Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Last week I ridiculed a wingnut candidate for Congress from Ohio named Paul Schiffer for a ridiculous and pointless bit of demagoguery about czars. That led his webmaster, Jonathon Moseley, to show up in the comments and continue the cavalcade of stupid. Get ready for some world class bullshit.
If you'll recall, Schiffer says he'll propose legislation if elected to "outlaw Barack Obama's dozens of 'CZARS' in the White House." I pointed out that there are, in fact, no czars in the White House at all. That is nothing more than a colloquial title used subjectively and inconsistently by the media to describe entirely normal executive branch officials. Moseley seems most upset that I did not include this particular portion of the press release about the bill:
After one commenter said they didn't understand exactly what Schiffer's legislation would do, Moseley replied:
Julia, that's because Ed Brayton of the misnamed "Science Blog" intentionally cut off the part of the press release that would have informed you about that. Ed intentionally misrepresented the press release and the legislation in order to deceive you.http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/7292713219.html
Paul Schiffer further clarified:
"My legislation allows Presidents to have any advisors they want, and call them anything they want. However, White House advisors like 'Czars' will have no authority over any part of the U.S. Government. My legislation would prohibit any White House advisor from exercising authority over any Federal or State government official, employee, office or department, and would protect every government official and employee from not obeying any White House advisor other than the President himself. The President, of course, is the Chief Executive of the Executive Branch and the President may always act under his own authority in his own name. Obviously, my legislation creates exceptions for any special chain of command established by statute that might be agreed to between the Congress and the President, such as with national security matters."
But if you follow the link he provides and scroll down to the part about this particular legislation, you can't actually get to the text of it. If you follow their instructions, the PDF won't open and it just reverts back to the front page. Might be time to find a new webmaster, Paul.
More importantly, this paragraph from Schiffer is utter nonsense. He does not, of course, anywhere provide a definition for what he considers a "czar" and as I point out, that term has been used to cover three entirely different kinds of executive branch officials -- all of them perfectly legitimate and used in every administration for as long as anyone can remember.
I would like to hear from Moseley or Schiffer a list of those officials in the White House they consider "czars." Meanwhile, the list of 32 of them used by Glenn Beck consists of exactly the three types of officials I detailed in my original post -- ordinary department heads, special envoys or ambassadors, and special advisers. All three have existed in every presidential administration for many decades.
Moseley attempts to provide such a definition, but seems to limit it only to advisers:
Traditionally, a czar has been a Presidential advisor of high stature appointed to tackle a specific problem cutting across Departmental lines -- and very explciitly OUTSIDE OF THE STRUCTURE of the standard Departments.Traditionally, a Presidential Czar's assignment is to knock heads and get something done OUTSIDE of the Departmental system, either forcing Department heads to work together and/or expedite some action, or work totally outside the Departmental structure.
Well yes, those are called special advisers. They are, indeed, White House officials who advise the president on how the administration should handle specific but complex matters that may well involve multiple agencies. They don't exercise any actual power other than their ability to influence the president, which is, of course, why they were hired in the first place.
President Bush had many such advisors, including 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." Anyone recall any outrage from the right over those "czars" and how they were "un-American" and "undermining democracy"? Yeah, me neither.
The point of all of this is that Schiffer's bill actually does nothing. Special advisors already do not hold any statutory power over department heads. They may hold informal power by their ability to influence the president, but that is true of pretty much any official closer to the president than a department head.
Someone in the comments quoted this from John Harrison, a conservative law prof, former clerk for Robert Bork and former Reagan DOJ official, about czars, and it is worth repeating:
One implication of this reasoning is that any member of the White House staff, whatever the official or unofficial title of that staff member, who does not have statutory authority does not have any legal power. That is not to say that members of the White House staff are not and may not be highly influential. They are and may be, and actors in the executive department who do have legal authority may regard the guidance given them by members of the White House staff as authoritative expressions of the President's policy. But it is only the President's power that makes that guidance significant, and no executive actor has any obligation to follow the instructions of a member of the White House staff who lacks statutory authority, except insofar as those instructions relay the President's. (The President may convey his instructions through any conduit he chooses, at least through any conduit who is an employee of the federal government, but the instructions, and not the person who relays them, have authority.) Thus a member of the White House staff who is referred to for descriptive purposes as a Tsar but who has no statutory authority cannot take actions with any legal effect...I do not know of any instance in which anyone on the White House staff has claimed legal authority that he or she did not possess. It is quite likely, of course, that members of the White House staff, and other individuals within and outside of the government, exercise great practical authority because of their connection, official or personal, to the President. No doubt the Chief of Staff exercises great practical authority, as he is assumed to speak for his principal. That practical authority, however, is not legal authority, and as long as the distinction is rigorously maintained there will be no legal problem.
