Video: Constituent lectures Congressman on executive power

posted at 9:40 am on September 5, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Give Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA) some credit for actually appearing before his constituents to answer their questions — and then promptly take a little away for a ridiculous attempt to pass off Barack Obama’s 31 czars as somehow less of an executive-branch overreach than warrantless surveillance of international communications. That is what provoked the response shown here at Perriello’s meeting last weekend, in which an angry constituent lectures the Congressman on Obama’s 31 czars (and counting). The proliferation of unaccountable czars in the White House are a direct attack on the power of the legislative branch to check the executive, but Perriello seems oblivious to this:

Note the standing ovation given to the lecture. Perriello and other Democrats had better start learning something from these reactions, because mistrust is beginning to rapidly increase for this administration. The explosion of czars in Obama’s White House has people worried about “shadow governments,” technically an incorrect term but descriptive of the problem (“shadow government” describes opposition-party positions in a parliamentary system or one that wields total power through the use of puppet elected officials). A handful look like an affront to Congress, but dozens begin to look dictatorial.

If nothing else, this demonstrates the end of George Bush as a talking point for Democrats. People weren’t really worried that the NSA was listening to their conversations with Aunt Millie. The czars and the government takeovers of health care and energy production, on the other hand, will impact every American in fundamental ways. Bush as a vague and ambiguous bogeyman has been eclipsed by the very real encroachment on liberty that Barack Obama and his czars promise.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Anybody else bothered by the fact that these Dems don’t seem really concerned by all this, but rather just angry even though there are elections coming up soon?

Dr. ZhivBlago on September 5, 2009 at 9:55 AM

Have been for quite some time. They don’t care about polls, etc. They hope to have their policies and programs in place and the elections are really unimportant.

hillbilly on September 5, 2009 at 11:45 AM

Townhall after townhall, We the People are showing not only how intelligent and well-informed the majority of us are, but also how stupid, and yes, ignorant, so many of our elected officials can be.

mrt721 on September 5, 2009 at 11:45 AM

Anybody else bothered by the fact that these Dems don’t seem really concerned by all this, but rather just angry even though there are elections coming up soon?

Dr. ZhivBlago on September 5, 2009 at 9:55 AM

Incumbents are returned to office over 90% of the time. They have fixed the system to almost guarantee it…they think they have little to fear.

JIMV on September 5, 2009 at 11:45 AM

“Shadow Government” is not a good term…Perhaps “second government” or “Secret Government” would be better, as in Obama has created a Secret Government bypassing the one in the Constitution

.

If — I emphasize because I don’t think it’s true — it’s true that Obama has done this, then Bush did it first. Were outraged about it under the Bush administration?

Tom_Shipley on September 5, 2009 at 11:47 AM

Hey Tom,
I was no fan of Bush’s appointments and policies …
It was your blanket assertion that BUSH was worse …They’ve all been out of control…
They must be reigned in…
Besides, your only source was Wiki. Dubious at best…
Admittedly, I have a knee-jerk reaction when someone uses it….;)

jerrytbg on September 5, 2009 at 11:55 AM

Yeah, but if you look at the list, Bush created more new “czar” positions and chose to fill many more previously created positions than his predecessor. The real comparison would be to see how many czars Bush had in his first year in office. But the undeniable fact is that Bush decided to appoint many more czars than previous administrations.

Tom_Shipley on September 5, 2009 at 11:36 AM

You still need to do a further drill-down, though, because even raw numbers, while telling you something, don’t get at the full scope. Since “czar” is, in the end, a meaningless term, we’d need to see what their actual job description is, especially in the areas where there is no continuity between Bush and Obama. I think if you look more closely and see what subject matters come under the auspices of “czars” in the Obama administration, it is true what Ed says about the scope of their potential impact, relative to the Bush administration. So, yes, while there is politics involved in the critique, there is also substance, at least from people like myself who don’t fancy the idea of life in a “czar”-ridden regime.

venividivici on September 5, 2009 at 11:58 AM

It’s time that all “Czars” go before a Senate committee for confirmation. Short of that, the Senate should immediately begin by simply calling every Czar up to Capitol Hill for informational questioning. The Congress already has the power to do that. Folks like Van Jones being hired by Obama necessitates this action. Half of these guys couldn’t pass a background check required for admission to the Armed Forces.

