WH to Congress: Czars won’t meet with Congress because Fox wants it
posted at 11:36 am on October 23, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Barack Obama campaigned on changing the culture of Washington to bring more openness, transparency, and accountability to the Beltway. Yesterday, Congress discovered that change actually meant going in the other direction. The White House informed Congress that it would not make its policy czars available for testimony before Congress, setting up a potential showdown between the two branches of government:
The White House has told Congress it will reject calls for many of President Obama’s policy czars to testify before Congress – a decision senators said goes against the president’s promises of transparency and openness and treads on Congress’ constitutional mandate to investigate the administration’s actions.
Sen. Susan Collins, Maine Republican, said White House counsel Greg Craig told her in a meeting Wednesday that they will not make available any of the czars who work in the White House and don’t have to go through Senate confirmation. She said he was “murky” on whether other czars outside of the White House would be allowed to come before Congress.
Miss Collins said that doesn’t make sense when some of those czars are actually making policy or negotiating on behalf of Mr. Obama. …
The debate goes to the heart of weighty constitutional issues about separation of powers. The president argues that he should be allowed to have advisers who are free to give him confidential advice without having to fear being called to testify about it. Democrats and Republicans in Congress, though, argue that those in office who actually craft policy should be able to be summoned to testify because they do more than just give the president advice.
Let’s revisit the context of the issue with this handy chart from the Washington Post:
Bush created five new czar positions in five years. Obama created 17 new czar positions in 8 months, only one of which needed Senate confirmation and has Congressional oversight. These are essentially end runs around Congressional oversight. The Obama administration denied this earlier this year, but their response to both Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill leaves little doubt on the matter. Obama wants to create and implement policy in secret, and doesn’t want his czars having to testify before Congress on what they do.
Is this “transparency”? No, but it is a transparent power grab, and Congress has only belatedly noticed it. In fact, as the Washington Times reports this morning, White House counsel Greg Craig denied this — but spent half of his time rebutting Glenn Beck rather than explaining why Congress should not have oversight over administration officials who set and implement policy.
That’s also pretty transparent. Obama wants to play the Fox card to get Congress to retreat on oversight. If Fox calls for Congress to perform its constitutional duties, apparently that makes it extreeeeeeeeeme. That’s an interesting take on transparency, and an interesting position on the Constitution from the nation’s most, er, celebrated constitutional scholar.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
New Obama Admin. Slogan: It’s Fox News’ Fault!
mizflame98 on October 23, 2009 at 12:34 PM
You know, I really can’t stand Fox’s daytime coverage. They run the same damn stories in a loop on every show and rarely cover anything new. Beck always goes his own way which is a big part of his appeal but the whole day before hs show (and with the fox Report) is a rehash of the same crap. They have been talking about those pilots overshooting the airport non-stop and nonew information has been gathered. They should be talking about THIS story right here, give reports from Afghanistan, cover the NY-23 race, etc. Mix it up some more.
Daemonocracy on October 23, 2009 at 12:36 PM
Keep moving – nothing to see here.
Fuquay Steve on October 23, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Yes We Can!… If Fox News stops being mean.
MobileVideoEngineer on October 23, 2009 at 12:39 PM
If congress is now so concerned about the czar situation why don’t they pass some form of legislation requiring them to be confirmed and “grandfather” the new czars in? If the president doesn’t sign the bill they can override him.
milwife88 on October 23, 2009 at 12:39 PM
NO SIR, you can NOT have a shadow cabinet. A czar is a dictator. If you look at these peoples title you can see they are dictators over legitimate cabinet positions, answerable to no one but the president. That is not how the executive branch is set up. These positions are unconstitutional.
Sefton on October 23, 2009 at 12:43 PM
What Fox and Obama needs is some inspirational music:
For Fox: Keep on doing what you’re doing.
For Obama: Time to reexamine what you’re doing.
mizflame98 on October 23, 2009 at 12:44 PM
Obama doesn’t care what the so-called Founding Fathers said in the so-called Constitution regarding the so-called separation of powers.
LASue on October 23, 2009 at 12:44 PM
Obama is going off the edge…much sooner then I ever thought.