Schiffer's legislation is a solution in search of a problem. It changes nothing. In other words, it's just another bit of demagoguery designed to scare people into thinking that Obama is a communist out to destroy America when, in reality, he has done nothing with any "czars" that is any different from every other president in the last hundred years.
But before we're done with this subject, i really must reproduce this truly bizarre rant from Moseley. See if you can make any sense of it:
Meanwhile, responding to Ed Brayton's main post, Ed shows that he has been badly brainwashed by the anti-science prevalent in our modern world.The anti-science of today uses a number of tricks and gimmicks, one of which is to redefine the problem to avoid confronting the reality of the scientific problem at hand. Modern day anti-science thrives on not answering real questions or confronting real observed phenomenon, but instead using the magic wand of re-definition -- submerged in mountains of obfuscation -- to answer a different question that is more convenient.
Well yes, Joe, you have described creationism and denialism perfectly here. What that has to do with me, I can't imagine. We weren't even discussing science, for crying out loud, we were discussing politics.
Oh, one more thing. If you really want to know about Schiffer, just look at the list of people who endorse him. They include lunatics like Randall Terry, Alan Keyes and Wiley Drake -- you remember him, the one who keeps praying that God will kill Barack Obama.
Politics
Comments
This dingbat is from my district. He brought Randall Terry to town for a fundraiser. I had several breathless phone solicitations that couldn't figure out why I wasn't falling all over myself to attend. I may have to go back to voting Repub in the primary just to vote against this loon. unfortunately, the other alternatives aren't that much better.
This is Ralph Regula's old district - and for all his staunchness, Ralph was no ideologue.
Posted by: Dave Gill | March 15, 2010 9:38 AM
Posted by: James Hanley | March 15, 2010 9:58 AM
I perceive the last blockquote where you quote Mr. Mosely is evidence of a lot of projectionism on his part. It says nothing about Ed.
I've always welcomed people within the Administration championing causes that cut across functional boundaries for the same reason modern corporations do the same, to more optimally achieve desired results.
The most interesting discussion I've encountered regarding how an Executive can manipulate White House officials' statutory powers is contained within Bart Gellman's book on Dick Cheney, Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency . Gellman masterfully describes how the Bush team was woefully ignorant regarding the mechanics to turn agendas into formal decisions giving those decisions legal standing and authority over Administration policy. However VP Cheney did understand how this system worked and how to utilize it to increase his personal power, which he mostly did by convincing the President to allow his office assistants to also have certain titles working for the President as well. So while VP Cheney controlled his assistants day-to-day activities and priorities, there real power lay in their formal title to the President, who had little to no interaction with them. Bush got played without even realizing it, mostly because he was lazy and ignorant.
Mr. Gellman then shows how VP Cheney was able to drive a multitude of decisions without Mr. Bush ever even being aware of these goings-on until he was asked to sign a particular document, which his "staff" previously approved of given Cheney's machinations. This process was largely responsible for the President signing off on torture policies without completely understanding what he had just authorized, e.g., torture at Gitmo where soldiers were convicted, where President Bush condemned the atrocities there not initially realizing that all the acts that were successfully prosecuted were actually fully consistent with his authorized use of "enhanced interrogation methods", i.e., torture.
VP Cheney's machinations are both a fascinating story and more importantly, provides ample ammunition that once again, conservatives rail against an issue their side exploited far more in the past for nefarious reasons yet nary an objection was and is heard. I'd argue that Mr. Mosely is just another hypocritical, know-nothing looking to promote his objections against President Obama where he perceives his real opposition has no merit as an argument; therefore like most conservatives, he manufactures a false one.
Posted by: Michael Heath | March 15, 2010 10:07 AM
James Hanley,
I'll bet more than not knowing how Washington works, I'll bet he lacks any knowledge of government, democracy, and the constitution. The perfect right-wing candidate.
Posted by: MikeMa | March 15, 2010 10:12 AM
Add to that any knowledge of how corporations and other large organizations work in the real world.
Now THAT'S a perfect right wight candidate.
Posted by: gwangung | March 15, 2010 10:23 AM
Of course, the real irony in attempting to tie Obama to communism via the term czar is that the communists brought down the imperial czarist system.
It just goes to show how hard the demagogues are grasping for straws and how they are trying to manipulate public perception by gambling that the constituency is utterly ignorant. The term czar is about as communist as apple pie and freedom fries.
