George Bush was czar of czars
I’ve been waiting for strong, intellectually honest and morally grounded GOP leaders to denounce the unhinged fringe taking over their party, but the leadership is caving in. Looks like several Republicans are running to catch up with Glenn Beck’s nutty crusade against policy “czars” in the Obama administration.
They have conveniently forgotten the “czars” appointed by Republican presidents. Richard Nixon had czars; Bill Bennett, now a rightwing radio-talk show host, seems to have had a memory lapse about his role “drug czar” in the Reagan adminstration. George W. Bush had several czars, and we heard not a peep about it from Republicans.
Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) led a group of GOP senators sending the White House a letter denouncing Obama’s appointments of special advisers to spearhead policy in troubled areas:
We write to express our growing concern with the proliferation of “czars” in your Administration. These positions raise serious issues of accountability, transparency, and oversight. The creation of “czars,” particularly within the Executive Office of the President, circumvents the constitutionally established process of “advise and consent.” greatly diminishes the ability of Congress to conduct oversight and hold officials accountable, and creates confusion about which officials are responsible for policy decisions.
And Congressman Jack Kingston of Georgia, running to catch up with the wackos, has quickly rounded up GOP support for his Czar Accountability and Reform Act of 2009.
As White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs pointed out yesterday, some Republicans now complaining about czars pushed for more of them when a Republican held the White House.
“You’ve read Sen. Bennett was pushing for a Y2K czar that he didn’t think was powerful enough. You’ve seen Lamar Alexander call for a manufacturing czar,” Gibbs pointed out.
To be fair, a few Democrats are now questioning Obama’s special appointees, concerned they may intrude on the separation of powers and the Senate’s role in giving its consent to powerful appointments. Sen. Robert Byrd raised that point months ago.
But those same Democrats were very vocal when Bush 43 trounced the Constitution, with “signing statements” that said he didn’t have to obey any laws that Congress passed. White House attorneys issued legal opinions saying the president could do anything he wanted in a time of war.
Republicans were silent when Bush made himself czar of czars. They weren’t nearly as concerned about freedom and tyranny a mere year or so back.
Glenn Beck didn’t protest, so the GOP leadership didn’t either.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
64 comments Add your comment
mike
September 17th, 2009
7:56 am
Cynthia Tucker demanding “intellectual honesty?” LOL
Talk about meta-hypocrisy!
They need to change the title of this blog to “Meditations of a Hypocrite.”
NRBEE
September 17th, 2009
8:12 am
Here’s the difference, you dumb…white hating liberal.
Obama is abusing his power to appoint czars. He has like 30 of them. Compare that to just a handful that other presidents have..
If you go into the white house, drunk with power, like the current illegal alien interloper has…then you get to have your toys taken away from you.
Stop whining.
NRBEE
September 17th, 2009
8:13 am
And just to point out even more liberal hypocrisy:
White boy beaten by two blacks on a school bus as black crowd cheers on=not racist, not newsworthy
Black woman pushed and kicked a few times=front page news, FBI investigation as hate crime
Yep, no double standard here, move along folks…move along…nothing to see here.
Scott
September 17th, 2009
8:27 am
Although I don’t share Becks enthusiasm against czars I do share his concern as to the true reason they exist specifically for this administration and of equal significance, the quality of the people that have acquired authority. In the final analysis this president, like others before him, is judged by those he surrounds himself with. To this point he has, to say the very least, not been represented well. And I agree Cynthia in particular probably does need to avoid intellectual honesty comments.
FredGSanford
September 17th, 2009
8:31 am
I heard that Sinthia was on MSNBC last night. I looked her up on youtube and watched some of her past “performances” on other shows. I understand why she is on with Chris Matthews – that’s a given. I was disappointed to see that she has been on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos”. I do not regularly watch George’s show, but I do enjoy it when I get the chance to see it. The clips of her were what you would expect and I was thinking, why do they have her on? It finally dawned on me that they needed a “typical black extreme left liberal woman” to cause some ruckus, there by gathering viewers. I know that this is done all of the time on these shows, but none the less, I like George and wished the show would rethink her contribution.
Barrayaran
September 17th, 2009
8:36 am
Ms. Tucker makes a strong case. And the commentors only underline her argument.
Michael
September 17th, 2009
8:46 am
You can tell all the bitter losers of the right have a lot of time on their hands to surf the internet. Why don’t you all get jobs and get off welfare?
Hurts when GOP hypocrisy is pointed out again and again doesn’t it?
Kayaker 71
September 17th, 2009
8:47 am
Beck has done nothing short of exposing Van Jones for what he is. Are you happy with Jones, Cynthia? Do you think that Jones should still be serving the President? If the answer is yes, I have lost all of the little bit of credibility that I have had for you over the years.
