Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
One of the stranger memes being pushed by right wing pundits these days is the notion that Obama has appointed this vast army of "czars" that are unaccountable to Congress and hold some incredible amount of secretive power. Glenn Beck has been ranting and raving about this for the past few weeks, trying his best to scare the hell out of his followers.
Let's make one thing clear right up front: There are no czars. None. For some weird reason going back all the way to FDR, we have chosen -- entirely randomly -- to call some executive branch officials czars while not calling others in exactly the same positions by that title. But no one holds that actual title. It's an entirely arbitrary label assigned by the media, by political pundits and, now too often, by presidents who want to seem really serious about some particular issue.
Glenn Beck says there are 32 "czars" in the Obama administration, but in fact the vast majority of those "czars" are just executive branch officials directing agencies that have long existed. Of those that are not, the rest are either special envoys or special advisers on various issues, something presidents have used for as long as anyone can remember. Take a look at Glenn Beck's list of those 32 "czars" and see how many of them are just routine heads of agencies.
1. Afghanistan Czar - Richard Holbrooke
Holbrooke is just a special envoy, also called an ambassador-at-large. We have had them for years. The last President Bush had several of them including Andrew Natsios, special envoy to Sudan: Jay Lefkowitz, special envoy for North Korean human rights; Zalmay Khalilzad, special envoy to -- guess where? -- Afghanistan; and James Baker, special envoy on Iraqi debt.
2. AIDS Czar * - Jeffrey Crowley
No, he is not a "czar." He is the Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy, a position that has existed since 1993. Bush had three different people in this position during his administration. Funny, I don't recall Glenn Beck ranting about any of them.
3. Auto Recovery Czar - Ed Montgomery
Whaddaya know, it's actually a new one. Now, one can of course reject to Obama's auto industry policies and argue that the bailout was misguided or unnecessary or even destructive. But if you're going to have such a policy and invest such enormous resources in the recovery of the automobile industry, it's probably not a bad idea to have someone in charge of overseeing the implementation of those policies. Montgomery is not a "czar" with some terrible powers, he is simply a management person in the Department of Labor.
4. Border Czar * - Alan Bersin
No, he is not a "border czar." He is the Assistant Secretary for International Affairs and Special Representative for Border Affairs. He's also a US Attorney. And he served in this position before, from 1995 to 1998. And this position is confirmed by the Senate. Bersin will be coordinating efforts on border security, illegal aliens and drug war issues with Mexico. How....scary.
5. California Water Czar - David J. Hayes
Hayes is just a Deputy Interior Secretary. He was confirmed by the Senate just like every other deputy cabinet secretary.
6. Car Czar - Ron Bloom
Bloom is actually the chairman of the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry. Like Montgomery above, you can object to the president's policies regarding the auto industry, but even if you think it's a bad idea to have loaned tens of billions of dollars to the auto industry, you at least can recognize that it's a good idea to have someone keeping track of how that money is spending and helping to make sure taxpayers will be paid back.
7. Central Region Czar - Dennis Ross
Again, just a special envoy or ambassador at large, this time focusing on the Middle East. And again, presidents have used such envoys for as long as anyone can remember.
8. Climate Czar - Todd Stern
Another special envoy, appointed within the State Department to negotiate with other nations and coordinate responses to the problem of global climate change.
9. Domestic Violence Czar - Lynn Rosenthal
Rosenthal is actually what is called a "special adviser to the president." Presidents often appoint people to be special advisers on particular issues. Bush had a special Advisor for Lower Manhattan Development (Reuben Jeffery), a Special Advisor for Economic Policy for the Insular Areas (Ramona Jones; the insular areas are Guam, American Somoa and the US Virgin Islands); a Special Advisor on Sudan (John Prendergast); Bush political aides Karen Hughes and Karl Rove were also "special advisors."
10. Drug Czar * - Gil Kerlikowske
No, he is the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Just like William Bennett during the first Bush administration. And just like John Walters during the second Bush administration.
11. Economic Czar * - Paul Volcker
Actually, Chairman of the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board. He's an advisor to the president on economic issues.
And on and on and on. You can go through the whole list and make the same answers over and over again. Now, one can certainly criticize a particular appointee to one of these positions as being a bad choice . One can certainly wonder whether this or that position is really necessary or whether it's redundant with another position (why have both an advisor on economic recovery and a Council of Economic Advisors?), and so forth.
But to go off on a weeklong rant about these dangerous, unaccountable, secretive executive branch "czars" and how scary and powerful they are is just a bunch of hooey. Just more empty fear-mongering.
Politics
Comments
Not to mention the cognitive dissonance that "Czars" are - etymologically speaking - monarchist, not socialist (nor Nazi-fascist).
There is also the other cognitive dissonance that one of the most powerful "Czars" - the Drug Czar - was installed by Republican president Nixon and given expanded powers by Republican president Reagan. (Of course, the position wasn't called "drug czar" by Nixon, and by a strange twist of fate, the term "czar" was coined - according to the Oracle of Wikipedia - Sen. Joe Biden in 1982.)
Posted by: Umlud | September 1, 2009 9:16 AM
... as to my first point, I don't think it cognitively works as the "missing 'C'" in Beck's mis-spelled "Oligarhy".
Of course, there's no surprise there.
Posted by: Umlud | September 1, 2009 9:17 AM
We all mock him, but maybe he's fallen off the wagon and started drinking and using again?
Posted by: History Punk | September 1, 2009 9:24 AM
This guy has drank WAAAAAAAAY too much Big O Kool-aid. Maybe he should revisit his past articles on the Czars of pres 43.
Little bit of flip floppin going on, but hey its easier to call someone names and make accusations rather than facing facts isn't it?
Posted by: John Q Public | September 1, 2009 9:33 AM
ANY voice that is raised against the rascist socialist/fascist Obama is a good voice. Keep it up Mr. Beck, the silent majority is not going to be silent any more.
NOBAMA!
Posted by: rob | September 1, 2009 9:44 AM
"This guy has drank WAAAAAAAAY too much Big O Kool-aid. Maybe he should revisit his past articles on the Czars of pres 43.
Little bit of flip floppin going on, but hey its easier to call someone names and make accusations rather than facing facts isn't it?"
Like it's easier to call someone a racist even though the facts show that he isn't? (His mother is White!!!! Do you really think he hates white people?????)
Posted by: zack | September 1, 2009 9:45 AM
"Little bit of flip floppin going on, but hey its easier to call someone names and make accusations rather than facing facts isn't it?"
Indeed it is easier, why you have little trouble with the former.