stefano1 on September 5, 2009 at 11:59 AM

Townhall after townhall, We the People are showing not only how intelligent and well-informed the majority of us are, but also how stupid, and yes, ignorant, so many of our elected officials can be.

mrt721 on September 5, 2009 at 11:45 AM

But mrt721, the majority of us elected Mr. Obama as President [myself not included]. I think you are seeing an intelligent and well-informed minority exerting a great amount of “peer pressure” on the majority.

unclesmrgol on September 5, 2009 at 12:00 PM

he explosion of czars in Obama’s White House has people worried about “shadow governments,” technically an incorrect term but descriptive of the problem

How about “shadowy gov’t?”

JiangxiDad on September 5, 2009 at 12:02 PM

Not only the 0bama power grab via the ‘czars’ is disturbing but also the fact that a lot of them weem to be angry people of color intent on ‘Getting Whitey’.

GeneSmith on September 5, 2009 at 12:04 PM

venividivici on September 5, 2009 at 11:58 AM

Ed was comparing the “czars” to the wireless warrant program, not Bush’s “czars.”

And if you REALLY didn’t fancy a “czar-ridden regime” you would have been screaming about this 4 years ago. Excuse me if I don’t buy your “sincerity” of your opposition.

Hey Tom,
I was no fan of Bush’s appointments and policies …

Wonderful. Were you calling for a stop to these “czar” appointments when Bush was in power?

Tom_Shipley on September 5, 2009 at 12:05 PM

Pick off the czars one by one. Since they weren’t properly vetted, you know they are all Van Jones in character and temperament. Once a half dozen of the bigger czars have been demoralized and fired, this will shake loose some of the lesser known ones, who will resign. If spread out over the next six months, this czar-czarina-gate will further demoralize the Obama administration. The more demoralized the administration becomes, the less effective and more distracted it becomes. 2010 is coming and the more we can delay Obama and his goons from doing further harm, the closer their day of reckoning comes.

EMD on September 5, 2009 at 12:06 PM

Tom_Shipley on September 5, 2009 at 11:36 AM

More of the ‘but Bush did it too…’ from the left with no real way to defend themselves from the truth. Truth is, that by appointing ANY cabinet level positions without conformation from the legislative branch the President is in violation of the Constitution. This is intended to bypass the system of checks and balances put in place by it and would be an impeachable office. We should look to Honduras for a good example of what should happen when a President oversteps his authority and tries to run roughshod over the Constitution.

Wolftech on September 5, 2009 at 12:07 PM

Tom_Shipley on September 5, 2009 at 12:05 PM

I hadn’t gotten here yet…
But everyone around me knew how I felt…

jerrytbg on September 5, 2009 at 12:18 PM

Here’s the deal. Maybe some of you guys really have an honest opposition to these “czar” appointments — at least the ones not confirmed by the senate — and were either A) unaware of them while Bush was in office or B) were against them while Bush was in office.

If A), great, be against them. But don’t and paint this as Obama doing anything new here like Ed here:

Bush as a vague and ambiguous bogeyman has been eclipsed by the very real encroachment on liberty that Barack Obama and his czars promise.

Bush did the same exact “encroachment on liberty” during his tenure. In fact, he appointment 5x as many czars as Clinton did. Obama currently has less czars than Bush did.

If you have an honest opposition to these appointments, then you also can’t push conspiracy theories that Obama is using them to take away liberty from the people of the US, or at least is acting any differently than Bush did.

Tom_Shipley on September 5, 2009 at 12:20 PM

Tom, Bush had less than half of Obama’s czars — and they weren’t radical, they did not seek to “transform” America. Obama and his czars & all of them in his cabinet have a goal of leading us to an un-American way of life.
I guess you wouldn’t understand the signs unless you came from a banana republic like myself.

glad2bindie on September 5, 2009 at 12:21 PM

I hadn’t gotten here yet…
But everyone around me knew how I felt…

So you were calling for Bush to stop his “czar” appointments?