Killing the messenger is a favorite ploy of those who have been outed for who they are. That and playing the race card have become standard ploys of the Atlanta establishment at the AJC. It is getting old, Cynthia, real old.
Todd
September 17th, 2009
8:52 am
Let me get this right…you go after Glenn Beck for “asking questions” but give the communist Van Jones a pass. Really? That’s whats ‘nutty”. Are you willing to hand over so much power to these un-vetted Czars? How does that not concern you, even just a little? Why attack the messenger? You should go back and look at some older Beck stuff. He did not give W a free pass. He asked questions and voiced concerns then also.
Herschel Krustovski
September 17th, 2009
8:53 am
The czars beyond the authority of congress is concerning when considering the drastic changes the country faces. Like Cass Sunstein, does he really want to insist that my dog has a right to legal councel in causes of action against me? Anybody catch the fact that Jimmy Carter was re-animated to yell “Racism” so that the media would not have to cover the Acorn scandals? Doesn’t Carter have an axe to grind against Israel? We see through the media’s attempts to mislead, mis-inform, and miscarry their duties to the Republic.
Tony
September 17th, 2009
8:54 am
Yep, that is the republican party, if they do it it’s ok, when they spent over 1 trillion dollars in Iraq, all of them were on TV repeating same line, the deficit does not matter, suddenly just after Obama won in January all of them start worrying about the Deficit.
Road Scholar
September 17th, 2009
8:56 am
So people hired to research policy has the conserves worried! They do not act w/o the endorsemment of the President. So who should the President hire or use to develop policy? Conserves? No, they don’t do anything but complain (see comments above). There are plenty of gifted people out there who have non-mainstream views, or even biased views, who can still clearly define the problems and possible solutions in their area of expertise.
Keith Hart
September 17th, 2009
8:57 am
Sorry Cynthia, you definitely sound racist to me. Your completely biased and far left to have any credibility. I personally think you are a typical liberal black who enjoys kicking white people because you think you can, guess again princess, your a nobody, and a loser.
FredGSanford
September 17th, 2009
8:59 am
Michael
September 17th, 2009
8:46 am
You can tell all the bitter losers of the right have a lot of time on their hands to surf the internet. Why don’t you all get jobs and get off welfare?
Hurts when GOP hypocrisy is pointed out again and again doesn’t it?
Hey Clown, what are YOU doing on the internet?
Fried chicken skin is greasy and delicious
September 17th, 2009
9:02 am
Unhinged. Perfect word to describe people who now, more than ever, fit the wingnut description. They invented the Tsars.
Todd
September 17th, 2009
9:02 am
While Glenn has 5 million viewers and is exposing corruption, scandal, communist in the white house etc, etc, etc. You’re reporting on Glenn? Come on get out there make a difference. Go show us what a good ‘ol guy Van Jones is. Prove Glenn wrong. This is a first year journalism article. Get to work.
Roger
September 17th, 2009
9:05 am
I don’t even read Cynthia’s articles anymore.. i just skip right to the comments. They’re much more entertaining.
matt
September 17th, 2009
9:07 am
The “Drug Czar” you mention is formally know as the Director of National Drug Control Policy. There is not exactly an overwhelming case being made when you can only point out one example from all of American political history. Did you not want to take the time to research who Nixon’s alleged Czars were? You call this reporting?
Perhaps there would be less outrage if Obama’s Czars were slightly more qualified and slightly less radical. Or if there were a more reasonable number of them.
Joan
September 17th, 2009
9:09 am
Those czars are not vetted and confirmed by the Senate, but are given cabinet level authority. What is wrong with this picture? It means that the checks and balances are being vastly overbalanced by the executive power. Obama is sitting himself up a typical west African dictatorship. Or maybe this is just the cronyism that he is familiar with from his Chicago years–and he is just taking Chicago politics to the national level. For my money, I love to see gangsters and communists outed, so keep up the good work Beck.
Jackie
September 17th, 2009
9:10 am
The so-called conservatives rant about President Obama having czars in his administration, yet, fail to understand that the Repubs in the Senate have put holds on many of nominations for positions in most agencies.
It seems the Repubs should stop and think about Dubya and the czar they elected, Dick Cheyney. Wonder what he brought to the table to further the well-being of this country?
Andy
September 17th, 2009
9:10 am
Reading the reactionary comments here makes me realize why is was such a relief to have moved out of Georgia after 10 years. Please, secede, y’all! Enjoy your third-world status. Let the civilized world advance.
