I am so weary of the Czar thing...

Lamar Alexander Opposes Czars Now, But Supported Them Under Bush
The right is ramping up its offensive on the Obama administration’s use of special appointees commonly referred to as “czars,” attacking them as being used to vastly expand the powers of the president and undermine democracy. A group of Republican senators, led by Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT), have sent a letter to President Obama expressing “growing concern with the proliferation of ‘czars.’” But Bennett hasn’t always been opposed to the use of “czars.” In Dec. 1999, appearing on CNN, Bennett said that he recommended to President Clinton that he “appoint a Y2K czar.”

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) also launched into attack mode on the Senate floor Monday, claiming that Obama’s use of czars constitutes an “affront to the Constitution”:

ALEXANDER: According to news accounts, there are 32 or 34 so-called czars in the Obama White House. Respected voices in the Senate—Senator Byrd and Senator Hutchison, a senior Democrat and a senior Republican—have pointed out that these czars are an affront to the Constitution. They’re anti-democratic. They are a poor example of a new era of transparency which was promised to this country. They are a poor way to manage the government and they seem to me to be the principal symptom of this administrations eight-month record of too many Washington takeovers.


While Alexander may be using Obama’s appointment of special advisers as a political wedge today, he was singing a different tune during the previous administration:

Alexander Supported Bush’s Appointment of a Manufacturing Czar. Nearly six years ago Alexander spoke on the floor of the Senate in support of President Bush’s appointment of a manufacturing jobs czar: “[President Bush] talked about appointing a sort of manufacturing job czar in the Commerce Department, which I would welcome.” [9/2/03]

Alexander Supported Bush’s Appointment of an AIDS Czar. Alexander spoke in support of the appointment of Bush-nominated AIDS czar Randall Tobias: “Within a few weeks the Congress will be considering the nomination of Randall Tobias to be the new AIDS czar…who is not yet confirmed by the Senate. I hope he will be.” [9/3/03]

Alexander isn’t alone in his conservative hypocrisy on czars. Last July, Karl Rove angrily tweeted that Obama’s use of czars represent a “giant expansion of presidential power,” despite the fact that he himself was Bush’s “domestic policy czar.” And while the right may be using Obama’s czars as a way to wage politicized attacks against him, they were completely silent when the Bush administration used a number of these special advisers, including a “cybersecurity czar,” “regulatory czar,” “bird-flu czar,” “war czar,” and “Katrina czar.”


There is a video of Alexander talking about the czars he has welcomed. Maybe we should change the name to something more american and stop this nonsense.

it doesnt really matter anymore

czars or public options or socialized medicine or whatever

its all just excuses to fling dirt at each other. so I quit listening

I don't think they even believe what they are saying. just seizing on anything to score propaganda points

These folks didn't get there by being stupid, so they know what the truth is. What's insulting is that they might truely believe we are so stupid we don't know when they are lying to us. I also think supporters know what the real truth is but some prefer to pass on the lie just in case it is accepted. And sadly I know there are people that really don't know the truth from a lie.

Did anyone actually believe that Clinton didn't have sex with that woman? Lmao It makes me mad on either side, but right now I am pointing it out on the right... I could just as well have been a republican, so I would have been just as angry. I just wonder where the republicans are on the hill that are gutsy enough to be honest...

The only remotely honest Republican in DC is Ron Paul, and most of the "mainstream" Repubs hate him.

Well I don't know that for a fact, and the minute he got in he would find out he doesnt' have the power to do every thing and then the people would be all freaked out about him too. Just like many are about Obama right now. Obama got a dose of reality and couldn't back everyone of his promises. Just like every president before him.

While I like some of the things Paul has talked about, he's a bit too radical in other things for me. Doesn't mean he isn't a nice man, just not who I would have chosen.

He also has years more experiance and is doing every day to, among other things, get the Fed Audited. I think he even refused to be awarded a retirement when he's done.
What other wealthy Politician is willng to give up mo' money?

Well I admit this is cynical, but he really doesn't need the money, I would be more impressed if he wasn't already wealthy and refused it. Same goes for any politician, though it's a good for political consumption to say so.

You are right.

Ron Paul facts:

He has never voted to raise taxes.
He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
He has never voted to raise congressional pay.
He has never taken a government-paid junket.
He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

He voted against the Patriot Act.
He voted against regulating the Internet.
He voted against the Iraq war.

He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.

Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress


And Boo, just to let you know, no he isn't poor, but his money came from a honest career as a physician. He had a private practice for over a decade in which he delivered over 4,000 babies.

But he doesn't have nearly the money that most congressmen have. This includes president Obama.

I know this, The MMS (main stream media), opposes any one or any thing that goes against what they are trying to brainwash you to believe. Now almost all of the MMS Is owned by 'Big Daddy'; so now they know that they can do whatever they want and cover it up very easily. You know, it's very funny that only 1 televised media source uncovered the ACORN scandal. Huuummmmm:) Kind of makes ones thinking gears start turning:)

it'll be alright

just be sure to keep your tinfoil hat on and everything will be okay

O and this is not including the HUGE history making march on Washington. Again this is HUGE! And again only one media source covered this historical moment. 75,000 PEOPLE! The whole repub/dem thing is just really a thing of the past. It just helps cover THEM up while causing a distraction to us.

More Czars than the Romanoffs. No socialism/communism here. Boo ur right Bush lost his way abandoned free market principles, got liberal and the door was opened a little further for socialism. We did'nt get here over night. Obama is just the current face for tyrrany. He did'nt start the fire,but he is letting the mf'er burn. The Y2K czar.....they gave in to panic on that one. Just another brick in the wall.

Obama is going to appoint me to be the czar of dating sites

How come Bush didn't appoint you? He already had too many? LOL

I thought Obama was for change?
What is he changing? Trying to have more czars than Bush?

There aren't any czars here in America anyway so not a valid question.

Hussein calls then czars. Where'd he pick up that term from, Bush?

sorry i get into it sometimes.Lol on the tin hat thing:)But more people need to wake up and realize the real Raw deal. Watch what happens next.

No he doesn't.