How many czars in White House?

Status
Not open for further replies.
My opinion only:

I think Obama came up thru the national political ranks too quickly. He didn't have the years of networking and developing insider relationships that he could trust that other pols had. He picked too many advisors, "czars", or whatever you wish to call them, too quickly. Therefor, he put his trust in people who let him down.

Sometimes (rightly or wrongly) being part of a "good ol' boy" system can be beneficial.

When lots of your group of advisers and/or selectees are from outside the traditional circle, you can get burned.
 
kokonut said:
Now, now... let's not redirect this. A sure sign of a defensive posture by going the red herring route.

Bush has had a lot of czars, too. Does that help?

Now, back to Obama's ridiculous number of czars.
Click to expand...

And by your logic the statement "Bush has a lot of czars, too" would be a direct defense of the Democratic party. Thanks for showing the circularity in your logic.:laugh2:
 
Reba said:
My opinion only:

I think Obama came up thru the national political ranks too quickly. He didn't have the years of networking and developing insider relationships that he could trust that other pols had. He picked too many advisors, "czars", or whatever you wish to call them, too quickly. Therefor, he put his trust in people who let him down.

Sometimes (rightly or wrongly) being part of a "good ol' boy" system can be beneficial.

When lots of your group of advisers and/or selectees are from outside the traditional circle, you can get burned.
Click to expand...

Being part of the good ole boy system can be beneficial, until it reaches the point of being the deciding factor.
 
:wtflol:

Yes, let's just redefine "czar" and then accuse the Obama administration of having too many czars. Makes perfect sense. :roll:

:rofl2:
 
The Obama czars have a salary of up to $172,000 and that doesn’t include staff members or office and travel budgets. We don’t know what the total cost of all of the czars will be, but it’s become clear that the growing number of czars is a waste of taxpayer dollars. How many additional czars will the President appoint to circumvent the Senate confirmation process? Recent town hall meetings across the nation have demonstrated how the federal government is accountable to the people.
Click to expand...

I am a cosponsor of a bill introduced by my colleague Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) which would withhold funding to any czar not confirmed by the Senate. President Obama claimed he would run the most transparent administration in recent history, if this is true he needs to have these czars appear before the Senate and go through the proper vetting of a Senate confirmation.

Past administrations have had czars but the Obama administration has taken it to a whole new level. Reagan and George H.W. Bush each had one czar, Clinton had three, and George W. Bush had four. In less than a year this new administration already has 32. It is difficult to understand how the President can continue to appoint czars when he has yet to fill all of the key Senate -confirmed positions in his administration.

It’s time for the President to shed some light and transparency on his czars and send them before the Senate. These unconfirmed and unaccountable czars should not be circumventing the Cabinet. The constitution is clear in Article II, Section 2 that requires the advice and consent of the Cabinet. The Administration needs to stop wasting taxpayer dollars and stop appointing czars who seem to answer to no one.
Click to expand...

And you wonder why I put out that Bush comment on the number of czars he had?

:naughty:

U.S. Rep. Tom Rooney blog: How Many Czars is Enough? : News : TCPalm
 
CJB said:
:wtflol:

Yes, let's just redefine "czar" and then accuse the Obama administration of having too many czars. Makes perfect sense. :roll:

:rofl2:
Click to expand...

The problem is that none of the 32 czars were vetted by Congress. We do not even know their complete background at all. If you are going to work for a federal govt you need to have a background check. Clearly with the Van Jones case he was never vetted or had background properly checked.
 
jillio said:
Still can't answer questions on your own, huh? The czar of cut and paste!
Click to expand...

Guess you didn't notice that it was a question of the day. Didn't say I have the answer.
 
kokonut said:
The problem is that none of the 32 czars were vetted by Congress. We do not even know their complete background at all. If you are going to work for a federal govt you need to have a background check. Clearly with the Van Jones case he was never vetted or had background properly checked.
Click to expand...

The problem is, there are no czars. At least not in this country. You are terribly confused.:lol:
 
kokonut said:
Guess you didn't notice that it was a question of the day. Didn't say I have the answer.
Click to expand...

WHAT????? You without an answer?????? OMG...the world is coming to an end.:giggle:
 
The problem with czars.....


I oppose adding new layers of government intervention to an already bloated federal bureaucracy, and this issue is certainly no exception. The President’s Constitutional authority to appoint these individuals is dubious, their presence undermines the role of the traditional Cabinet, and their immunity from Congressional oversight defies our longstanding system of checks and balances. The interests of democracy are best served in a climate of greater accountability and more transparent decision-making.
Click to expand...
U.S. Rep. Tom Rooney blog: How Many Czars is Enough? : News : TCPalm

Obama has the worst transparency govt on record. Something that he promised back in 2008.

Anything he says has an expiration date, remember that.
 
Switching topics? If you want to discuss transparency, let's get to it. And we'll start with the lack of transparency in the Bush/Cheney admin.
 
kokonut said:
The problem is that none of the 32 czars were vetted by Congress. We do not even know their complete background at all. If you are going to work for a federal govt you need to have a background check. Clearly with the Van Jones case he was never vetted or had background properly checked.
Click to expand...

Reality check: There are no czars in the Obama administration.

Your tactic is completely see-through. Redefine czar, a term associated with Russia, and therefore scare the right wing by making the Obama administration sound like a commie admin. Sorry, it's not working.

:rofl2:
 
CJB said:
Reality check: There are no czars in the Obama administration.

Your tactic is completely see-through. Redefine czar, a term associated with Russia, and therefore scare the right wing by making the Obama administration sound like a commie admin. Sorry, it's not working.

:rofl2:
Click to expand...
Umm, Russian communists overthrew their Czar and killed his family. "Czar" (or Tsar) is not a communist position. The Russian communists were anti-czar.

"Czar" is an imperial leader who doesn't answer to anyone else.
 
There's the right wing, far right and there's the loony right. I think we know which side of right he is on. In order to make this post fair and balanced, I offer La Rouche as an example of the loony left. :giggle:
 
Reba said:
Umm, Russian communists overthrew their Czar and killed his family. "Czar" (or Tsar) is not a communist position. The Russian communists were anti-czar.

"Czar" is an imperial leader who doesn't answer to anyone else.
Click to expand...

Reba is quite correct on this one.
 
What is a "czar"?

With the appointment of a new “Internet” czar coming down the road in the near future, my mind continues to question “just what is the purpose of all these czars”? Why after 233 years does this administration feel that the United States of America is in need of all these appointments whom will have to answer to absolutely “NO ONE” but the Oval Office and has authority to by-pass Congress? What is happening to our system of “Checks and Balances”?
Click to expand...
What is a Czar? UPDATED: What do we need a “Great Lakes” Czar for? Constitutionally Speaking

hmmm....
 
Reba said:
Umm, Russian communists overthrew their Czar and killed his family. "Czar" (or Tsar) is not a communist position. The Russian communists were anti-czar.

"Czar" is an imperial leader who doesn't answer to anyone else.
Click to expand...

I know czars aren't communist. However, Joe Average will associate czars with Russia and therefore with communism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top