(I would prefer that you stop letting coporatist millionaire pseudo-populists like Rush & Beck do your thinking for you, but I know that’s not going to happen…)
matt
September 17th, 2009
9:15 am
It seems that Dems forget that Bush and Cheney were ELECTED. The issue here is the power given to those who are neither elected nor confirmed by the legislature. Are people really confused about the difference between the President of the United States and a made up Czar of something?
Martin
September 17th, 2009
9:17 am
Wow – a lot of idiot right-wing nutjob racists down there in Georgia – Cynthia has a point – the truth hurts, doesn’t it? Just because this president isn’t perfect (as if the last one was even less so) where is all the false patriotism that followed the last one like a choir of angels? Democrat/Republican – two halves of the same coin, and they (OUR government) are using that fact to pit us against one another! Can’t you see that? If we continue to accept that fact, they will ruin us ALL. Time to flush the cesspool that is congress, pare down the behemoth that is government, and start fresh!
Jackie
September 17th, 2009
9:17 am
@NRBEE
Don’t have enough courage to use the same screen name in your posting on the other blogs, huh?
Per your reference to your 8:13 post:
“@Kitty Pawz
You forgot the part of the story between two kids where the Sheriff investigated and said it was a fight between the two kids over who sat in the seat first.
Second incident was a 6′2″, 250 lbs. white man attacked a woman with her child and proceeded to punch and kick the woman because the woman asked the man to be careful in opening the door that almost hit her 7-year old.
Wonder what would have been done if you were in a position to witness either event?”
The Real MIke
September 17th, 2009
9:23 am
Uh Matt, Obama was ELECTED, too. By a landslide. And please tell us the history of “czars” in the USA, Matt. I can’t wait to hear it.
john
September 17th, 2009
9:24 am
Ah, guess what NRBEE and others just like to rant for rant’s sake…Bush had 40 people in over 30 Czar positions; ever since Calvin Coolidge there have been these kinds of appointments. One such appointment that gets no criticism is the National Security Advisor. They have an extremely powerful position and are not required to be vetted by the Congress. So, before you go ranting at least do your homework, otherwise you look like just one of the uneducated masses.
Bob
September 17th, 2009
9:26 am
The racists really come out of the woodwork when you start calling out their own, don’t they?
jconservative
September 17th, 2009
9:29 am
I do not see the problem with a president naming “czars” to run agencies, programs or executive branch initiatives. The president must administer the executive branch. And we have done czars for 35 years.
Now I can see a Constitutional question (Article 2, Section 2) that a member of congress may want to address by filing a case in the 1st Circuit. But so far no one has taken that step. So far the opposition has only been hot air. And history proves that hot air only results in more hot air.
dnha14
September 17th, 2009
9:29 am
Unhinged fringe? The Republicans are only trying to play catch-up with the Democrats. The Democrats have been the world leaders in the unhinged fringe category. Czars? Of course Republicans had Czars. I don’t think any of them had 30. I don’t think they even had 10. They were used for very specific issues, not as a universal power grab by the Executive Branch.
Small town boy
September 17th, 2009
9:29 am
I think your column is based in racism! What a crock! Van Jones is morally inept. Now ACORN has raised it’s ugly head once again. It’s painfully evident that Obama wants this health care reform pushed through before too many people make their decision about what candidates to support in next years elections. Another failed attempt will most likely mean republicans will get the majority.
matt
September 17th, 2009
9:31 am
The Real MIke,
Obama was elected, his many Czars were not. Comparing Bush to Obama makes sense. Comparing Bush to a Czar does not. You can’t compare presidental power to the power of an informal “Czar.” The reporter here makes claims about the many former Czars, specifically those appointed by Republicans. It would make sense for her to point out a few.
How are you confused here?
LREKing
September 17th, 2009
9:33 am
So much willful ignorance and joyful hatred. The radical right has truly become the lunatic fringe, like a little kid throwing a tantrum while the adults try to talk. Better luck in your next incarnations, losers.
David the Jew
September 17th, 2009
9:34 am
Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist ??? What a joke…affirmative action rule? The first paragraph was written by a middle school student not a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist. What happened to facts? This is nothing more than moronic spin by leftist who uses a computer to type out her opinion. Please continue with your spin, because you and the others like you are dinosours on the way to extinction!