Posted by: ThatPirateguy | September 1, 2009 9:47 AM
WTF, Ed. Don't you understand the problem here? This arch-radical-extremist Obama is appointing people to positions and giving them authority over us. Whether he calls them 'czars' or 'ministers' (as in of Truth, Love, Plenty, etc) shouldn't matter. The fact is that he's taking our freedoms away by exploiting his executive power to delegate his authority!!!
Posted by: mad the swine | September 1, 2009 9:58 AM
Mad at the Swine-
You are only faulting Obama for this which shows your bias. Every president has appointed special advisers, envoys, etc. Get pissed that any of them have done that, and I'll stand with you.
Posted by: Zack | September 1, 2009 10:01 AM
Well, you know who also had Czars? Hitler! And he also called them something else to keep people from noticing! And Stalin! Only they spelled it with a T!
It's Revelations, people!
Nothing has ever, ever, ever been this evil ever before!!!
Posted by: Longstreet63 | September 1, 2009 10:14 AM
So Rob, why exactly do you hate Obama? And how does that translate into Beck appearing less insane? I guess you might not be a bigoted asshole but that really shouldn't affect a normal person's reasoning power...
Posted by: MikeMa | September 1, 2009 10:15 AM
Zack, I'm pretty sure mad the swine's post was sarcasm. (I hope...)
Oh, how I wish the loud crackpot minority really was silent. The one small part of rob's post that was correct is that the majority is silent. But that's because the majority of people aren't fucking loons like rob.
Posted by: FastLane | September 1, 2009 10:18 AM
Longstreet63-
Actually... Stalin Overthrew the Tsar.
Posted by: zack | September 1, 2009 10:19 AM
Ummm... Lonstreet63, the Soviet Union killed the Tzars. Don't you recall that little thing called the Russian Revolution (otherwise known as the Bolshevik Revolution - although some would argue that they were two overlapping things)?
And what, exactly, did Hitler call his Czars?
Posted by: Umlud | September 1, 2009 10:21 AM
Fastlane-
I weep for the future. I have a kid on the way. He'll be here by Thanksgiving. He is in for some tough times if these crazies get anymore their way then they have now which is scary as it is.
Posted by: zack | September 1, 2009 10:21 AM
Zack - I don't think that Stalin killed the Tsars. That was (if memory serves) the Bolsheviks (technically under Lenin). Stalin came on the scene in the 1920s.
Posted by: Umlud | September 1, 2009 10:25 AM
Umlud-
Woops... that's what typing fast does. Thank you for picking up on that.
Posted by: Zack | September 1, 2009 10:27 AM
Zack @15, I think you are right. Of course, this could also be the problem of not actually supporting the teaching of history and social studies in school... Yes, science and mathematics is important, but a myopia about why and what happened in history and knowledge about how people live in this world are just as important in learning how to be a citizen of the world.
(Of course, learning that you should do some investigation of things you don't know a lot about will help, too.)
Posted by: Umlud | September 1, 2009 10:28 AM
Glenn Beck - Crackpot Czar! For proof, see rob@5.
Posted by: Pineyman | September 1, 2009 10:31 AM
Reading Longstreet63's sarcastic comments in the "McCain admits Bush torture violated treaties" makes me think he was also writing sarcastically here; i.e., it's a Poe.
Posted by: Umlud | September 1, 2009 10:31 AM
The czars, tzars, csars or whatever were kings in reality. Equating them in any way with communism or socialism shows, yet again what fools beck and his ilk think we are.
And I wish they could agree on a spelling because whenever I do a crossword puzzle I always pick the wrong one.
Posted by: MikeMa | September 1, 2009 10:34 AM
Found this quote here: "The [American] people have been soft too long. Every Communist official must be shot. All Communist deputies must be hanged this very night. All friends of the Communists must be locked up. And that goes for the Social Democrats... as well!"
Who said this? Who does this sound like to you?
Posted by: Zack | September 1, 2009 10:41 AM
Hoover? McCarthy? Reagan? (Nah, Reagan was such a NICE guy...)
Posted by: MikeMa | September 1, 2009 10:46 AM
Actually... if you take the word American and change it to German, then you get the actual quote from Hitler. And so Obama who is a Commie, like Beck says, is also somehow a lot like Hitler, like beck also says, who killed communists and social democrats.
And 3 million people listen and believe him. And they own guns!
Posted by: Zack | September 1, 2009 10:51 AM
Nice work Ed. Would be nice of you to complete the list, then I have a good reference to pull from when confronted by the apoplectic email spammers. Also, any sense as to the number of these "Czars" as compared to previous administrations?
J
Posted by: Copernic | September 1, 2009 10:58 AM
Umlaud@14: I see you've fallen for Communist propaganda, fellow traveller. They even use made up words like 'Bolshevik'. It's straight out of the Scientology playbook, just like the rest of Communism.
And I believe the German translation of Czar is 'Gauleiter'. Or Possibly 'Minister of the Interior'. My German's a bit rusty. They also had 'Kaisers', which sounds a lot like it, even though they claimed it was named after an American automobile. This is where we get the term 'Car czar'.
@20, Umlud: I prefer to think of it as a Godwin.
@24 Zack: I'm thinking somewhere there was Jewish conspiracy involved. Everybody thought so. I asked a jewish co-worker about this and he said "Yeah, right." So it MUST be true!!
Posted by: Longstreet63 | September 1, 2009 11:05 AM
Pineyman (#19) - Ted Haggard must be the Crack-pipe Czar then! :) DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 1, 2009 11:05 AM
Longstreet63-
Got it
Posted by: zack | September 1, 2009 11:13 AM
Great post, but how could you miss the obvious title -- that I used in an e-mail recommending the post. You should have called it
Who's Czar-y Now?
Of course, for the rob's and other Beckoids who like weird coincidences, the song was a hit for Connie FRANCIS. But 'Frances' was the name of the talking Mule in the movies, and this list was given by a talking jackass.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | September 1, 2009 11:23 AM
Don't forget that Don McLean classic:
"Czary czary night". - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 1, 2009 11:29 AM
DJ, I thought it was "Tsary, tsary night" -- the dyslexic version of "Starry, starry night."
Posted by: Umlud | September 1, 2009 11:44 AM
Okay guys, the poor guy had 2 hits and here you are picking on one of them.
Posted by: MikeMa | September 1, 2009 11:50 AM
MikeMa, I'm sure that Beck could find an acronym for "Amerian Pie" if he really tried. ;)
Posted by: Umlud | September 1, 2009 11:55 AM
Yeah... Under Obama, American Die.
Posted by: Zack | September 1, 2009 12:07 PM
Let's not forget that great 80's band "The Czars" and their eye-popping album "Candy-O(bama)".
