3, 2009, at 11:18 AM
Grampa Lemming,
all you need to do is google "obama expands wiretaps" and you can pick from any one of the dozens of articles about the subject. It has been well documented so please pick your poison and choose any of the documented articles. Then you can write back and we can argue that one.
Obamas failed policies are clear:
2009 job losses
Feb: 651,000
Mar: 663,000
Apr: 539,000
May: 345,000
Total: 2,198,000
What about Obama's promise to hold unemployment to 8 percent if the stimulus package was passed. At last count, national unemployment was ' 9.6 percent, with several states over 10 percent.
Obama has doubled the national debt rate in his first six months in office, and it is projected to be tripled by the end of the year. But the Democrats were all upset at the much lower debt rate of George W. Bush
As for choosing McCain as the GOP nominee: Huckabee gave his West Viginia delgates to McCain in order to keep Romney from getting those delegates and take W.V. That was the turning point in the GOP primary.
I have spoken against the repubs and GWB in the past several years and how they trended left and spent our money like drunken sailors. (with no disrespect to sailors) I didnt do it with hatefu rhetoric but simply voiced my oposition to how they were not doing what i thought best. Yet, they seemed to be the lesser of two evils when it came time to "pull the lever". I would rather vote for a moderate republican than a neo-marxist democrat any day of the week. And, as you may well know, the repubs payed dearly for the error of their ways and were creamed in the last couple of elections.
I would love to get one specific example where BHO has offered bipartisanship to the GOP. Not just generalities in speeches his teleprompter told him to say, but specific compromise on any important issue.
If you are such a "conservative southern bred and born Dem" then why do you support Obama so much? In what way is Obama conservative at all if you blindly agree and defend him? I guess we will see how "conservative southern dems" (blue dogs) will recevived in their town hall meetings after they flip flopped on health care.
I want to finish by letting you know that...It's OK if you voted for BHO........everyone makes mistakes and no one can blame you for buying in to the hope and change song and dance......but you have to let it go now.....we all know that you are disappointed in him too and thats OK....be strong and let people know that you have had enough hope and change and are ready for America to heal.
-- Posted by luv2argue on Mon, Aug 3, 2009, at 2:50 PM
#1. LOL! You counted Job loss for Feb? Curious, how much job loss in January? I see decreasing job loss here, (proof the stimulus is SLOWING the bleed of the Bush blood bath)
#2. LOL Rominey DROPPED OUT before Huckabee, so ...???
#3. The GOP Didn,'t and Don't deserve Bi-partisanship
#4. Voting mistake? Umm...who was the option then? Shirley you're not suggesting the McPiglin ticket?
#5. Disappointed? No..I already told you what I want, so far things are good, but he should just hang all the republicans and banish them to..Darfur or something.
#6. Wiretapping: LOL! Can you give me legit source please? Only thing I'm coming up with on that is partisan, republican, liberal bash sites.
-- Posted by Grandpa_Sassy on Mon, Aug 3, 2009, at 6:14 PM
Well, thanks superbee. Some good thoughts there. However ...
Remember: 'You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.'
Unless you're talking about hard-core party members, all of whom can all be fooled all of the time.
All these recent posts have little or nothing to do with a president hiring un-vetted, unaccountable to Congress, czars. So, are we accepting what appears to be fast becoming a monarchy rather than ...
-- Posted by gurusmom on Mon, Aug 3, 2009, at 11:50 PM
FYI ... For your information:
CZAR:
1. an emperor or king.
2. (often initial capital letter) the former emperor of Russia.
3. an autocratic ruler or leader.
4. any person exercising great authority or power in a particular field: a czar of industry.
-- Posted by gurusmom on Tue, Aug 4, 2009, at 12:01 AM
Mom,
There has been some very intellegent articles posted recently at Lew Rockwell's site regarding the czar situation.
-- Posted by Lumpy on Tue, Aug 4, 2009, at 6:20 AM
Thanks, lumpy ... I'll try to remember to look for it later today.
It won't upset me any further than I already am about this issue, will it? ~laughing~
-- Posted by gurusmom on Tue, Aug 4, 2009, at 1:29 PM
Menu
Obama's 32 Czars
"The biggest problems that we're facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that's what I intend to reverse when I'm president of the United States." -- Sen. Barack Obama, March 31, 2008
To say President Obama failed to follow through on this promise is an understatement. By appointing a virtual army of "czars" -- each wholly unaccountable to Congress yet tasked with spearheading major policy efforts for the White House -- in his first six months, the president has embarked on an end-run around the legislative branch of historic proportions.
The administration has a Mideast peace czar (not to be confused with the Mideast policy czar), a Sudan czar and a Guantanamo closure czar. Then there's the green jobs czar, sometimes in conflict with the energy czar, who talks to the technology czar, who sometimes crosses paths with the urban affairs czar. ... the Great Lakes czar or the WMD czar, who no doubt works hand in hand with the terrorism czar. The stimulus accountability czar is going through a rough time right now, as is the TARP czar -- but thankfully they have to answer to the government performance czar. And seemingly everyone falls under the auspices of the information czar.
The point here is not that President Obama's reliance on czars is illegal (although it does raise significant, unresolved constitutional issues). ... It's that we have not been able to vet them, and that we have no idea what they're doing. It's that candidate Obama made a pledge to keep Congress in the light. Yet less than six months after his inauguration, the president appears intent to keep Congress more and more in the dark. Dozens of czars at a time.
For the entire article go to:
http://tinyurl.com/mnbh75
Replies (32)