Mike
September 17th, 2009
9:35 am
These Czar people have been in every administration. I believe the title was coined in the Nixon admin. Not being vetted properly can cause problems and if someone like Beck calls them out, then they have to deal with it. I think the Right should slow down a little bit on the bashing and trashing. You are going to have this President until 2016. Think about it. 2016. The racist, bible thumping Rightwing nutcases are not going to pull any independents to their side. The economy is so bad it can only get better. Irag and Afghanistan , the war in the former and the neglect of the latter, will always be Bushs’ mistakes no matter what happens. I say keep bashing because you are just getting the man re-elected. Have all the WASP tea parties you want. You are not the majority. There are alot of people, especially in the South, who grew up and raised their kids to believe that blacks are inferior to whites and they just can’t accept this President. Their biggest fear has always been either the government or black people telling them what to do. Now you have a black man at the head of the government. Don’t like it? Vote him out. Good luck. Remember, you hate-mongering knckledraggers-2016.
LREKing
September 17th, 2009
9:37 am
Here’s the list of George Bush’s Czars he used from January 2001 to January 2009:
Abstinence Czar (Randal Tobias)
AIDS Czar (4 Czars: Scott Evertz, Joe O’Neill, Carol Thompson, Jeffrey Crowley)
Bank Bailout Czar (Neel Kashkari)
Bioethics Czar ( Leon Kass)
Bird flu Czar (Stewart Simonson)
Birth control czar (Erik Keroack)
Budget czar (3 Czars: Mitchell Daniels, Joshua Bolton, Rob Portman)
Clean Up Czar (2 Czars: Jessie Roberson & James Rispoli)
Communications Czar (Dan Bartlett)
Cyber Security Czar, Cyber Czar (2 Czars: Richard Clarke, Rod Beckstrom)
Democracy Czar (Elliott Abrams)
Domestic Policy Czar (Karl Rove)
Drug Czar (John P. Walters)
Faith-Based Czar, Faith Czar (4 Czars: Don Willett, John Dilulio, Jim Towey, Jay Hein)
Food Safety Czar (David W.K. Acheson)
Global AIDS Czar (2 Czars: Randall Tobias, Mark Dybul)
Health Czar for WTC, World Trade Center Health Czar (John Howard)
Health IT Czar (David Brailer)
Homeland Security Czar (Michael Chertoff)
Homeless Czar, Homelessness Czar (Phil Mangano)
Gulf Coast Reconstruction Czar, Hurricane Katrina Recovery Czar (Donald E. Powell)
Intelligence Czar (2 Czars: John Negroponte & John Michael McConnell)
Manufacturing Czar (2 Czars: Albert Frink & William G. Sutton)
Policy Czar (Micahel Gerson)
Public Diplomacy Czar (2 Czars: Karen Hughes & James Glassman)
Reading Czar (G. Reid Lyon)
Regulatory Czar (2 Czars: John D. Graham & Susan Dudley)
Science Czar (John Marburger)
Terrorism Czar (3 Czars: Richard A. Clarke, Wayne Downing, John O. Brennan)
War Czar (Douglas Lute)
Mr. Fusion
September 17th, 2009
9:49 am
Although I should be used to it by now, it seems I never am. These right wing nuts just love to invent crap. No basis in reality, just whatever they can throw at the President. They love words like “socialist” and “statist”.
The largest and loudest of those complaining about Obama’s health plan already use Medicare.
Those complaining about reforming financial institutions were first in line demanding welfare reform a decade ago.
Those complaining about today’s deficit poo pooed the idea when we invaded Iraq.
The same right wing nut leaders are now claiming Nazis were socialists.
While Bush just gave the money away, Obama has demanded accountability.
And most of the right wing nuts ARE bigots.
John Q. Public
September 17th, 2009
9:50 am
NRBEE, you should probably stop channeling, or regurgitating, talking points. It’s abundantly obvious where you get your news and information from; it’s almost like you are a sound bite, yourself. Also, please try not to deflect this statement — it will only serve to discredit you further, especially after calling the President of the Untied States an ‘illegal alien interloper’…
To everyone else:
President Bush made/had a total of 47+/- Czars. None of the current “Truth-speakers” that have been parading around on Fox News, or elsewhere, said a thing about those “Czars” for his entire administration. Some even suggested, supported and endorsed certain “Czars” during his administration, and previously in their carriers. That reminds me of an old saying, ‘When is a spade, a spade?. When you can call them on it.’
But, I’m curious how the term gets used so readily, when most people don’t understand the role, or the qualifications. For instance, a dozen or more of the people on Glenn Beck’s list of “32 Czars” have actually been vetted and confirmed by the US Senate; several of the others on that list have had their hearing confirmation held-up(’filibustered’ by Republicans hellbent on obstructionist politics; still several more are filling positions created by the 108th-110th Congress and the Clinton and Bush administrations. And yes, about 5-7 of those are actually posts created by President Obama, un-vetted or confirmed by congress, to counsel him on economic recovery & financial reform, health reform, and the failing auto industry.