Posted by: xebecs | September 1, 2009 12:12 PM
How about the stimulus plan: TSARP. It makes so much sense now!!!
Posted by: zack | September 1, 2009 12:16 PM
I believe the origin of the word Czar/Tsar is the same as the origin of the word Kaiser: Ceasar!
Just sayin'
M duran
Posted by: Mark Duran | September 1, 2009 12:17 PM
Yes, xebecs, and Beck really has an "O-case." Ecch!
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | September 1, 2009 12:17 PM
Prup @38:
You Give Me Just What I Needed.
Posted by: xebecs | September 1, 2009 12:26 PM
Remember the band Czar-t? they had such hits like Czary on you and Barrac-ubama, not to mention Magic Man which is about how the Liberals view Obama.
Posted by: zack | September 1, 2009 12:31 PM
zack @40:
Fail.
Every liberal I know is beginning to think of Obama as Disappointing Man. Time for you to stop watching Fox.
Posted by: xebecs | September 1, 2009 12:35 PM
Well, xebecs, perhaps my sarcasm was lost. I voted for Nader. I want a single-payer health care system about as soon as is humanly possible. The fox news I watch is to get a peek behind the veil of the coming revolution to see what kind of nuts I am about to confront. The programs would be hilarious if they didn't have such strong backing of angry gun owners.
Posted by: zack | September 1, 2009 12:43 PM
zack @42:
Okay, I was wrong to assume you were coming in from Fox's angle, but I still don't see the sarcasm. Are you or are you not implying that Liberals still see Obama as the Magic Man?
If yes, it's not sarcasm. If no, it is a parody of the right-wings beliefs about liberals, which is also not sarcasm.
Posted by: xebecs | September 1, 2009 12:46 PM
It is a parody of right-wing beliefs about liberals. However, it classifies as sarcasm in the same way Stephen Colbert's character is sarcastic.
Posted by: zack | September 1, 2009 12:50 PM
zack: Stephen Colbert's work is parodic, not sarcastic, so you are still missing the boat. But that's not particularly important now that we understand each other. For me, pedantry is only a hobby. I will happily our ignore linguistic disagreement since we appear to be on the same ideological side.
Posted by: xebecs | September 1, 2009 1:06 PM
Good call. If we were to let semantics get in the way of being on the same side, we'd be a lot like the Dems and Repubs.
Posted by: zack | September 1, 2009 1:13 PM
How can any one object to Richard Holbrooke? Maybe I'm missing something, but wasn't he an integral part in making peace in Bosnia? That's no small accomplishment.
Plus he does a great One Man Show impersonating Mark Twain... oh wait... that was Hal.
Posted by: bybelknap, FCD | September 1, 2009 1:13 PM
by the by, xebecs. What scares me most about that ridiculous post I made is that as unbelievably crazy as it sounded, you believed I was for real because there are so many people who would have said exactly that. What is with the Hillbillification of this country?
Posted by: Zack | September 1, 2009 1:26 PM
Ed -> "Now, one can certainly criticize a particular appointee to one of these positions as being a bad choice . One can certainly wonder whether this or that position is really necessary or whether it's redundant with another position (why have both an advisor on economic recovery and a Council of Economic Advisors?), and so forth."
Why would anyone do that? It's all about a right-left food fight, not how our nation is being run. Beck is the latest useful idiot of the Left and Right. He will retire enormously wealthy and we don't need to worry about him.
Posted by: Rich | September 1, 2009 1:49 PM
Czars, people bird dogging agencies, policy direction coordinators... What ever you want to call them the title czar is not what scares people. What does cause concern is the people he has appointed who will help change, modify or make policy. Call them King, Mike, Dad, Genius, Ruler of the known Universe.... their politics is what is being brought into question. *Communism/Markist has never worked and many of these people being appointed hold the belief that they do work and are ready to try. Think about, the Guy that wants to get a hypoallergenic dog is the president of the USA and appointing these people.
Jeff Grajek
* Cube, not working, Russia not so good, China maybe? China is no longer a communist country.
Posted by: Jeff Grajek | September 1, 2009 1:55 PM
Jeff Grajek
You sound a bit insane but maybe I am misreading what you wrote. Are you implying that many (all?) of Obama's advisors are Marxists? That is quite a stretch with no proof. care to elaborate with facts?
By the way, the water dog is less likely to cause an allergic reactions because of the reduced shedding and dander I believe, not a communist plot.
Posted by: MikeMa | September 1, 2009 2:02 PM
Yeah. My aunt has them because she is otherwise completely allergic to dogs. She bread them too. Great dogs. Very playful. Only problem is that unlike many other dogs I know, they love water and get good and muddy only to come running up to you later and jump on you muddying up your nice clean clothes.
Wait!!!! I get it now!!!! Mud!!! Clean Clothes!!! The president's dog is going to turn all his advisers shirts BROWN!!!!!!!
Posted by: zack | September 1, 2009 2:11 PM
Grajek @50:
Certainly a pure communism has never succeed for long on a large scale. You could as easily say the same of a pure capitalism. Most of the world's governments are various combinations of left and right leaning ideas and practices. More mportantly what is your evidence that Obama's advisers are actually Marxist or even soicalist? Most of the radical left would fervently disagree with this assumption. The "Obama is a commie!" meme has been thoroughly and repeatedltly discredited on this blog and elsewhere. Those who continue to push this meme are, in my opnion, lacking honest insight into political reality.
Mark Duran
Posted by: Mark Duran | September 1, 2009 2:12 PM
*Bred.
spare me the corrections
Posted by: zack | September 1, 2009 2:13 PM
@MikeMa: But Portugal is a socialist country1!!!1! Teh fact taht there is no major proof only prooves that it is a major plot that we will give concessions to communists!1!111
What do you think about that unveiling, tovarisch?
[/snark]
Posted by: mercurianferret | September 1, 2009 2:14 PM
Interestingly, Obama actually demoted the office of "Drug Czar" by removing the cachet of Cabinet level official from the head of ONDCP.
Perhaps we need some legislation to prevent any non-Cabinet appointment from being called a
Czar of anything....
/eyeroll
Posted by: DrugMonkey | September 1, 2009 2:23 PM
Jeff Grajeck, #50: Communism/Markist has never worked and many of these people being appointed hold the belief that they do work and are ready to try.
Who cares what they try? If they try to do anything unconstitutional or against the will of the majority, then the courts, the Congress, and the people will stop them.
Oh, wait. You guys just spent the last 8 years putting blocks to judicial and Congressional oversight and making the will of the people irrelevant. I bet you guys are feeling pretty stupid now, eh?