Tom_Shipley on September 5, 2009 at 12:21 PM

And if you REALLY didn’t fancy a “czar-ridden regime” you would have been screaming about this 4 years ago. Excuse me if I don’t buy your “sincerity” of your opposition.

Tom_Shipley on September 5, 2009 at 12:05 PM

First off, I’m not “screaming”. Secondly, again, Bush’s “czars” were primarily dealing with WOT issues where I broadly supported him and where the direct impact on my life as a citizen was minimal to non-existence. When Obama appoints a “compensation czar” and an “auto czar” and a “green jobs” czar and a “global warming czar”, those are not “czars” dealing with far-away problems relating to international terrorism, they are dealing with the auto, energy and banking industry right here. So, I don’t need to apologize to you or anyone for taking Obama’s “czars” more personally than I took Bush’s “czars”. Doubt my sincerity all you want, I won’t lose any sleep over it.

venividivici on September 5, 2009 at 12:24 PM

those are not “czars” dealing with far-away problems relating to international terrorism, they are dealing with the auto, energy and banking industry right here.

Yeah, Bush didn’t have any czars dealing with banking or industry right here.

Bank Bailout Czar United States Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability Kashkari, Neel[20]. 2008-2009 New position, Pres nominated, Senate confirmed Bush, George W.

Manufacturing Czar Assistant Secretary for manufacturing and services, U.S. Commerce Department Frink, Albert[101] 2004-2007 Senate confirmed Bush, George W.

Regulatory Czar Director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Office of Management and Budget John D. Graham [116] 2001-2006 Pres nominated, Senate confirmed Bush, George W.

Savings & Loan Czar Director, Office of Thrift Supervision Ryan, T. Timothy, Jr.[120] 1990 Pres appointed, Senate-confirmed Bush, George H. W.

Cyber Security Czar, Cyber Czar Special Advisor to the President on Cybersecurity Clarke, Richard A.[37] 2001 October Pres appointed Bush, George W.

Domestic Policy Czar Chief Domestic Policy Coordinator, Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor to the President, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Rove, Karl[53] 2004-2006 Pres appointed Bush, George W.

Tom_Shipley on September 5, 2009 at 12:33 PM

Tom_Shipley on September 5, 2009 at 12:21 PM

I thought the Patriot Act was a mistake…Maybe just a revision of FISA
DHS…what a boondoggle …just another bloated bureaucracy …
Drug Bennies…more money down the hole…
These are just a few of my disagreements….
Labeling appointments as “czars”, has always had a chilling effect on me…going back to Nixon as well.
But the real issue I see here is more of what these people are doing and how they are so radical in their beliefs… that is even more frightening than the label.

jerrytbg on September 5, 2009 at 12:34 PM

I love the smug little liberals remaining seated, smirking as if they knew an inkling about history and even an ounce of reality. Fools.

Grafted on September 5, 2009 at 12:35 PM

Tom,
I’d like nothing better than go on with this discussion…
But I’ve got to go get a boat ready for a moonlit cruise…

jerrytbg on September 5, 2009 at 12:40 PM

Perriello won because he got 80% of the vote in Charlottesville, the home of Mr. Jefferson’s University. 800 handwritten votes mysteriously showed up after all Charlottesville precincts had reported in, just enough to give Perriello the win.

huckleberryfriend on September 5, 2009 at 12:40 PM

jerrytbg on September 5, 2009 at 12:40 PM

Have fun!

Tom_Shipley on September 5, 2009 at 12:42 PM

Tom_Shipley on September 5, 2009 at 12:33 PM

Note that all but the last two are “Senate confirmed.”

And you couldn’t resist including your favorite bogeyman, Karl Rove, in your list.

The mask slipped. You are a simple troll, nothing more.

notropis on September 5, 2009 at 12:42 PM

Shipley:

Ity appears that most of your list (at 12:33) were Senate confirmed. Rove? A czar? Stupid.