Oh and also, the word czar is derived from the title of caesar which shows the imperial legacy of the title and the attempts of the Russian imperium to tie heredity and legitimacy to ancient Rome. Rome is of course the origin of the concept of Republic for which the Republicans derive their own title and legitimacy.
This is one of the dumbest political arguments that I have ever witnessed.
Posted by: James Taylor | March 15, 2010 10:27 AM
Let's see of Mr. Crazy shows up here again in a couple of weeks to argue some more.
This is why I sometimes wish blogs had a forum like format so we could see what's been responded to lately and carry on longer conversations in threads.
Posted by: FastLane | March 15, 2010 10:34 AM
Ed Brayton: Well yes, Joe, you have described creationism and denialism perfectly here.
Psychological projection?
Posted by: abb3w | March 15, 2010 11:06 AM
Sadly, the crazy exists everywhere
Posted by: MRS | March 15, 2010 11:30 AM
I think he just wants the government to officially declare that czars are bad.
Posted by: catgirl | March 15, 2010 11:38 AM
"Schiffer's legislation is a solution in search of a problem."
You're being overly generous here, Ed. More precisely, the legislation is "brave, maverick" political pandering in search of free media time.
Posted by: The Gregarious Misanthrope | March 15, 2010 11:48 AM
Quoting 2
Precisely right, and all that's needed to know to understand Schiffer's idiocy. Apparently his campaign platform is, "I don't have one fucking clue how Washington actually works, and that's why you should elect me."
That's actually not that bad of a platform, once you get to thinking about it.
Posted by: Buffoon | March 15, 2010 12:06 PM
... all of them perfectly legitimate ...
For an extremely literal definition of bastardy, perhaps.
And why don't any of these wingnutz seem to remember that American soldiers fought and died to aid those trying to restore the Czar to his throne? Don't they support the troops!?!
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | March 15, 2010 12:16 PM
No joke. "I don't have one fucking clue how Washington actually works, and that's why you should elect me" is exactly how I interpret the phrase "Washington outsider."
Posted by: Scott Hanley | March 15, 2010 12:37 PM
I'm so pleased that my bewilderment led to multiple posts from Moseley and thus to another post from Ed. Ignorance is not often so productive.
Posted by: JuliaL | March 15, 2010 12:42 PM
James Taylor "It just goes to show how hard the demagogues are grasping for straws and how they are trying to manipulate public perception by gambling that the constituency is utterly ignorant."
Hah! That's not gambling. The only hard part is keeping the solid third of the country that doesn't know and doesn't care what the facts really are ("the base") without scaring away too many of those that use more than just fear to motivate themselves ("RINOs").
Posted by: Modusoperandi | March 15, 2010 1:58 PM
Is this a criticism or a confession?
Posted by: Dr X | March 15, 2010 11:06 PM
James Taylor said at #6,
Some kinds of ignorance can be justified. If an accountant can't wire up his new addition he calls an electrician. It would be the same if the electrician needed tax advice; knowledge has long been specialized and specific enough that it would be unreasonable to expect the two to be well versed in each others specialties. Not so with language, me thinks.
For the cost of a night out for two one can obtain references that not only define words but show how we came to have them, with all attendant baggage they might have. Such references would seem to be part of the basic kit for any one in a government position whether that position has the privilege of authority or merely an advisory role. Actually, I'd expect them to have used such references long before they made the decision to become a public servant. After all, the main interface between government employees and their employers (voters, taxpayers, us) is through spoken language.
Failure to understand the meaning of words and how the words came to be may have no consequence when I'm passing time it a check out line. If I should be championing any effort as an employee and representative of the federal (or state, county, Twp. or municipal) government it is incumbent upon me to not only say what I mean but to mean what I say. To do so I must not only say words that sound good I must choose words that clearly convey to the listener my intent. If for no other reason than that I will choose my future words based in part on the expected affect of my latest proclamations.
I suppose I'm conjuring an imaginary state. Bright sunshine and a bluebird on my shoulder. My preferred society doesn't exist because enough money and enough world class schmoozing can make the worst of gaffes and non sequiturs seem profound.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | March 15, 2010 11:28 PM
Ed should go back to misrepresenting science to gullible people.
Ed posts answers to his own questions:
WHY do millions of people believe that legislation is needed? First, Ed pinpoints the problem, and demolishes his own argument. Ed quotes me saying:
"Traditionally, a Presidential Czar's assignment is to knock heads and get something done OUTSIDE of the Departmental system, either forcing Department heads to work together and/or expedite some action, or work totally outside the Departmental structure."