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 1, 2009 2:42 PM
Jeff Grajek wrote:
Bullshit. I don't object to criticizing any particular nominee for any particular position. Van Jones, who seems to be the latest target for Beck's ire, may be a terrible person and a terrible pick for the specific job he's been hired for (I don't know enough about him to judge that and I'm certainly not going to accept Beck's ravings as evidence). But Beck and others are not merely going after specific people, they are claiming that Obama has nominated 32 (or 42, or 47 - the number changes depending on which wingnut is doing the ranting, precisely because there are in fact no czars at all so it is entirely arbitrary who gets that label) people who have "vast power" and are "unaccountable to Congress." Beck isn't challenging the qualifications of Dennis Ross or Richard Holbrooke, he's just putting them on a list of those scary "czars" when, in fact, they are simply special envoys to specific war-torn areas, of the same kind that presidents have long had, including Republican presidents.
The majority of people on those various lists of czars are nothing more than the heads of agencies that have long existed in the executive branch. The rest are either special envoys or special advisers, something all presidents have.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 1, 2009 2:51 PM
Isn't it amazing how by Beck saying that the opposition uses propaganda techniques and that people who believe them are sheep is turning the people who believe him into sheep?
Does it strike anyone from the Glenn Beck camp as ironic, if not hypocritical? This is the stuff of Goebbels through and through. If anyone here believes that the Liberals are wearing brown shirts, I suggest you take a good long look in the mirror and check the color of your own shirt, because you are going to find yourself following Beck and his cohorts into a real Naziesque dictatorship and you'll wake up one day 7 years later realizing that the Beck-type you followed has exterminated 6 million people who disagreed with him.
Posted by: zack | September 1, 2009 3:06 PM
The people objecting to Obama's czars have no memory of who these 'czars' are and what their policy objectives are in spite of Beck's so-called reportage. The sheeple are merely buying into additional meme that helps them reinforce their preconceived visceral hatred of President Obama - the black liberal (whose actually proving to be a centrist coming out of a liberal background).
I've had this conservation with three different Fox News watchers (all social conservative retirees) in the past couple of weeks. When I asked them specifics regarding their objectives to these so-called czars or Obama's political appointees in general, their only response was the ignorance and idiocy we see displayed by Mr. Gragek @ 50, there was no coherency backing up their positions.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 1, 2009 5:21 PM
Damn that Obama and his Marxist-Leninist tsars!
Posted by: dguy | September 1, 2009 6:17 PM
ALL extremists MUST be executed!
Posted by: kehrsam | September 1, 2009 6:42 PM
rob "ANY voice that is raised against the rascist socialist/fascist Obama is a good voice." (emphasis mine)
He's a rascal?
"Keep it up Mr. Beck, the silent majority is not going to be silent any more."
January 20, 2001 – January 20, 2009: "We have to trust and obey and follow and not question the President. As Americans, anything that could possibly lead to his failure weakens all of America. People that question the President are all traitors that hate America!"
January 21+: "Panic! Woe! We mustn't trust or obey or follow or listen to the President! As Americans, anything that could lead to his success weakens all of America. People that don't interrupt townhall meetings are all traitors that hate America!""
Umlud "And what, exactly, did Hitler call his Czars?"
He called them "Darwins". True story.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | September 1, 2009 7:55 PM
Funny. I just posted a comment under the "Glenn Beck can't spell" post about the misuse of the word "czar" with respect to the Obama administration. Then I find that Ed had written this separate post on exactly that topic -- as I did back in January:
The Four-Letter Word
Posted by: Zeno | September 1, 2009 8:37 PM
It is not the "czar" part that is scary, it is the fact that the people that Obama has surrounding him are communists, terorists and extreme radicals. Van Jones, Holdren and Sunstein to name a few. The thoughts of these radicals are written in their own words. I don't need Glenn Beck to find all of my info on them. Holdren wants abortion to be legal up to age 2. Van Jones is a self professed communist. And Sunstein wants to give rights to animals. And you stand by these idiots. Your just as stupid as they are!
Posted by: anon | September 1, 2009 9:31 PM
Jeff Grajek:
You're full of crap. Shut your pie-hole, you friggin' moron (see Michael Heath for details).
Ed:
Who is the Czar Tsar?
Posted by: democommie | September 1, 2009 9:47 PM
@Zack, You sir need to remove your head from your own anal orifice! Mr. Beck believes in The Constitution and his his "agenda" is the preservation thereof! This administration's socialist/marxist agenda is about the reduction of individual's rights, the increase of power of the executive branch of government, and the redistribution of wealth. He stated during his campaign to judge him by the appointees he surrounds himself with. Well by apointing communists, maxists, and anarchists as his advisors his objectives are crystal clear. Unless of course you have your head in a place that it really doesn't belong.
Posted by: Berbel73 | September 1, 2009 10:05 PM
"Holdren wants abortion to be legal up to age 2."
This makes no sense. An abortion, by the very definition of the term, can't take place later than the nine month of pregnancy, not "up to age 2."
"Van Jones is a self professed communist."
All right, I'll give you this one.
"And Sunstein wants to give rights to animals."
Animals having rights? The horror!
Posted by: daniel rotter | September 1, 2009 10:21 PM
And where was/were the terrorist(s) on your list of 3 people, anon ("communists, terrorists, and extreme radicals").
Posted by: daniel rotter | September 1, 2009 10:34 PM
@ 67
Which of Obama's appointees are "anarchists" ? And could you specify which policies exactly you think are "communist" and "infringing individual rights"? Cause I'm gonna be honest with you, I'm not seeing it.
Posted by: Sean Micheal | September 1, 2009 11:11 PM
Berbel73 - Please provide citations of political appointees in President Obama's Admnistration validating he appointed Communists, Marxists, distinguishing one from the other, along with Anarchists. Credible citations.
In addition, President Obama has appointed (Oh the horror!), Republicans, Reagan and/or Bush political officials as well. President Obama just renominated Ben Bernacke to remain Chairman of the Fed. He kept Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense. He named Utah Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman, Jr. to be U.S. Ambassador to China. Gen Petraeus remains in charge of Central Command (the nemisis of some on the left that nicknamed him Betrayeus), we have the biggest hardliner yet running military operations in Afghanistan in Gen. McChrystal. Paul Volcker, who President Reagan renominated as Chairman of the Fed is Obama's Chairman of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board. That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure I could find more.