Vince on September 5, 2009 at 12:42 PM

Tom_Shipley on September 5, 2009 at 12:33 PM

I didn’t say Bush didn’t have anyone working in the area of domestic policy (although you do have one that was actually a GHW Bush appointee in there) because clearly he did, but that the primary thrust was related to WOT issues, unlike Obama’s, where the primary thrust is domestic. I’m not going to repeat myself again, so either disprove my actual point or STFU.

venividivici on September 5, 2009 at 12:43 PM

Well, at least Obama has done one good thing–he’s gotten Americans to wake up and take an interest in civics!

Special K on September 5, 2009 at 12:43 PM

but that the primary thrust was related to WOT issues, unlike Obama’s, where the primary thrust is domestic.

Well, that’s not true either. Look at the list. The majority are domestic issues. I just highlighted some. There are far more domestic “czars” than ones dealing with the WOT.

And, again, both Bush and Obama had czars that were confirmed by the Senate and that weren’t confirmed by the Senate.

Tom_Shipley on September 5, 2009 at 12:51 PM

Tom_Shipley

So if you didn’t approve of czars under Bush, then shouldn’t you be screaming from the rafters about Obama’s, especially considering he has made twice as many appointments in only 7 months in many more domestic domains?

Or is it ok since it is Obama doing it? And no I was not a fan of bush…he expanded govt way too much and spent way too much. I just find it amusing that the biggest defense most people have of Obama is “well Bush did it too!!” or “Bush started it!!”. You people HATED bush. Why is your guy continuing bush’s policies on steroids just peachy?

spaninq on September 5, 2009 at 12:51 PM

Special K,
I felt compelled to stick around for a few more mins.
I’m glad I did…
Like gun and Ammo sales? ;) lol ! I do have to go…lol

jerrytbg on September 5, 2009 at 12:52 PM

while x=0
cout: “Bush did it! Bush did it! Bush did it!”;

The problem is they never ended their loop. Guess they’re too busy to reprogram the bots.

jodetoad on September 5, 2009 at 12:57 PM

Tom_Shipley on September 5, 2009 at 12:51 PM

You even got the raw numbers wrong. When you eliminate multiple holders of the same position, Bush had 27 and Obama has 32, 16 of which are arguably new “czars” dedicated to domestic policy. Here are the lists:

Bush:

Budget
Abstinence
AIDS
Bank Bailout
Bioethics
Bird Flu
Clean up
Communications
Cyber Security
Democracy
Domestic Policy (this was Karl Rove, BTW)
Drug
Faith-based
Food Safety
Global AIDS
WTC Health
Homeland Security
Homeless
Gulf Reconstruction
Intelligence
Manufacturing
Policy
Public Diplomacy
Reading
Regulatory
Science
Terrorism

Obama (the ones with “D” after them are the new domestic czars):

AfPak
AIDS
Auto D
Auto Recovery D
Bank Bailout
Border D
Climate D
Compensation D
Domestic Violence D
Drug
Economic D
Energy D
Faith-based
Great Lakes D
Green Jobs D
Guantanamo
Health Care D
Information
Intelligence
Iran
Middle East
Performance D
Regulatory
Science
Stimulus Accountability D
Technology D
Terrorism
Urban Affairs D
Weapons
Nonproliferation
Weatherization D
Cybersecurity

Some of Obama’s “czars” could end up doing good work, e.g. “Stimulus Accountability”, but looking at this the data doesn’t support your position at all, really.

venividivici on September 5, 2009 at 1:05 PM

Tom_Shipley on September 5, 2009 at 12:20 PM

Any “czars” that Bush may have appointed were certainly within the mainstream of the American political spectrum and none advocated the absolutely absurd positions of many of Obama’s. These guys (and gals) would never pass a security check to get in the same building as POTUS (maybe in TOTUS), let alone his private office.

CC

CapedConservative on September 5, 2009 at 1:11 PM

It is interesting to hear people relying on constitutional arguments to confront their representatives…much more interesting that stuff such as “Bush Lied, People Died” and the like.

I do wish that the cut had included the Congressman’s response…that might have been interesting to hear.