This is borderline full blown paranoia…time to have him analyzed by a doctor.
right2bright on October 23, 2009 at 12:45 PM
The White House fraud has finally understood the fact that blaming George W. Bush is wearing mighty thin. They need another whipping boy and – No More Calls, Please! – we have a winner! FOXNews will now wear that thorny crown.
Of course, at some point, even the libtards will see this action for what it is – VERY much an end-around on congressional oversite – and when it starts affecting THEM, they’ll speak up. But not until.
GoldenEagle4444 on October 23, 2009 at 12:46 PM
Joe Wilson said it all for me. He what he was talking about.
bluegrass on October 23, 2009 at 12:47 PM
They “rebutted” Fox? I’ve never heard them explain or expand anything! All the do is shout “liar!” I’d like to hear the reasoning behind these appointments and so forth but we get nothing!
And by we. I mean the American people. There is no way we will tune into the channels that our President dictates us to watch.
Mr. President, go on Fox and tell your side. We’re listening… but all we hear is bawling.
petunia on October 23, 2009 at 12:48 PM
BuzzCrutcher
Did you miss the part where Craig talks on and on about Glenn Beck? That would be the Fox reference.
JAM on October 23, 2009
BuzzCrutcher on October 23, 2009 at 12:48 PM
Not a good day for me all around. Now I’m reversing the quotes thingee.
BuzzCrutcher on October 23, 2009 at 12:49 PM
The legality was settled during the Bush Administration when the Democrats found a WW2 decision requiring a White House advisor to answer a congressional subpoena. Following that, then National Security Advisor Condi Rice testified on Capitol Hill. The Bush Administration tried to avoid this again with respect to Karl Rove and lost those decisions. Obama is bound by these precedents.
chsw on October 23, 2009 at 12:50 PM
The Post forgot one–
maybe it doesn’t count because Van Jones doesn’t work there anymore.
gstep58 on October 23, 2009 at 12:51 PM
Obama may not be losing much sleep over FOX News, but he is dedicating an inordinate amount of his daytime hours to demonizing it.
I thought FOX and the Right Wing and ‘Extremists’ were irrelevant and a distraction?
catmman on October 23, 2009 at 12:51 PM
Just in case, no one’s mentioned it…
All Obamao’s promises come with an expiration date.
Even, apparently, the Oath of Office.
franksalterego on October 23, 2009 at 12:52 PM
See what happens when you criticize the Won.
MarkTheGreat on October 23, 2009 at 12:55 PM
Now there’s a thought! I wonder….
Don’t they know they are giving Beck power over them by not going on Fox to rebut him? They just yell “liar!”
That’s just a childish way to respond.
petunia on October 23, 2009 at 12:59 PM
I’m kind of wondering that with the spotlight on Fox, while everyone is looking at this story, what is the administration doing under the cover of darkness with no one looking…
Tuari on October 23, 2009 at 1:04 PM
Precisely. Wasn’t that Axelrod’s and Emanuel’s literal point on Sunday? Radioactivate Fox so that any anti-administration position it advances glows green with illegitimacy?
How
racist socialist fascistfoxist!Barnestormer on October 23, 2009 at 1:05 PM
If Fox calls for Congress to perform its constitutional duties, apparently that makes it extreeeeeeeeeme
It’s extreme alright. When a NEWS organization has to remind Congress of its constitutional duties, our country is in a real crapper of a situation.
Blatant attempts by the executive branch to abolish the basic rights protected by the Constitution should have the entire country calling for this adminstration’s head! Period. It should be the BREAKING NEWS 24-7 and shouldn’t stop. Instead we have morons on roundtables bickering over whether spending a trillion dollars to see unemployment hit double digits is a ‘success or not’. And while we are at it, let’s bicker about whether 100% of the people in the nation should have health insurance despite the fact it will add another couple trillion in debt and make life worse for everyone. Oh, and let’s not forget about saving the planet by not stopping pollution, but just allowing some people to make money off of others polluting.
Yeppers, that is MUCH more important than asking:
Pres. Obama, everything you say is a lie. You never answer any questions directly. When challenged, you act like a mob boss instead of the leader of the free world.
The only reason I have been able to accept the fact that a majority of people view this with a ‘eh…no big deal’ attitude is the fact that Scripture states people will be allowed to have delusion (believe the lies).