Given the fact this President, like many before him, including the previous president, has staffed his Administration with people whose political affiliations are outside his own party, please also provide evidence that the President is incapable of running his own ship and providing his own vision and that of his party but instead has forfeited his the power of his office to all these Republicans, Anarchists, Marxists, or Communists running rife through his Administration.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 1, 2009 11:33 PM
Berbel73 "This administration's socialist/marxist agenda is about the reduction of individual's rights, the increase of power of the executive branch of government, and the redistribution of wealth."
Except for the pinko smear, I could've sworn you were talking about the previous administration.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | September 1, 2009 11:35 PM
That's rich, excusing Obama of having a "socialist/marxist" agenda and yet accusing him of appointing "anarchists." Anarchy is about as far from socialism and marxism as one can get. A libertarian is much closer to an anarchist than a marxist and a socialist is (and by "much," I mean about 1000 football fields closer).
Posted by: daniel rotter | September 1, 2009 11:41 PM
If President Obama is a 'secret Muslim', wouldn't Paul Volcker head the American Recovery Advisory Board? :) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 1, 2009 11:51 PM
DJ @ 74 - I'd trademark that if I were you, I expect to see it become part of Glen Beck's schtick soon, as soon as one of his producer's reads it him and then explains it, slowly.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 1, 2009 11:57 PM
"American Recovery Advisory Board™" :)
Perhaps "Economic Recovery Executive Board (US)" would be also appropriate. - DJ
_______________
PS: Don't tell the President about the European Research Avisory Board.
Posted by: DingoJack | September 2, 2009 12:18 AM
Damn! European Research Advisory Board.
Pays to preview. :( - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 2, 2009 12:27 AM
How do you know they're Czars? They might be Tsars. I don't know which is worse.
Posted by: Ian | September 2, 2009 7:26 AM
If there is a major legitimate criticism to make of Obama's administration appointments, it's the fact that he appointed Leon Panetta as Director of CIA. While Panetta's an experienced politician and, as far as I can tell, a decent enough guy, he's got no intelligence experience whatsoever and is completely unqualified for running the world's biggest foreign intelligence agency. And considering the vital importance of the position to America's national security, appointing a politician instead of an intelligence professional is, IMO, grossly irresponsible. (It's rather reminiscent of Marcus Cabot from the Tom Clancy novel Sum of all Fears.)
Posted by: Walton | September 2, 2009 8:50 AM
Oh hell, there are valid criticisms to be made of many of Obama's appointments, starting with Joe Biden (which I did criticize, the day after he was picked). I agree that Panetta was a bad pick for the CIA. I didn't like the Sotomayor pick either, or John Brennan. The point of this post is not that there isn't legitimate criticism of particular nominees, it is only that this obsession over the meaningless and non-existent title of "czar" is absurd.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 2, 2009 9:46 AM
Yep, I agree. As I said on another thread, I cannot understand why anyone pays attention to Glenn Beck, since I've never heard anything from him that was even vaguely coherent, let alone perceptive. He just rants and blithers at the camera. The only difference between him and any raving street-corner conspiracy theorist is that Beck (a) gets paid a lot more and (b) looks better in a suit.
While all pundits (left and right) sometimes talk absolute cringe-inducing bullshit, most of them are at least able to piece together a coherent argument that makes some kind of sense and stands up to five minutes' investigation. Beck, by contrast, seems to think that such notions as "argument", "evidence" and "grammar" are for the liberal elite, and that real red-blooded God-fearing Americans don't need to bother with actually thinking and checking their facts.
Posted by: Walton | September 2, 2009 10:40 AM
Walton stated:
I'd argue that's a whopper of a fallacy of balance of argument. Sure you can find some on the non-moderate Left talking 'cringe-inducing bullshit', but the number doing so on the non-moderate Right and the volume of their production far exceeds that of the Left. So much so that non-conservatives are beginning to view this attribute as defining pundits on the Right.
I've been pretty much reduced to reading Bruce Bartlett and some of the writers at the American Conservative, and Bartlett has become persona non grata within the Republican party. I thought David Frum might join this select group, but he also continues to rely on historical revisionism to make his economic case.
Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and George Will have becoming defining spokespeople for the Right.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 2, 2009 10:59 AM
@Michael Heath #71 I will do no such thing, the information is out there go find it for yourself. I know You won't however because you have already made up your mind on what to believe in reguardless of the facts. @modusoperandi #72 The previous administration was guilty of introducing one of the worst bills ever in the Patriot Act, but this administration's ambitions of social justice through the redistribution of wealth are without a doubt.
Posted by: Berbel73 | September 2, 2009 1:53 PM
@MH #82 You sir are serioulsy Delusional. Can you just imagine the leftists outrage if a Republican administration attempted to recruit the National Endowment for the Arts to produce proganda for their causes? The leftists would be calling for congressional hearings faster than you can say, or chant, health care now!
Posted by: Berbel73 | September 2, 2009 2:02 PM
I will do no such thing, the information is out there go find it for yourself. I know You won't however because you have already made up your mind on what to believe in reguardless of the facts.
Yeah, right -- MH asked you to provide information to support YOUR OWN argument, and you failed to do so; and now you're blaming him for your failure to back up your own arguments (as if such incoherent ravings can be called "arguments"). This is a grownup blog, boy, and you really shouldn't be here until you've grown up. The Commies are no longer a threat (in fact, they're the capitalists' best source of cheap labor), Jack Bauer is not a real US agent, "24" is not a documentary, and the London Underground is not a political movement.
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 2, 2009 2:38 PM
Mad the Swine: Hahaha; Appointing people to fill administrative positions and delegating authority is a violation of the constitution? The Pres is the head of the armed forces, do you honestly think that means he has to personally lead every army and navy expedition this country launches? Do you honestly expect us to buy that you think every president who has delegated the authority to organize and operate the military to the Pentagon was a criminal?
You are arguing that the president has no right to appoint diplomatic and administrative personnel; that this is somehow an undemocratic act of tyranny, of placing unelected officials above the citizen. You know you don't believe something so absurd. If you really thought that, you'd think that the pres had no right to send diplomats over seas; that it was his duty to personally handle every single negotiation the U.S. involved itself in. If you really believed that, you'd be demanding that Obama evaluate every student loan request, every visa application, process every passport presented to customs, himself. You are arguing that its unconstitutional for the Executive branch to hire and administer the federal bureaucracy, which is precisely what the Constitution mandates the Executive to do. You are simply being absurd, and in the process proving every charge of partisan insanity being leveled against you.
Posted by: Julian | September 2, 2009 2:45 PM
@raging bee #85 Yes sir this is a really grown up blog where people come on and name call and bash anyone who doesn't believe in their leftist agenda. When faced with the facts the left has always resorted to this pathetic tactic, well it's not going to work any more. You want names ok how about Jeff Jones, Mark Lloyd, Van Jones, and Cass Sunstein just to name a few. Educate yourself on what their political and ideological beliefs are and perhaps you will finally see the light... I won't hold my breath thou.