Blaise on September 5, 2009 at 1:14 PM

… so how many of Obama’s czars have been confirmed by the Senate? Seems like all of Bush’s except for one (it was thoroughly disingenuous to include Rove on the list

AZfederalist on September 5, 2009 at 1:24 PM

I think it is a “Shadow Government” Obama is Soros’ puppet…

The way the Democrats seem to be indifferent to how the majority of American’s feel tells me they are up to something…I think they are gonna go for it…the Socialization of American and a death grip on power…be ready people…

CCRWM on September 5, 2009 at 1:24 PM

venividivici on September 5, 2009 at 1:05 PM

Thank you very much for the revised and actual list; it means I didn’t have to get out paper and pencil to do it!

I have copied your list and stored it for use when this subject comes up later.

ExpressoBold on September 5, 2009 at 1:40 PM

If “shadow government” isn’t accurate, how about “illegal government”?

Jim Treacher on September 5, 2009 at 1:45 PM

Let’s be honest folks -President Obama himself couldn’t pass a background check.

edwina on September 5, 2009 at 1:48 PM

Anybody else bothered by the fact that these Dems don’t seem really concerned by all this, but rather just angry even though there are elections coming up soon?

Dr. ZhivBlago on September 5, 2009 at 9:55 AM

Have been for quite some time. They don’t care about polls, etc. They hope to have their policies and programs in place and the elections are really unimportant.

hillbilly on September 5, 2009 at 11:45 AM

Obama and the Dems do not seem to really be getting it. Or rather,, they are listening,, but they have their plans and they just do not care. This is their day. They have it all,, and they sure do not plan on letting some two bit public,, some mom, some dad, some doctor,,some public “mob” stop them from what they are intending.

We are all just one national emergency away from total takeover. In any national emergency,, you can bet whatever little courage the Republicans are showing now,, that will go out the window. McCain and all the rest will tell everyone that “Now is not the time for arguments,, we have to be united behind the marxist our President.”
We are in dangerous times. On any given day we are just a majority vote away from losing it all. Then town halls and calling your local czar will no longer matter.

JellyToast on September 5, 2009 at 1:55 PM

Thank you very much for the revised and actual list; it means I didn’t have to get out paper and pencil to do it!

I have copied your list and stored it for use when this subject comes up later.

ExpressoBold on September 5, 2009 at 1:40 PM

No problem. I hope the subject comes up less than we expect, but with Obama and Co., that hope is probably in vain.

venividivici on September 5, 2009 at 1:55 PM

This really is putting in place a shadow government. And I truly think it is setting up a system for when congress will be no more.
These fools in congress are also being used,, as far as I am concerned.

JellyToast on September 5, 2009 at 1:57 PM

Shadow government: one that wields total power through the use of puppet elected officials

George Soros

Haunches on September 5, 2009 at 2:03 PM

thanks to petrf for the link

The “Shadow Party” is a term originally devised by journalists to describe 527 political committees promoting Democratic Party agendas. It is here used more specifically to refer to the network of non-profit activist groups organized by George Soros and others to mobilize resources – money, get-out-the-vote drives, campaign advertising and policy iniatives – to elect Democratic candidates and guide the Democratic Party towards the left. The Internet fund-raising operation MoveOn.org is a key component. The Shadow Party in this sense was conceived and organized principally by Soros, Hillary Clinton and Harold Ickes. Its efforts are amplified by, and coordinated with, key government unions and the activist groups associated with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). The key organizers of these groups are veterans of the Sixties left.

maverick muse on September 5, 2009 at 2:07 PM

venividivici on September 5, 2009 at 10:58 AM

Thanks.

maverick muse on September 5, 2009 at 2:12 PM

I thought a shadow government was a group of officials waiting to take power when certain conditions were met.

MadisonConservative on September 5, 2009 at 9:43 AM

True. For example, in Great Britain, there is an “official” shadow government run by the party currently out of power. Each minister in the British Government has a corresponding shadow minister, and the shadow minister will generally issue statements rebutting controversial ones of the minister he shadows.

Here’s another vision of shadow government by far right wingers. I don’t think the orator in the video is going this far, but one can catch the idea — a government within our government, whose activities are not subject to the balance of power between the three branches, or (in the case of the far right vision) the voters.

unclesmrgol on September 5, 2009 at 2:17 PM

People weren’t really worried that the NSA was listening to their conversations with Aunt Millie.