Obama is an evil man. Most of his administration is comprised of evil people. Evil forces will compel evil men to do evil acts.
That is not my opinion. That is just fact. To deny it is to be…DELUSIONAL.
Kind of convenient isn’t it?
Eh…no big deal…isn’t there a puppy trapped in a well somewhere?
SwampRat on October 23, 2009 at 1:07 PM
FIFY
mr.blacksheep on October 23, 2009 at 1:09 PM
The Child King is getting all wee wee’d up.
Someone get him a binkie. Stat.
omnipotent on October 23, 2009 at 1:11 PM
A political party only acts like this when they have the confidence of never being the minority party again.
hawkdriver on October 23, 2009 at 1:14 PM
Origionaly, there were TWO big checks on Federal Government power…
1. The Senate were the DIRECT representatives of the States…
2. Grand Jurys made up of the People.
Well… we changed the Senate thing in the early 1900s when they became essentialy another House of Reps… by being popularly elected…
And the Grand Jurys scope was changed by a combo of Federal Law, and Court rulings, to where they were no longer investigative bodies themselves, but only arms of Attorney Generals…
Thus, the only check on Federal Power, is FEDERAL seperation of powers… which is not working. The Supremes are AFRAID to even look into whether Obama is Elibable under the Natural Born Citizen Clause (as he was born a dual citizen)… and the Dem controled Congress will not really go against Obama…
But the Founders were very smart… they did give us the Second Amendment for just this type of situation.
Romeo13 on October 23, 2009 at 1:14 PM
The dude is melting before our eyes. The Peter Principle reached.
Predicted.
FireBlogger on October 23, 2009 at 1:16 PM
Now that’s funny!
mizflame98 on October 23, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Ignore that FOX sitting in the corner of the East Wing…
Shivas Irons on October 23, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Campaign Lies……..
YOU LIE!
BigMike252 on October 23, 2009 at 1:21 PM
A. Urban legend. I am in New Hampshire, and the debate was cancelled before it even took place. And Paul was invited, but never responded to the request before the event was canceled. Why was it canceled? Because it was too close in proximity to a similar debate on ABC.
B. Credible, multi-sourced evidence, please, of Fox News’ “bias”.
Del Dolemonte on October 23, 2009 at 1:21 PM
You forgot the coda
“Mmmm, Mmmm, Mmmm!”
Del Dolemonte on October 23, 2009 at 1:25 PM
I keep seeing this. What does this mean?
hawkdriver on October 23, 2009 at 1:33 PM
There was another Obama song sung by kids a few weeks back…
“Mmmmm mmmmm Mmmmm” was a line repeated a few times in Der Ode to Obama…
Romeo13 on October 23, 2009 at 1:36 PM
gras
hawkdriver on October 23, 2009 at 1:39 PM
See I told you this was a keeper. Thanks for digging it up:
Christian Conservative on October 23, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Congress could just refuse to fund the salary of anyone in the White House who has major policy and administrative responsibilities but refuses oversight. And let them all line up and give testimony under oath before a Congressional committee as to the exact nature of their responsibilities.
snaggletoothie on October 23, 2009 at 1:43 PM
Men who work in close association with the President and have power on that basis, but have not been confirmed and will not even testify before the Congress, seem to be usurpers. How will the Americans remove these usurpers? Are they capable of doing so?
Kralizec on October 23, 2009 at 1:55 PM
You forgot something… Bush also didn’t go out of his way to find the most extreme radicals he could find to fill these positions. Bush didn’t actively seek out Communists, Socialists, population control radicals, animal rights radicals, etc. to fill czar positions.
RightWinged on October 23, 2009 at 1:55 PM
But the Founders were very smart… they did give us the Second Amendment for just this type of situation.
Romeo13 on October 23, 2009 at 1:14 PM
Yes, I know. Our Founding Fathers were granted valuable wisdom in their day. Very soon our Founding Fathers’ wisdom will be put to the test.
Always glad to see there are others that are not stumbling through the world chanting “brains! brains! if only I had any brains!”
SwampRat on October 23, 2009 at 2:00 PM
It would be good to know the number of czars in all 8 years of Bush’s presidency, rather than just 5. Ed, I respect your honesty and know you aren’t trying to pull a fast one, but counting all 8 years will make it more clear that Bush didn’t do a similar massive Czar creation in the other 3 years.