Posted by: Berbel73 | September 2, 2009 4:42 PM
Berbel73 @84 responding my questioning his claims at :
This is Berbel's response to my requesting he validate his assertions @ 67 that the Obama Admnistration's appointees include Communists, Marxists, and Anarchists. While he ignores all Republicans, Bush, and Reagan appointees populating Obama's administration and also failing to provide evidence that Obama's policies and actions are anything but consistent with the Democratic party rather than Anarchy, Communism, or Marxism, or even conservatism for that matter given President Obama's Repbublican, Bush, and Reagan appointees like Bernacke, Volcker, Gates, and Huntsman.
As Raging Bee stated @ 85, this is a grown-up blog boy. If you want to make an argument on an assertion that isn't accepted, it's up to you to validate such an assertion. Obviously I challenged you on it because I believe your assertion is a flat-out lie, that are no such members. How I could validate your assertions when in fact they're a delusional fantasy?
Since you impotently failed to back-up your assertion while slandering both the President and the Office of the Presidency, with zero empirical evidence, I'm calling you out. You're a delusional idiot lacking any character. If you have a beef with the President of the United States, make well-framed, honest, validated, and cogent arguments - otherwise you come across as another delusional, ill-informed, idiotic coward on the Internet.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 2, 2009 4:44 PM
Berbel @87 - read slowly, this is a scienceblogs.com forum.
Merely naming people and telling others to prove they're Communists, Marxists, and Anarchists is both an impotent response and intellectually dishonest. You need to provide evidence they are members of the either Communist, Marxist, or Anarchist parties (you did in fact refer to people in Obama's administration as members of these parties in your post @ 67). I expect you to disguish which person comes from which party as well given that was how you structured your comment at 67.
So please Berbel - provide evidence there are people from these parties in the Obama Administration. Given there are none, if any even exist, with anywhere near the power of the Republican/Bush/Reagan appointees I named in Obama's Administration; you'll also need to provide evidence they're overwhelming these people, the Democrats in the Administration and a Democratic President with their policy objectives.
Juvenile, rhetorical fallacies will do not do you any good here. Honest, validated, well-framed arguments will suffice. Personally I think you have neither the knowledge, intelligence, or sanity to make such arguments. Which is why we continue to see you depend exclusively on rhetorical fallacies to make your so-called arguments.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 2, 2009 5:12 PM
When faced with the facts the left has always resorted to this pathetic tactic...
What facts?! We keep asking you to provide facts to back up your asinine assertions, and you never provide any. The only fact us "leftists" are faced with here is your total, obvious cluelessness.
(Oh, and if you guys are so much more anti-Communist than we are, what have you done to strengthen America against the growing influence of the biggest and most repressive Communist regime currently in existence?)
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 2, 2009 5:33 PM
That's good more insults how very grown up. I'm not here to make any argument at all. These people that President Obama has chosen as his "special advisors" reveal their objectives and agendas with their own words and actions. Through their own printed literature and speeches they express these ideals and what their ultimate intent truely is. For you to expect me to come here and try to educate you on these matters rather than to find the truth for yourselves shows your own lack of maturity. Maybe if you weren't so busy belittling people you could find the time to do your own research, but what fun would that be?
Posted by: Berbel73 | September 2, 2009 6:24 PM
Berbel73, #91: These people that President Obama has chosen as his "special advisors" reveal their objectives and agendas with their own words and actions.
And you seem to have no idea what words were spoken or actions taken by Obama's appointees and advisors. Maybe you should correct that before shooting off another comment and exposing how terribly ignorant you are in the whole matter.
Just a suggestion.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 2, 2009 6:32 PM
Berbel73 - It's like me claiming that I'm God and when asked for evidence by the commentors in this thread demanding I validate my claim; I instead respond by claiming, "that's your job to prove I'm not God".
This example is equally absurd, delusional, and idiotic to both your claims and your response to our request you validate those claims. So of course we're going to ridicule you. You shown evidence only of being a liar, coward, delusional, and a slanderer of President Obama and his Administration.
It's not up to rational people to validate ridiculous claims, that's the nut's job. Good luck with that.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 2, 2009 8:13 PM
Everything else has already been covered (if they "reveal their objectives and agendas with their own words and actions", you might try actually giving some examples of words and actions you find objectionable. Another friendly suggestion), but I gotta ask about this:
''Can you just imagine the leftists outrage if a Republican administration attempted to recruit the National Endowment for the Arts to produce proganda for their cause?''
What on Earth is that in reference to? Because I seriously have no idea what he's on about here.
Posted by: Sean Micheal | September 2, 2009 8:14 PM
I think Berbel73, in the words of Lewis Black, "is stone cold fuck nuts"
Posted by: c-serpent | September 2, 2009 8:40 PM
Blitheringidiot73:
I know that other folks here have attempted, with a lot of effort, to edumicte you to something like the "Romper Room" level of cognition. I'm afraid that effort died aborning.
I know what you really want to hear, so you can go off and sulk--and then jerk off to your Michelle Malkin pornos (Michelled characterizes them as being some sort of "journalism")--is just this. STFU, you pathetic loser.
Posted by: demcommie | September 2, 2009 9:50 PM
Lap dog media pretty much says it all. Why go rabid in an effort to cover up the mess Obama is making?
Posted by: steve | September 2, 2009 11:13 PM
Steve - So you want the media to "go rabid at the mess that Obama's making"?
I'd suggest turn over to Fox 'news'. Going rabid over a non-story, on FOX it's called 'business as usual'. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 2, 2009 11:28 PM
More name calling its wonderful just how open minded all you leftys are! It's truely amazing how blinded you are by your own ideology that you refuse to see the truth when it's right there in front of you. Our president has asked us to judge him based on the appointees that he surrounds hiimself with. Well lets see you have Van Jones who is a self avowed communist and anticapitalist advising the president, Cass Sunstein who believes that the First Amendment to The Constitution should be restricted, and Mark Lloyd who wants to silence everyone in the media who disagrees with the administrations policies! You have Jeff Jones a TERRORIST who is now associated with the Apollo Alliance which helped to shape the economic stimulus package! And lets not forget John Holdren and his mandatory sterilization beliefs. All I've asked anyone on this board to do is to open their eyes and see for yourselves what these "special advisors" are proposing, and what their beliefs are. But rather than being objective and looking at the information that is out there you choose to resort to name calling. If you don't have a problem with any of what these radicals are proposing that's fine. I DO and I'm not alone and come 2010 and 2012 we "nutjobs", i.e. most Americans by your standards, are going to vote these radicals out of office. That's all I'm going to say so let the bashing resume.