Heh, I have no idea why. If Obama were to propose something like that now, conservatives would be screaming bloody murder. But I guess since Bush did it it’s ok.

The DHS is just as unconstitutional as ObamaCare and every one of his czars. Just because Ridge was vetted and affirmed by the Senate doesn’t change that.

2Brave2Bscared on September 5, 2009 at 2:28 PM

lovingmyUSA on September 5, 2009 at 11:28 AM

Thank venividivici for that. I got a chuckle out of it.

Labyrinth:

“That’s not fair!”
“You say that so often, I wonder what you’re basis for comparison is.

maverick muse on September 5, 2009 at 2:35 PM

petefrt, my bad abbr.

maverick muse on September 5, 2009 at 2:41 PM

I’ve read repeatedly that Van Jones’ role comes with a $30 billion budget.

Could someone please explain to me how Congress provides a “budget” to a Czar?! Department and agency budgets I understand. But I can’t for the life of me understand how a Czar’s budget is passed.

jeanneb on September 5, 2009 at 3:13 PM

“You say that so often, I wonder what you’re basis for comparison is.”

maverick muse on September 5, 2009 at 2:35 PM

Ha, have the movie, haven’t seen it for at least a decade! Think I may watch it with my grandson tonight!

lovingmyUSA on September 5, 2009 at 3:14 PM

They don’t care about polls, etc. They hope to have their policies and programs in place and the elections are really unimportant.
hillbilly on September 5, 2009 at 11:45 AM

They don’t care about polls, etc. They hope to have their policies and programs in place so the elections will never happen.

Fixed

Friendly21 on September 5, 2009 at 3:19 PM

Allah, would that shadowy gov’t that he was talking about be the new socialist gov’t that really came in on the Democratic ticket?

valianthunter on September 5, 2009 at 3:28 PM

Just wondering… why you clowns had no trouble with Bush Jr.s various czars. Or Bush Daddy? Or Reagan’s? Or Nixons.

Of course, I know why you have trouble with Obama’s “czars”. It would be nice if one of you idiots had the balls to admit it.

bschmalfeldt on September 5, 2009 at 3:57 PM

bschmlfeldt….why is that

CWforFreedom on September 5, 2009 at 4:04 PM

Or Bush Daddy?

bschmalfeldt on September 5, 2009 at 3:57 PM

Sure sign of a useful idiot farg off idiot

CWforFreedom on September 5, 2009 at 4:05 PM

Just wondering… why you clowns had no trouble with Bush Jr.s various czars. Or Bush Daddy? Or Reagan’s? Or Nixons.

Of course, I know why you have trouble with Obama’s “czars”. It would be nice if one of you idiots had the balls to admit it.

bschmalfeldt on September 5, 2009 at 3:57 PM

Czars in any form are bad. However, I am even angrier at his selection of czars.

How many of them are radicals?
Van Jones
John Holdren
Carol Browner(don’t know if she’s a czar)
Cass Sunstein

Those are off the top of my head.

Black Adam on September 5, 2009 at 4:51 PM

Is oversight evasion a crime?

– The Cat

MirCat on September 5, 2009 at 4:51 PM

Oh man, that fat idiot with the ridiculous sideburns sure does understand the Constitution better than that law professor does! Can you believe that ridiculous response from Perriello?

What? You just posted the rant from the idiot? Well done, Ed. Keep up the good work. That’s absolutely worthwhile.

Proud Rino on September 5, 2009 at 5:32 PM

Proud Rino:

My God what an obnoxious statement.. a man gets up in a town hall and exercises his freedom of speech and here you are making comments about his weight and his hair cut.

He is right btw, if Obama actually had to get Senate confirmation on his army of Czars, most of them would not stand a chance of surviving scrutiny.

And Bush is not the bogey man here, not at all. Obama is.

Terrye on September 5, 2009 at 7:27 PM

bschmalfeldt on September 5, 2009 at 3:57 PM

Can’t find someone to burp you or change your diaper there?