RINO in Name Only on October 23, 2009 at 2:04 PM
From that article:
Criticism of czars has boiled over after talk-show host Glenn Beck - who senators at the hearing repeatedly referred to as “he who shall not be named” – began a campaign to highlight their proliferation in the Obama administration. But Miss Collins said she’s been looking at czars for months, and she doesn’t have problems with many of the czars Mr. Beck has criticized.
Still, Mr. Craig spent two pages of his four-page letter to Miss Collins critiquing Mr. Beck’s positions.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/23/czar-war-escalates-between-congress-white-house/
lovingmyUSA on October 23, 2009 at 2:10 PM
Fox should play that after every commercial break.
Greed on October 23, 2009 at 2:12 PM
If we wasn’t for Beck, all we would right now, as our
You obviously haven’t been reading Michelle Malkin…she talked about the czars before Beck did. Her book has been two years in the making. Read “Culture of corruption.” Beck hasn’t been the only voice crying in the wilderness. Hannity was the first to bring “Pastor Jeremiah” to anyone’s attention. Beck is great, but there are others out there too.
lovingmyUSA on October 23, 2009 at 2:15 PM
Hmmmm… “brains… brains….”
Zombies?
Rule 4: DoubleTap!
Romeo13 on October 23, 2009 at 2:15 PM
Yes, he appears to be losing it and rather quickly. He and his clown posse are drowning and he is desperate.
dogsoldier on October 23, 2009 at 2:16 PM
Hahahahahahaha!!!!!!! Yeah, right!
GarandFan on October 23, 2009 at 2:18 PM
I was often thrust into the position of chairing committees for my school district.I often was clueless about doign the work myself, but I was a good at delegating to those on my committees who could do the work. I would then gather it all up, put it together as a report and as committee chair, got all the credit; which of course led to bigger and more prestigous chairs.
Obama gained recognition not because he was good at charming people into registering to vote, but because he was good at organizing other people to do it, and taking the credit for thier work.
When he campaigned he had his advisors doing the actual work and telling him what to say, with the use of a teleprompter to help him remember and get it right. Many of those same advisors are his cabinet members and czars today, deciding his policies and telling him what he needs to do and say. and giving him the credit, if he has not taken it first. Anything that needs his approval gets it or his democrate controlled congress gives it to him. It is just a matter of what path is needed to make it legal, or have the appearnce of being so.
Obama is a narcissist, boardering on a disorder if not already there. He has to surround himself with those that agree with him and his vison of socialism ,which is a form of governemnt that focuses on him and what he wants, unlike the position as president of a republic as it is now.
It is not so much what they know anything about the job he gives them, as so many times demonstrated that they are getting on the job training as they go, but how well they create the image he must have. You might have noticed that he quickly disassociates himself with anyone who damages that image, but never because of incompetence unless it becomes a problem for his image or popularity.
As often noted, his czars create a shadow government that answers only to him. He follows their advice and polices and uses Congress as neccersary to impliment those polices that need the legitimacy of law or polices he can not decree by presidental order.
His need for a Shadow government immune to congressional control could be the result of his narcissist personality or it could be a darker goal; of setting up a socilist goverment on the plan followed by Chaves where the democracy is still figuretively in place, but the control and socilistic policies are dictated by Chavez. The later has more credibility based on the Honduras situation. Honduras is simuliar to the US in that it has a republic form of democracy; a president, a congress, a supreme court and a constitutional based rule of law. As we have seen, Obama only gets involved in something when it hit home as personal to him. What was it about Honduras that he saw as personal enough to require his immediant attention and reaction? Was it because he was friends of the Honduran presisent or that the formerHoundurain president was a good friend of socialist Chavez, who is a friend of Obama? Was it because the making of another socialist country was stopped by the Honduran people? Was it because the countries constitution was used to stop the Honduran president from setting up a socialist dictartorship? After all he clearly denounced their constitution as being the rule of law. Was it because he plans the same thing for us and the fear of the consequences if he failed hit home for him. As a narcissist that would be the worst possible event in his life. If you notced, he does seem to have a particuliar fear of armed citizens and civilian malitia’s that previous presidents did not have.