Posted by: Berbel73 | September 3, 2009 11:37 AM
Berbel73 - you really haven't said much of anything. We're still waiting for citations validating your absurd claims. So right now it appears we have a nut job waving his hands in the air. In addition, you've still failed to respond on this pattern is refuted by the far more powerful positions headed by Republicans and/or Bush and Reagan appointees.
I do find your aggressive attempts to avoid the validated facts presented to you that rebut your points entertaining. It's always fun to observe a delusional person defend themselves from facts that would challenge those delusions.
I wouldn't define us as 'lefties', that actually puts you in the hole since it defines those living in the world of reality as lefties and those living a land of delusion those on the right. Is that really what you want? If so, keep up your pattern of rhetorical fallacies, avoidance, and obfuscation and you will help confirm your own observation.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 3, 2009 12:54 PM
I have pictures I can show any interested parties that prove that the bacteria I work with are more capable of organized and rational behavior than Berbel73.
Posted by: JohnV | September 3, 2009 4:14 PM
Berbel73, #99: All I've asked anyone on this board to do is to open their eyes and see for yourselves what these "special advisors" are proposing, and what their beliefs are.
Okay, Berbel, I will have to say that you are doing better. You put the names of these peoples as subjects of their own sentences, and for a couple I can almost figure out what it is that you don't like. The others are still rather vague, though.
At any rate, what, exactly, are these "special advisors" proposing? If you can describe an actual policy suggestion or proposed bill or regulation that has you so wound up, that will go a long way to establishing that you have concerns that can be taken seriously.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 3, 2009 4:49 PM
Chiroptra @ 102 - while I agree with your challenge to Berbel73; he also called these people Communists, Marxists, and Anarchists. Therefore, I don't think we should let him off the hook in terms of his validating his claims regarding their party affiliation.
He's also claimed because these Commies/Marxists/Anarchists (a contradiction in terms I realize) are part of the Administration that those parties' agenda is the Obama Administration's, in spite of the fact that far more powerful positions are populated with Democrats, Republicans, and Bush & Reagan appointees. So I think he also needs to make a coherent argument on why these particular folks have been able to take over the Administration.
Of course I don't expect him to validate any of his claims, because he can't. All he has are rants he learned as a devout sheeple to the deluded idiotic Mr. Beck. Coherent arguments based on validated evidence is not taught in the introductory or advanced classes prior to admittance to the Loonisphere.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 3, 2009 7:56 PM
As an educator who teaches government and political science, people like Berbel73 truly make me want to weep.
Posted by: dogmeatib | September 3, 2009 8:05 PM
Well, a quick search of "John Holdren Sterilization" gets hits at both Fox News and Alex Jones' palace of paranoia and lunacy Prison Planet (as well as the Discovery Institutes web site), so I guess we can see where berberl is coming from. Let me guess, Berbel, you want to see the real birth certificate too? Is Obama a Kenyan or a Reptoid?
Posted by: Badger3k | September 3, 2009 8:09 PM
@MH "I do find your aggressive attempts to avoid the validated facts presented to you that rebut your points entertaining." Well I will no longer entertain the idea of trying to persuade individuals to open their minds to the truth, that is so completely obvious. There have been no facts presented here that refute anything that I have stated. Serioulsy there is no argument to be made here. Their own words, both printed and spoken, can only be interpreted one way. These "special advisor's" ideologys are clearly based in marxist/socialist/communist beliefs. Mr. Heath it is YOUR argument against the matter that is without merit or fact. Please sir I beg you, do your own research into the matter. Read, watch, and listen to what these people are espousing. The information is out there, and not only on right wing blogs and Fox news. You will need to dig a little deeper and spend more than 10 minutes looking but you can find it. Then, if what you discover does not offend you then I am truly sorry, but I refuse to sit idlely by and watch this great nation be turned into something that it was never intended to be.
Posted by: Berbel73 | September 4, 2009 12:45 AM
Walton "The only difference between him and any raving street-corner conspiracy theorist is that Beck (a) gets paid a lot more and (b) looks better in a suit."
…and (c), an audience.
Julian: Mad's post was tongue-in-cheek. (Poe's Law strikes again!)
Berbel73 "...but this administration's ambitions of social justice through the redistribution of wealth are without a doubt."
Without a doubt what? Without a doubt the single best way to help the millions (and rising) who have fallen between the gaps? Personal charity and private insurance have failed, and will continue to do so because personal charity loses against a $50,000 hospital bill and private insurance makes too much money screwing you (you're not a shareholder. You're a revenue stream).
"There have been no facts presented here that refute anything that I have stated."
You've made assertions. Assertions don't need refuting, with facts or anything else. Rhetoric is a poor cousin to citations.
"...I refuse to sit idlely by and watch this great nation be turned into something that it was never intended to be."
Yeah! These Democrats are trying to destroy America from the inside! That's the Republican's job!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | September 4, 2009 4:47 AM
Berbel@106:
Actually there have been several arguments that discredit your conspiracy notions. The fact you fail to note those and have failed to respond to them argue that you either lack the ability to read comprehensively, are a liar, or are so deluded you're unable to digest those rebuttals.
One example is your failure to tie Obama's policies to people you claim are members of the Communist, Marxist, or Anarchist (if there is one) parties. You also fail to tie any of his Administration to membership in these parties - which was a claim in your first post in this thread.
A third example is your inability to respond to the fact that the Obama Administration is dominated by appointees from the Democratic, Republican, and Bush & Reagan Administrations; therefore providing us with skepticism your collection of supposed Communists, Marxists, and Anarchists have influenced his Administration as you claim - where you've also failed to even tie anybody's current party affliliation to these parties.
I realize what is going on here Berbel73 and again, very entertaining. You are a zery zealous probably deluded ideologue incapable of adapting your worldview when reality discredits it. You have a preconceived hatred for America's founding ideals that you are not cognizent you possess, and ache when liberals in power promote those ideals. Therefore you look to demonize them. You make accusations to support your cause but when challenged to validate those accusations are impotent in validating your own claims. So you therefore just keep repeating your delusions as a mantra, projecting your own delusion on us as if we're the uninformed when in fact we're the ones who've provided the empirical evidence that the Obama Administration is carrying out a Democratic agenda where his Administration at the highest levels of power are populated with primarily Democrats, but also Republicans, along with Bush and Reagan appointees.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 4, 2009 10:48 AM
Michael,
It is truly amazing when folks like Babble ... errrr Berbel point to the obviously moderate to moderately conservative Obama administration and scream extremist accusations, isn't it? He appoints (or retains) moderates, moderate conservatives, and moderate liberals, placing him firmly in the middle, yet he and his administration are painted by these fringe zealots as mutually exclusive radicals that not only wouldn't have anything to do with one another, but would be dedicated to the utter destruction of one another. When these inconsistencies and fallacies are pointed out to these zealots they then insist that those of us with rational, empirical evaluations of the current administration are instead zealots, deluded, etc.