However, all of this does not make the position any more legitimate. It simply underlines several problems with our imperfect democratic republic that have been in the making for nearly 50 years..
Remember, ‘It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.’ ~ Winston Churchill
Nixon
September 17th, 2009
9:51 am
The Federal government – hundreds of thousands of American young killed on foreign soil and trillions of dollars wasted away and debased.
ctucker
September 17th, 2009
9:52 am
I think we can all do better than calling those with whom we disagree “idiots” or “thugs.” My English-teacher mother always said that suggests a poor vocabulary.
Fred
September 17th, 2009
9:54 am
Since Obama has signed off on ongoing rendition the government should have a Czar of Rendition overseeing the kidnapping of “enemies of the state” and sending them to Egypt for torture and murder.
Bullying Protester
September 17th, 2009
10:03 am
How about some intellectual honesty from you Cynthia? You are a classic reprobate.
FredGSanford
September 17th, 2009
10:07 am
She had to start writing more controversial pieces (of crap) to try and catch up with Bookman’s comments.
Kamchak
September 17th, 2009
10:11 am
Obama is abusing his power to appoint czars. He has like 30 of them. Compare that to just a handful that other presidents have..
Obama 32 czars
GWB 35 czars
Call it like it is.
September 17th, 2009
10:25 am
Boring, boring, boring, boring. Hey Cyn how about hitting upon something intersting, like how your boy just caved into the Russians and pulled out the missle system from Eastern Europe. Yeah we made Russia happy “who cares” but have lost all of our cred with the Poles and Chec’s. In one fell swoop of his pen, he puts America and NATO in danger from the middle east. Oh please, oh please let me know how you are going to put the spin on this, that is must be Rush’s, Sean, Beck, or Bush’s fault.
Typical, Dem’s tear down the military and Reb’s have to come back in and build it back up.
Kamchak
September 17th, 2009
10:39 am
Typical, Reps tear down the economy and the Dems have to come back in and build it back up.
FYTs
Peter
September 17th, 2009
11:00 am
Some of the funniest stuff gets written by folks who think they have answers and “Know what is going on”. Truth be told…..there is a New World order coming and a few are controlling all the strings…..
From Regan to Both Bushes…. They could have cared less about the Constitution, the Power and Greed of a Few is what this nation is truly all about !
jt
September 17th, 2009
11:04 am
THE REPUBLICANS DID IT TOO!!!!!!!
How tiring.
We are screwed America.
The spirit and writings of Sir Ronald W. Reagan is our only hope.
John Q. Public
September 17th, 2009
11:14 am
jt,
The spirit and writing of Sir[sic] Ronald W. Reagan is the basis for what got this country into the mess it’s currently facing.
Dumbing-down, of America, indeed.
Zibby
September 17th, 2009
11:25 am
I thought you were kicked up to DC and wasn’t spewing this liberal psychobabble anymore in the Atlanta fish wrapper – actually it has become too small in size to even fit that bill – but you continue to ignore the sustainable fact that Obama is the black Carter and Carter, well, perhaps his comments can now be simply attributed to senility versus stupidity. We’re upside down for decades to come with trillions in debt that serve no good purpose whatsoever. And the security of this country and many of our allies are now hopelessly compromised by this president. Yeah, I’m sleeping better at night now all the time because of this…
BravesFan79
September 17th, 2009
11:48 am
Jackie: “You forgot the part of the story between two kids where the Sheriff investigated and said it was a fight between the two kids over who sat in the seat first”.
Wow your a out of touch liberal aren’t you?? Fact is, if it had been a all White school bus someone would of had the common decency to break it up! Not to mention protests and cries of racism from the NAACP and CNN.
The sheriff put the typical liberal spin on the St Louis school bus case just like they did in the Knoxville murder case were 2 Univ of Tenn students were carjacked BOTH raped and tortured for days and murdered by worthless black thugs…. but nope… that wasn’t a “hate crime” either was it?
It also wasnt labeled a “hate crime” when 4 black marines did a home invasion in their superior officers house in California and killed the white officer, and raped his black wife before they killed her 2. In fact all these stories have had little media coverage when compared to the Duke rape case, or the Jenna 6! Its called liberal propoganda.
Cases like this are exactly why its scary that the Liberals are trying to model the US after what the EU has done to Europe! And this “diversity czar” from Europe is a very scary thing because there trying to push thru tougher hate crimes legislation here in the US.
I
So if according to the liberals and NAACP those cases i listed above weren’t considered “hate crimes” ….. then what is!
The answer….. anything where the perp is a white man, and the victim is a minority.