Franklyn on October 23, 2009 at 2:21 PM
BO and his pack of cry babies need a six-pack of grow-up.
Wade on October 23, 2009 at 2:21 PM
I’ll make this simple, since I actually have sympathy for the Chief Executive’s position. He is entitled to a staff, after all, with various G numbers: G-1, 2, 3, etc.
So, if the so-called “czars” confer only with the Chief Executive and White House staff (in addition to info requests from Federal agencies), Congress should lay off. If they issue orders, especially if they bypass Cabinet secretaries, Congress should lay on.
This would preserve the Constitutional order–Congress has a right to monitor the Chief Executive’s execution of policy via selection of appointees who execute policy. If the czars execute, they get confirmed (testimony I’m less sure about). If they do not execute, but gather info and advise, with execution still having to go out via orders to Federal agencies via the President, they do not get confirmed, nor do they testify, and the Cabinet Secretaries can inform Congress (when asked) that they gave no input, and the Congress can use the power of the purse as appropriate. This would seem to maintain the checks and balances.
And as always, Hold the line.
Horatius on October 23, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Kennith Feinberg the Pay CZAR can impose salary caps, wage reduction, and bonus reduction that does not require the President signature or Congress approval.
This administration and congress have no issue with that.
Will you have an issue when he does it at your work place to your salary?
Sanmon on October 23, 2009 at 2:32 PM
Basicly Senate must confirm ALL “officers of the United States” unless by law, they say they don’t NEED to confirm them.
These Czars are not authorized by law… and so MUST be confirmed, or the Seante is not doing its job.
Romeo13 on October 23, 2009 at 2:37 PM
The argument is that the czars are not “officers” who have and execute authority, but merely advisers to the president. However, at least some of these czars do have and exercise power. So, Barry is attempting to evade the law and avoid responsibility. And, until January of 2011, if we retake the House, Obama has a largely fawning media and Congress to let him get away with it.
Loxodonta on October 23, 2009 at 2:58 PM
Thanks to:
Romeo13 looks like the ‘money quote’.
Congress decides which offices will require congressional approval and delegate, via legislation, those positions congress does not care to examine closely.
How does the president go about creating one of these czars? by executive order? Has congress delegated that authority to the president, to create these high level position on his own?
Anyone have any ideas where to start unraveling the organizational chart of this administration?
Search terms to feed the online search engines?
(High school civics/government class level please. As a retired truck driver I have my limitations.)
Skandia Recluse on October 23, 2009 at 3:10 PM
This memorandum from Media Matters is digusting.
They now seek to form a Progressive media cartel (if you may) that will box out those “lethal” voices at FoxNews.
J_Crater on October 23, 2009 at 3:18 PM
An administration chock full of sniveling pukes
ya2daup on October 23, 2009 at 3:25 PM
Is this how Doctor Frankenstein felt when his creation turned on him?
Thanks Media, that’s some creation you foisted on the American Public/sarc
Dr Evil on October 23, 2009 at 3:29 PM
Let’s look on the bright side at least he has repreived Bush from fault now and set his sights on Fox!
xler8bmw on October 23, 2009 at 3:29 PM
I find it funny that the pay czar announces a 90% pay cut, and the President says he didn’t know that Feinberg was going to do it, but he supports whatever Feinberg does. How can anyone claim that the czars are advisers if the President isn’t “advised” on their actions?
nogooddeed on October 23, 2009 at 3:33 PM
xler8bmw — The One used to have a dignified target that only struck back with Cheney. Fox can rip The One like a hen getting ripped by a ..er, Fox. They can align a number of news outlets and we could have a civil war in the media.
IlikedAUH2O on October 23, 2009 at 3:36 PM
Obama’s guilty of Derelection of Duty as Commander in Chief and President of the United States of America;
He has also failed to uphold his oath of office.
And his puppetiers are supporting his negligent behavior. He would be fired from any regular government job, with this incompetent and negligent attitude.
What does it take for a full fledged impeachment?
Cybergeezer on October 23, 2009 at 3:40 PM
No wonder He thinks he is God.
The One’s last two targets were a lame duck president and Juan McLame. Ha Ha Ha
After a fancy prep school, Affirmative Action in college, needy crowds of poor who worshipped him, then adoration in his jobs, a Nobel…Sudden collision with reality…starting now.
