How many czars in White House?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow, so much wrangling about if the White House used the term czar. With a quick search, I found the President using it:

Q Will immigration reform be part of this whole process? And also you've named a border czar. Was this consulted with Mexico, and what is he going to do?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the goal of the border czar is to help coordinate all the various agencies that fall under the Department of Homeland Security, and so that we are confident that the border patrols are working effectively with ICE, working effectively with our law enforcement agencies. So he's really a coordinator that can be directly responsible to Secretary Napolitano and ultimately directly accountable to me.
Click to expand...
The White House - Press Office - Interview of the President by CNN en Espanol 4/15/2009

I'm not sure what it proves or why it matters.
 
I guess that's it then. The "czar" thing? Think of it as a term of endearment for those who hold those "special" duties for the president.

Mods, please close this thread. Since this has gone over board with with personal attacks, innuendos, making fun of wildland fire fighters who risk their lives fighting forest fires and such.
 
kokonut said:
Drat...you beat me by literally seconds...and I was about to hit send.

There you go folks.
Obama uses it.
White House.gov uses it.
CNN uses it.
MSNBC uses it.

It is undeniable.
Click to expand...

ah-ah... :nono:

Q: Will immigration reform be part of this whole process? And also you've named a border czar. Was this consulted with Mexico, and what is he going to do?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the goal of the border czar is to help coordinate all the various agencies that fall under the Department of Homeland Security, and so that we are confident that the border patrols are working effectively with ICE, working effectively with our law enforcement agencies. So he's really a coordinator that can be directly responsible to Secretary Napolitano and ultimately directly accountable to me.

There has been a lot of interaction between Mexican officials and officials on our side of the border. And, you know, Janet Napolitano has already been there. She and John Brennan, who is part of my national security team, are currently there. We're going to continue to coordinate effectively.

Now, immigration reform has to be part of a broader strategy to deal with our border issues, and as I've said repeatedly, I am a strong proponent of comprehensive immigration reform. I've already met with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and committed to working with them to try to shape an agenda that can move through Congress. And this is something that I think is important not just because of the drug cartel issue; it's important because of the human costs of a ongoing flow of illegal immigrants into this country. It's something that we need to solve.
Click to expand...

Obama used the word from reporter's word to clarify the word "czar" as it is commonly misconstrued as someone who reports to no one. it's typical interviewing technique to answer the question with the words from the question.
 
kokonut said:
Any fire fighters who go on the front line risk their lives. I know what it was like because I, too, risked my life to be with them on several different wildfires on the front line and in the interior of those fires. Glad you can joke about my participation in my fire fighting knowing that I could at any time leave behind a wife and kids. That's 100% participation. Mine was an interagency where multiple agencies come together as a Type-2 interagency team. Not Type-1 which are the fulltime dedicated forest fire fighters. You joke about my involvement when I have risked my life on several occasions means that when you ply that joke to me you are joking about others who have risked their life and died in those fires or incidents related to their fire fighting duties. You are a cold, cold, little b**** to even joke like that through me talking about my lacking any "100%". I risked my life daily through the 14 days whenever I go with a crew of 20 hard working men and women. Fourteen days of watching your back, watching the backs of others before you and behind you. We all watch out for each other not knowing if a burned or weakened tree falls, rocks to come down off the hillside, or heaven forbid get entrapped. I and my crew have come close to getting caught in a serious blowup one time in northern Washington a few years back. A sobering moment for all of us when we literally had less than a minute to spare when it finally had major blow-up seen for miles around. When you are in there fighting the elements and dangers risking life and limb, sweat, some blood, injuries, little sleep, physically demandiong and the possibility of entrapment, that's all the 100% you ever need. I did all that and I now have a LOT OF RESPECT to those who do those things whether done as a career or Type 2 teams. I know people who have died fighting wildfires, and those who received injuries. Do not EVER joke about wildland fire fighters in that snide manner of yours through me sayiing my effort or belief wasn't "100%". You crossed the line in poor, poor taste.

YOU DISGUST ME, by mocking and questioning my 100% involvment fighting the fires. Nobody deserves that. Not me or through me to others who have done the very same thing working on Type 2 teams who work just as hard as Type-1 teams.
Click to expand...

kokonut said:
No intellectual dishonesty on my part. If you can find it, then show it. The czar thing doesn't even come close and I proved it that the White House uses it, CNN, other news media and so forth. I have no problem with the word "czar."

It's one thing to make fun of people who risk their lives fighting fires of whom I have a lot of respect. Make fun of my life-risking involvements fighting fire it is also to mock those who risk fire fighting as a career. There is no distinction between the two. There was no reason to bring that part up saying mine was less than 100%. That in of itself unpalatable and inexcusable.
Click to expand...

whoa there, nellie. Calm down. That's not what Jillio said. She said - BELIEVE IT 100%. That is not referring to you not putting 100% in your job.

The firefighter said "Try to tell anyone here on the front lines that science is wrong. You won't find anyone that doesn't believe it."
 