Sheesh you are proof positive that rage and intolerance are wholly owned by the Democrat party and the left.

daesleeper on September 5, 2009 at 7:44 PM

Ooooh, I got goosebumps seeing these Virginians applaud like this. “Shadow govt” is something we in America have never worried about with out POTUSes and would have been scoffed at until now. To see people know the truth so much that they are applauding instead of scoffing is truly heartening. I hope this means VA has learned its lesson from going blue in ’08. I hope they rejoin the sane in 2010.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on September 5, 2009 at 7:45 PM

I just watched the video and read the first few comments at the top here, but it seems to me these Democrats are unnaturally confident in the face of their angry constituents. I think they are unafraid because Obama and his “people” are telling them “don’t worry about elections, they’re in the bag”. How do we know the upcoming elections won’t be fixed?

gina4 on September 5, 2009 at 8:07 PM

These czars need to be challenged and it needs to head up to the Supreme Court.

Rational Thought on September 5, 2009 at 10:03 AM

The Supreme Court really doesn’t have the last say, we do (through Congress). I’m tired of the Congress blaming things on Supreme court rulings. Just like the EPA and CO2, the court said that Clean Air Act is so broad that the EPA could regulate CO2. Well then it’s up to them (Congress) to change the Act to make sure the power can’t be abused. The Public should make sure they damn well better. The same is true of the Czars. We need to let these people know that they had better act in the best interest of the country or there will be hell to pay.

whbates on September 5, 2009 at 8:38 PM

How do we know the upcoming elections won’t be fixed?

gina4 on September 5, 2009 at 8:07 PM

We don’t, and they might. Acorn is getting Billions of dollars in stimulas money. What might they spend that on?

whbates on September 5, 2009 at 8:41 PM

Who cares what this idiot’s position is anyway. Just another con making a scene without getting anything resolved. Everything he said went through one ear and out the other.

Afrolib on September 5, 2009 at 9:20 PM

nothing better than seeing a skeered congressthing

JohnBissell on September 5, 2009 at 9:24 PM

Afro, stop bringing marshmallows to a weinie roast

JohnBissell on September 5, 2009 at 9:25 PM

Everything he said went through one ear and out the other.

Afrolib on September 5, 2009 at 9:20 PM

That’s because you have no brain.

venividivici on September 5, 2009 at 9:45 PM

Interesting that the two people who have been labeled “nuts” or “stupid” by the Dems and the MSM are the two who have had the biggest impact on O’s policies – Palin and Beck. Palin for her one comment on “death panels” changed the discussion of HR3200 and Beck with his nightly espose of the czars has brought this issue into the daylight. Now we can see why the left fears these two.

mph on September 5, 2009 at 10:00 AM

Yes, it’s interesting. It also continues a trend. Every time Obama or his administration goes after a real conservative, they lose. When he attacked Rush, when they attacked Cheney over supposed “torture,” when they foolishly threatened to prosecute ex-CIA, and now attacking Glenn Beck. Every time they try, they look worse and worse.

ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on September 5, 2009 at 10:41 PM

1. What are their salaries and benefits?
2. Are the Czars in the Federal Retirement System (FERS)?
3. Are they GS rated?
4. How are they currently funded? Where does their pay come out of?
5. If Czars are not hired under normal civil service rules, which include background checks, and they are not hired under the rules of Cabinet members, under what rules are they hired?
6. Why has Congress not investigated the nature of these new positions to extablish rules. Congress has oversight on Cabinet members. They should have oversight on these bizarre appointments.

Do these people seem to have some authority over various Federal Agencies? If they do, it must be clarified by Congress

If for instance, a Czar can request a study or report from and agency that study or report costs money. Therefore, these Czars may be spending money allocated to agency budgets and limits must be established

If the Czars merely blowhard for Obama, and do not make requests of government, simply establish their money comes from the White House budget, document the full amount, and make sure Congress approves any extra money it will cost to have the czars

This stuff cannot be walked away from

The job requirements, the definition of powers, the budget and source of money must be nailed down and put under Congressional oversight

This is a new game and it stinks. We are America. We do not have an Emperor nor a Praetorian Guard. Citizens pay for this system and we have a right to oversight

entagor on September 6, 2009 at 1:51 AM

Yeah, Bush didn’t have any czars dealing with banking or industry right here.

Bank Bailout Czar United States Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability Kashkari, Neel[20]. 2008-2009 New position, Pres nominated, Senate confirmed Bush, George W.