To which Ed responds: "Well yes, those are called special advisers."
No, people, an "ADVISER" ADVISES the President.
An "adviser" does not COMMAND other offices, departments, agencies, or officials.
An adviser does not exercise authority over any part of the government. An advisor provides ADVICE to the President.
Someone who "knock heads and get something done OUTSIDE of the Departmental system, either forcing Department heads to work together and/or expedite some action, or work totally outside the Departmental structure."
.... is exercising direct operational authority over government departments and officials without any statutory authority and in a way that violates the Constitutional scheme. (Confirmation of Departmental heads by the Senate is explicitly in the U.S. Constitution.)
Of course, almost everyone in the White House bears the technical title "advisor to the President" regardless of what they actually do.
And it is precisely this blurring of the lines that Paul Schiffer and millions of others want to avoid.
Is the legislation a "solution in search of a problem?"
The press release itself would have answered this if you had read it. It said:
"But the idea of Presidential 'Czars' has become a worrying trend. If we continue on this path, Presidential over-use of White House 'Czars' threatens to weaken America's democratic system."
To most people, the statement: "IF WE CONTINUE ON THIS PATH" .... "THREATENS TO WEAKEN..."
would clearly inform them that clarifying lines of authority is good government and designed to PREVENT abuse IN THE FUTURE.
The clamor is to know exactly which officials this would apply to. Clearly titles are irrelevant.
In the paragraph Ed posted:
1) "My legislation allows Presidents to have any advisors they want, and call them anything they want.
SO TITLES HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. Paul Schiffer's legislation IGNORES titles. The President can call his advisers Batman & Robin if he wants. The legislation has nothing to do with what anyone is CALLED.
You would have known that if you READ the press release.
2) "However, White House advisors like 'Czars' will have no authority over any part of the U.S. Government. My legislation would prohibit any White House advisor from exercising authority over any Federal or State government official, employee, office or department, and would protect every government official and employee from not obeying any White House advisor other than the President himself.
SO YOUR QUESTION IS ANSWERED.
WHOM would this cover? EVERYONE in the White House -- regardless of title.
The President is the Chief Executive. In the President's name as Chief Executive, the President may command the Executive Branch as its boss.
However, "advisors" advise the President, they should not be ordering other government officials around.
3) The press release also clarifies:
"The President, of course, is the Chief Executive of the Executive Branch and the President may always act under his own authority in his own name. Obviously, my legislation creates exceptions for any special chain of command established by statute that might be agreed to between the Congress and the President, such as with national security matters."
Posted by: Jonathon Moseley | March 16, 2010 10:02 AM
Look, the
trollwebmaster showed back up and spouted more crazy. Reading through it (ow, my brain...), it appears to mostly semantic arguments and clearly demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge regarding how the position of advisor/czar works.Makes me want to vote the clown.....
Posted by: FastLane | March 16, 2010 10:12 AM
Jonathan Moseley blathered:
What you still have not done is provide a list of those you consider "czars" in the Obama administration and prove that they actually do exercise the legal authority that you claim they do. There's a good reason why you haven't done this, of course - you can't. Because none of them actually do. The quote from John Harrison explained, quite lucidly, the distinction between a member of the president's staff who wields political power because he has the ear of the president, and one who wields actual power; the first is not a problem and the second one -- the one you claim to be against -- simply doesn't exist.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | March 16, 2010 10:25 AM
Moseley, while you're at it, can you provide an example of Ed "misrepresenting science to gullible people"? You do have one, right? I'd hate to think you just threw that in there as a gratuitous insult.
Posted by: Taz | March 16, 2010 11:05 AM
Webmaster?!?!!? ROFLMAO
If this guy wrote code like that on a page I wanted him to make, I'd fire him on the spot. From looking at the source code, it appears that Jonathon couldn't write decent code to save his life. A marquee tag?!?!? What do you think this is, 1996?
Bwahahahahahahahahaha...
Posted by: Dan J | March 16, 2010 11:52 AM
Two questions. Do Webmasters typically act as spokesmen for the people whose sites the manage? Do many members of Congress have spokespeople this shitty? He`s the press secretary from Hell. It almost appears as if he`s intentionally sabotaging his own Congressman.
OK, third question. Does his boss know that his webmaster is acting like such a creep?
Posted by: Observer | March 17, 2010 5:47 AM
Mosely isn't the webmaster, he's the web czar for Schiffer.
The irony is completely lost on him acting as a spokesman for the candidate he represents.
Posted by: FastLane | March 17, 2010 6:59 AM