Jiro said:
ah-ah... :nono:

Obama used the word from reporter's word to clarify the word "czar" as it is commonly misconstrued as someone who reports to no one. it's typical interviewing technique to answer the question with the words from the question.
Click to expand...


He used it. Plain and clear. If he doesn't like the words being used he can always use a different terminology to make clear of his dissatisfaction of that word, "czar."

Move along, Jiro. It has become totally ridiculous for people to get totally upset over that word that used constantly in the media and white house.
 
kokonut said:
He used it. Plain and clear. If he doesn't like the words being used he can always use a different terminology to make clear of his dissatisfaction of that word, "czar."

Move along, Jiro. It has become totally ridiculous for people to get totally upset over that word that used constantly in the media and white house.
Click to expand...

upset? I am not upset but you are. You are bothered by him having 32-33 czars. Obama merely clarified the position of his drug czar - quite contrary to your nay-saying.
 
Jiro said:
whoa there, nellie. Calm down. That's not what Jillio said. She said - BELIEVE IT 100%. That is not referring to you not putting 100% in your job.

The firefighter said "Try to tell anyone here on the front lines that science is wrong. You won't find anyone that doesn't believe it."
Click to expand...

Hmmmm.....

You're right!! :ty:

My profound apologies to Jillio!!.

Totally misread it. Though I am passionate about what fire fighters do. I took it as a slam. Totally, totally misread it.

Long day, folks.

This "czar" things is simply not worth getting defensive over, folks. Everybody uses it.
 
btw kokonut - :ty: for your dedicated civil service to protect our forests
 
Jiro said:
upset? I am not upset but you are. You are bothered by him having 32-33 czars. Obama merely clarified the position of his drug czar - quite contrary to your nay-saying.
Click to expand...


No. Read what dark dog said. That is what I am refering to. I question the constitutionality of such appointments.



I'll respond to that since I'm the one who brought it up (although I can't speak for anyone else). It's something I never gave much thought to until the past few weeks. Czars have never been too prominent before. We now have guys like Van Jones whose nuttiness and questionable past would probably make him a difficult sell to the Senate. However, he gets to bypass their scrutiny and get control over $30 billion to direct for green spending. That raises an eyebrow.

To the extent it is unconstitutional, and it appears much of it is, I do not support it from any administration, present, future, or past. Even benign departures from the Constitution can lead to abuses.
Click to expand...
 
kokonut said:
No. Read what dark dog said. That is what I am refering to. I question the constitutionality of such appointments.
Click to expand...

yes. my point is - we have been doing this for a long long long time including Republican Administrations. why be :hyper: now? in your first post - you raised few issues. I'll list couple -

Why does Obama surround himself with historic number of czars? And we know that some of these people haven't been vetted properly (see Van Jones quitting because of his radical views and truther were exposed by bloggers).
Click to expand...
historic number? false. Bush had 36 czars.

but Reba's, darkdog's, and your posts raised good point about people being hastily appointed as czar when they have fishy background. I share similar concern.

As quoted in Eric Cantor's article - "The point here is not that President Obama's reliance on czars is illegal (although it does raise significant, unresolved constitutional issues). Nor is it that these czars are bad people. It's that we have not been able to vet them, and that we have no idea what they're doing."

Yet, czars are often steering the ship and not Obama. This is nothing more than duplicative bureaucracies with overlapping responsibilities by adding more and more layers. This example is the very microcosm of govt waste, inefficiency, expanding power, expanding govt, and greater control over Americans.
Click to expand...
that's why Obama clarified the position of czar in the interview (in a link provided by darkdog)
 
Jiro said:
yes. my point is - we have been doing this for a long long long time including Republican Administrations. why be :hyper: now? in your first post - you raised few issues. I'll list couple -


historic number? false. Bush had 36 czars.

but Reba's, darkdog's, and your posts raised good point about people being hastily appointed as czar when they have fishy background. I share similar concern.

As quoted in Eric Cantor's article - "The point here is not that President Obama's reliance on czars is illegal (although it does raise significant, unresolved constitutional issues). Nor is it that these czars are bad people. It's that we have not been able to vet them, and that we have no idea what they're doing."

that's why Obama clarified the position of czar in the interview (in a link provided by darkdog)
Click to expand...

Both Obama, Bush II, Bush I, Clinton, etc, have had some of their czars confirmed by the Senate. This is what I and Darkdog are beginning to learn about these czars and that any presidential appointees without Senate confirmations could create problems whether it's money or sensitive information, and certain perceived priviledges only answerable to the president (and way to get around Congress) have the potential for abuse. Cantor is correct that we have to address the constitionality question...now.
 
Mod note:

Thread closed per creator request. :locked:

kokonut said:
I guess that's it then. The "czar" thing? Think of it as a term of endearment for those who hold those "special" duties for the president.

Mods, please close this thread. Since this has gone over board with with personal attacks, innuendos, making fun of wildland fire fighters who risk their lives fighting forest fires and such.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top