IlikedAUH2O on October 23, 2009 at 3:42 PM
Knowing that the proper spelling of raaaaacist has but five a’s has reduced keyboard wear.
I think it would be equally helpful to get an official ruling on the proper spelling of Boosh. Just sayin’
ya2daup on October 23, 2009 at 3:42 PM
Republicans taking the House in 2010.
Steve Z on October 23, 2009 at 3:45 PM
And of course Rush has a parody out with kids singing:
“Rush Hudson Limbaugh,
Mmmm, Mmmm, Mmmm!”
Del Dolemonte on October 23, 2009 at 3:46 PM
To the teacher — Fox News ate my homework.
To the cop — Fox News distracted me from looking both ways.
To the military — Fox News buried me under so much paperwork I didn’t see your troop request.
To the public — Fox News ain’t fair!
GnuBreed on October 23, 2009 at 3:48 PM
Since the list of czars was published by the Washington Post, maybe they must be extreme right as well. As well as Senator Susan Collins, one of three Republicans to vote for the Stimulus bill.
If the Fox card doesn’t work, Obama will just send tanks to crash the Capitol building, like Boris Yeltsin did in Moscow, where they used to have czars.
Steve Z on October 23, 2009 at 3:55 PM
“A leader is a dealer in hope.”
– Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor of France
mojo on October 23, 2009 at 3:57 PM
Huh? Please tell me you aren’t using The Bell Curve to refer to Obama.
RINO in Name Only on October 23, 2009 at 4:07 PM
Um..no I’m refering to you silly.If you can find a library that hasn’t been closed due to budget cuts do yourself a favor and read a few books.Preferably ones without pictures.
inevitable on October 23, 2009 at 4:18 PM
Seriously, I’m wondering what you are actually trying to get at here. Are you suggesting Obama is less intelligent because he is black? If you aren’t, that’s cool – I was under the impression that the bell curve discussed (in the aggregate) differences between intelligence for different races, but if you’re referring to something else, just say so.
RINO in Name Only on October 23, 2009 at 4:42 PM
Wait a minute!
Just a frickin’ minute.
You mean we have a White House California Water Czar? Confirmed by the Senate?
What the [expletive] has this person been doing?
You don’t know about the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta water war? What is this czar person doing, fueling the war, or ending it?
Skandia Recluse on October 23, 2009 at 4:59 PM
Wow… trying to say the BELL CURVE is RAAAAACIST?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve
It has to do with intelligence, and how prevalent that level of intelligence is… ie… there are very few people at the top or bottom of the curve… many more at the middle of the curve…
But apparently… you belong to the FAR Left side of said Bell Curve…
Romeo13 on October 23, 2009 at 5:07 PM
Dunn. And her husband has just been made the White House Council.
barnone on October 23, 2009 at 5:20 PM
HOW can any CZAR make policy decisions when the PEOPLE didn’t even elect them? STAND UP AND BE HEARD.
pjean on October 23, 2009 at 5:30 PM
For christ’s sake, from the very first paragraph of your own link:
I never claimed, and don’t claim, that The Bell Curve is racist. But it is bullsh*t, and completely anti-conservative, to ascribe an individual’s stupidity to aggregate group statistics. I thought that was the meaning of inevitable’s post, and I explained that pretty clearly in my last comment.
The book The Bell Curve is not known for the general concept of a normal distribution; that’s been around for centuries. It is widely known for its discussion of aggregate racial statistics. So like I said before, I don’t see why you would use it to describe Obama.
RINO in Name Only on October 23, 2009 at 6:04 PM
Funny how people like you see EVERYTHING through the prism of Race.
Sooo… is it YOUR assumption that someone must be talking about the BOOK the Bell Curve? And it is YOUR assumption that it is some sort of attack on his ethnicity, WHEN HE IS HALF WHITE? And therefore would be a Wild Card at best even if you took that Book at its Premise?
The only Racist I see here, is you.
Romeo13 on October 23, 2009 at 6:27 PM
“The failed policies of the Obama administration.”
Get used to it. You’ll be hearing it for decades.
techno_barbarian on October 23, 2009 at 6:56 PM
I do not see everything in terms of race, and I almost never bring up race in conversation.