Manufacturing Czar Assistant Secretary for manufacturing and services, U.S. Commerce Department Frink, Albert[101] 2004-2007 Senate confirmed Bush, George W.

Regulatory Czar Director of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Office of Management and Budget John D. Graham [116] 2001-2006 Pres nominated, Senate confirmed Bush, George W.

Savings & Loan Czar Director, Office of Thrift Supervision Ryan, T. Timothy, Jr.[120] 1990 Pres appointed, Senate-confirmed Bush, George H. W.

Tom_Shipley on September 5, 2009 at 12:33 PM

Really dude? The whole problem is the lack of congressional oversight with with Obama’s Red Army of Czars.
The list of banking ‘Czars’ you have posted all have ‘Senate Confirmed’ after it. That would indicate a signing off by the people’s elected officials which is something I am fine with.
IF the people we elect get to review and approve so be it.
Obama is opting to ignore that. (sure Bush did that with some and I didn’t like that either, but Obama is taking it to another level of absurdity)

MannyT-vA on September 6, 2009 at 7:36 AM

Go Virginia! Now, realize that taking down the czars might consume our attention and energy. Watch the other hand as he pushes legislation thru the lap dog congress. 2010 we put people in that want to work for US, and 2012 we start to unravel all of the damage. Until that fine day, God save our country.

moyeti on September 6, 2009 at 10:29 AM

“shadow government” describes … one that wields total power through the use of puppet elected officials

That fits the bill. It’s a standards socialist tactic, at least since the 1930s, to create new structures on top and alongside established institutions, that will eventually supersedes those structures or turns them into hollow shells. That’s how the European Union expanded as well. That is also what Obama is refering to with his national service army; not literally an army, but superstructures staffed with his people, well-funded and moving into every corner of society.

The cabinet posts etc. are staffed with traditional Democrats and a few clueless Republicans. The czars are the real Obama people, they are from the networks that brought him to power and they are being brought in through the backdoor.

modifiedcontent on September 6, 2009 at 11:24 AM

Ugh, ‘standard’ not standards’, ‘supersede’ not ‘supersedes’, etc…

modifiedcontent on September 6, 2009 at 11:25 AM

Shipley’s entire argument can be summed up with four words: “Bush did it too!” Bush isn’t in office anymore, buddy. Selective outrageous outrage is a product perfected by the American left (see Moore, Michael) so you’re sudden demand for evidence of outrage at both Bush and Obama for similar tactics comes off as more than a little bit contrived. And never mind that Obama is taking the tactic to new heights. I don’t remember any outrage of Clinton czars, even though he had them. Obama is taking heat precisely because of the sheer volume and radical nature of his czars. “Bush did it, too” is not a a valid defense of Obama’s czars. It is a deflection. And it’s not even accurate, as Obama has eclipsed Bush in both volume and radicalism of czars.

holygoat on September 6, 2009 at 1:11 PM

entagor on September 6, 2009 at 1:51 AM

Excellent, excellent post. These questions need to be answered immediately.

riverrat10k on September 6, 2009 at 3:39 PM

It’s great that he realizes Obama and the czars are a serious threat to our political system, but what he fails to realize is that Bush enabled it through The Patriot Act. Without TPA Obama would be confined to the pre 9/11 rules. Now he’s free to have goons monitor all Internet traffic, monitor all of your financial transactions, monitor your travel, etc.

Next time you go to a TEA party or protest make sure you smile for the DHS camera and thank the neoconservatives for giving Obama the power to track you for being a domestic terrorist (since political protest is low level terrorism).

popularpeoplesfront on September 7, 2009 at 10:52 PM

<blockquotevenividivici on September 5, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Nope try again, Karl Rove was White House Deputy Chief of Staff and NOT a “czar”. As for most of your “List” of czars most are pure fiction, Homeland Security is a CABINET POST, created by Congress, the Drug and Energy “Czar”,(which you declined to mention) were created by acts of Congress also, in keeping with Article 2, Section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution.
Where did you get this fictitious list of Bush’s CZARS?

nelsonknows on September 8, 2009 at 12:57 AM