Makes the brain hurt.
Posted by: dogmeatib | September 4, 2009 6:20 PM
@MH you STILL have not refuted ANY of the facts that I have laid out here, not one! You speak in double talk to try and make some sort of point, but you still have not discredited anything I have stated here. The "special advisors" to the president, and here's the kicker ADVISE the president on how he should structure his policy. Their own beliefs, which I have given only a small sampling of, belie what they most certainly have to be ADVISING the president on. Given that fact I am supposed to belive some how that he is not formulating his policies based on what they are telling him??? AND again without refuting ANY of the information that I have laid out here you continue to resort to name calling. Now I'm a "zealot" for not simply accepting what this administration is trying to force upon the American people without questioning it. And where in ANY of my posts here have I used the word "party", where? I have not even eluded to anyone being in or associated with any "party". DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH SIR! I stated that their views and beliefs are based in marxist, socialist, and communist beliefs which you have not attempted to refute in any of your posts! You speak of America's founding ideals, and my preconcieved hatred that I have for this great nation, yet you are the one attacking me with venom and malice. I have implored you to do your own research into this matter yet you come back with the same nonsensical replys over and over and over again. Find the "empirical" evidence to refute anything that I have stated here if you can. I have listed as you have asked the names and ideologies of the radicals that our president has named as his "ADIVSORS", prove that what I have stated is wrong. You won't be able to, so you will of course resort back to name calling and bullying tactics that the left has always done.
Posted by: Berbel73 | September 4, 2009 7:43 PM
Berbel73 - MH doesn't have to refute anything.
See the way it works is this: YOU make the EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM; YOU have to provide EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE to back those claims up.
So, let's see your evidence that any of Obama's advisers are Marxists, Communists and/or Socialists* to start off with. Thanks. - DJ
__________________
*Oh, and define these terms, since I think you might be using them in a way differing from the way they are defined by political scientists.
Posted by: DingoJack | September 4, 2009 7:54 PM
DingoJack, #111:
I think you don't understand the wingnut mind, DJ. That a black non-conservative could possibly win an election against GOD'S OWN CANDIDATES in GOD'S OWN COUNTRY without the benefit of a worldwide Muslim-Communist-Satanist conspiracy is itself an extraordinary claim. It's you who will have to provide the extraordinary evidence.
Sorry, but that's just the way it works in Small Town America.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 4, 2009 8:17 PM
Chiroptera - Maybe that's 'just how it is' in STA, but this isn't STA, it's Dispatches.
So Mr Berbel, provide EVIDENCE to suport your HUGE claims, or alternatively, whine how 'meeeaan' we all are, call us 'sheeepie' and flounce off to much more receptive (read: non-critical) audience elsewhere. Your choice. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 4, 2009 8:31 PM
You have listed 11 czars, but there are 37 now. What about the rest ?
Posted by: tom school | September 5, 2009 10:46 AM
There are no "rest." There are no "czars" at all, there are only regular heads of executive agencies, special advisors and special envoys. You an go through the whole list and they all fall in to those three categories. Yet within those categories, for some entirely arbitrary reason, some people have decided to call some of them czars without any coherent reason for doing so.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 5, 2009 11:22 AM
Well after trying to post specific quotes from a few of these "special advisors", including direct citations from one of their own books, my submission to this blog was marked as "for review" by the blog's administrator. Since I attempted to post last evening and the post hasn't been put up yet I can only conclude that it was removed. So there you have it. when you can't argue with the facts you simply eliminate them.
Posted by: Berbel73 | September 5, 2009 6:20 PM
Berbel73: If memory serves, this blog isn't the greatest for getting messages out of moderation.
There. I said it. I'm not apologizing.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | September 6, 2009 4:55 PM
Glenn Beck Is the Man!.. The author of this article is completly inaccurate, and anyone who sticks up for such nonsense and the destruction of our freedom isn't a true American.
NOBAMA!
Posted by: Craig Brannon | September 9, 2009 7:01 PM
I suppose, then, that you can offer a rebuttal? What precisely is inaccurate and how? Cite sources.
Posted by: DaveL | September 9, 2009 7:09 PM
I am saying that Marxist forms of government tend to morph into the very thing they set out to do away with. I do not want a president that will be my friend, I want a president that will be president. Just like I do not want a Supreme Court Justice to be "empathic with the people" I want a Supreme Justice who knows the law and applies it without empathy or prejudice.
P.S.
I am Insane. Very Insane.
Posted by: Jeff Grajek | September 9, 2009 7:43 PM
We are stuck in trees instead of concentrating on the livelyhnood of the forest. It is not he number of czars, it is policies and their vision of america. We can disaggree on levels of taxation and foreign policy but the overwhelming sentimen is; Obama is not up to the job and the people around him have visions of america that simply do not align with the majority of americans regardless of party. So, stop trying to divert attention to these symptoms instead of identifying the problem... an inept president surrounded by people with the wrong vision of Ammerica.
Posted by: bryon france | September 18, 2010 1:24 PM
bryon france "So, stop trying to divert attention to these symptoms instead of identifying the problem... an inept president surrounded by people with the wrong vision of Ammerica."
We've been saying that since 2000! Where the fuck were you?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | September 18, 2010 1:57 PM
In your attempt at disinformation, you left out some of the more notorious communists of the forty odd czars. That's what we expect from leftists. Just wanted you to know we care.
Posted by: wannta b private | January 19, 2011 12:34 AM
wannta b private "In your attempt at disinformation, you left out some of the more notorious communists of the forty odd czars."
Yeah! I'm with wannta b private! One of the mottos is "e unum unum" for a reason! The USA was founded on the idea of not tolerating dissent!
"That's what we expect from leftists."
Yeah! I'm with wannta b private! Van Jones! Van Jones!
"Just wanted you to know we care."
Yeah! I'm with wannta b private! I also care! I care about being scared of scary black pinkos!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | January 19, 2011 12:50 AM
"Just wanted you to know we care."
Care about what? About being rational? Hardly....
Posted by: jws | January 19, 2011 12:55 AM