I have never seen anyone capitalize the phrase “the bell curve” unless the were talking about the book, so that seems a common sense assumption. Did you think he was talking about a movie?
As for an attack on his ethnicity, he identifies as black, and just about everyone, when his race is discussed, refers to him as being black. Why would that in any way refute the idea that his ethnicity is being attacked?
What do you mean by a “Wild Card”?
And how am I a racist for asking why he was using the “Bell Curve” to attack Obama? Like I said, he is using a book that is most well known for its discussion of race, to criticize someone who is well known for being the first black president. I asked in good faith if I was misinterpreting what he said.
I hate mindless accusations of racism as much as anyone on this site. But I also know that occasionally trolls from stormfront, or from leftwing sites pretending to be from stormfront, have occasionally come onto the site causing trouble. And they have tended to use The Bell curve, not necessarily a racist book in and of itself (I don’t claim to know either way) to attack people for being black. No one else on the site wants either themselves, Hot Air, conservatives, or Republicans to be associated with that filth, so we tend to guard against it.
I’m sorry if I am being trigger happy, but I don’t really see how else to interpret this.
RINO in Name Only on October 23, 2009 at 7:10 PM
Take the case of former Green Jobs Czar Van Jones – he had no problem boasting he was going to be put in charge of spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in writing, then implementing thousands of new regulations attempting to make US industry more ‘green friendly’ – all without ever having to take a seat before Congress and explain how he was going to go about doing this or what his qualifications were for such a job.
At least, that’s what he was going to do before his Marxist and Truther past caught up with him and he was forced to resign.
manofaiki on October 23, 2009 at 7:27 PM
Lol….Friday night music…but I like this one better for Obama!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwBMVg9L7Q0
njpat on October 23, 2009 at 8:56 PM
I salute Hot Air, Hannity, Beck, etc, for highlighting Obama’s frightening penchant for appointing czars lacking either Constitutional sanction or check on their power. However, even though Mr Morrissey admits that Bush ALSO appointed (yes, far fewer) czars, he fails to acknowledge that HotAir likely failed to run a SINGLE piece ever criticizing Bush for his unconstitutional “czarist” appointments. If there is one thing that vitiates the credibility of “conservatives,” it is their uncanny ability to zip the lip when one of their own step in it, but — then, at the drop of a hat — to go ballistic on Liberals for doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING (though, admittedly, usually to far greater excess). While the left has never recovered from its BDS, the right has never actually recovered from its “hear no evil; see no evil; speak no evil” complex with regard to the absurdly unconservative and Constitutionally-unobservant GWB. In other words, Bush was NOT “one of their own” for Conservatives… so, why the prevalent doting willingness to overlook his faults? Is Obama worse than Bush? Of course. But, it has been argued more than once, that — were it not for GWB’s “assist” — Obama could not have gone as far — or as fast — as he has in pushing this country further down the road to Marxist Socialism.
sanantonian on October 23, 2009 at 10:35 PM
Hey, Ed:
Why haven’t you written about the Obama administration refusing to release the White House visitor logs? Judicial Watch just got denied another FOIA request on the matter.
http://www2.marketwire.com/mw/mmframe?prid=548381&attachid=1090368
taney71 on October 23, 2009 at 11:21 PM
Why can’t you people embrace your racial-provocation? Shees. That would be more respectable than the lying and deflecting that takes place whenever one of you is feeling sheepish about your racial-taunts.
You and I both know that the book was being referenced. Why lie about this? Also, using Barack Obama’s mixed race to dispute the bigotry of those who attack him as black is about the worst defense possible. Am I to believe that someone with a racial-itch to scratch won’t because Obama is bi-racial? See one drop rule.
The only people that make such logically flawed arguments are idiots and liars. I don’t thin you’re an idiot.
The Race Card on October 24, 2009 at 2:29 AM
What do you mean “you people?”
The Race Card on October 24, 2009 at 2:31 AM
One up on ya, pal.
Cybergeezer on October 24, 2009 at 2:49 PM
While wearing a toga with a laurel wreath on his head.
GrannyDee on October 24, 2009 at 3:52 PM
THAT is the funniest thing I’ve read in a long time!
HAnthonyWayne on October 25, 2009 at 10:54 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »