|
Mercnbeth -> RE: No Health Care Bill but Anti "LIAR!" Legislation Fast Tracked! (9/15/2009 5:30:45 PM)
|
quote:
Could be Czars arent a new idea?
I think you should have started a new thread on this subject, but hopefully a response to you won't serve to high-jack this thread and take away from the importance of the new 'Decorum Legislation' and subsequent appointment of the Decorum Czar.
No, Czars are not a "new idea" and there wasn't any representation to the contrary. Somehow though none of the prior Czars managed to believe that the US President was a terrorist directly involved in the 9/11 attack. A voice version of knee jerk reaction generates Congressional "admonishment". Accusing the President of terrorism, going as far as having your signature on record saying so - gets you appointed as a Czar for this Administration.
You see no distinction and "Bush did it!" serves as a legitimacy guidepost? It may have been what this Administration used for rationalizing almost a Billion dollars of bail out money. But it seems, like the bail out money, doing it as a multiple factor of the prior regime doesn't point to any of the anticipated "CHANGE!" does it?
Nor has the concept of Czar ever been used as a cornerstone of policy implementation. That is another notable difference because it circumvents the vetting process for the appointed Czars.
By count from your source - there were less than 10 over the entire 8 years of the Bush Administration. The wasn't any number noted, but I would think based on his commentary, if there were more - he'd have documented them. To date there have been 34 appointed in the first 8 months of this administration.
From the link: quote:
2005 was a banner year for czars. In February, Bush responded to revelations about failed national security intelligence by creating an "intelligence czar." Shortly thereafter, we had a "bird-flu czar." A few months after that, following the tragically botched handling of the response to Hurricane Katrina, there was a "Katrina czar."
2005 was a "banner year" with, lets see 1... 2...3... appointed Czars. One for a hurricane catastrophe, where the administration was accused of lacking attention even with the Czar. The other a response to that year's fad 'flu'. The third an attempt to get all the varying 'intelligence' communities to connect the dots and prevent another terrorist attack. You'll need to take off your shoes and get a friend to get the current Administration's count of 34 to date. Stipulating that 'Servantforuse' isn't as vetted a source as your link.
In an effort to determine the integrity of your source, I tried to find any similar commentary from him, specifically along these lines quoted:
"When it comes to losing manufacturing jobs, having a Secretary of Labor isn't enough; we also need a "manufacturing czar."
"Andy Borowitz recently suggested that the White House needs a "lying czar" to "oversee all distortions and misrepresentations."" Another appropriate current time application of the concept.
"It all begins to resemble rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. When it comes to food safety, having an FDA commissioner isn't enough; we also need a "food-safety czar."
"As it turns out, the administration appears to have gone to the well one too many times."
Couldn't fine anything that documents his current position regarding the Czar issue, but I'm comfortable in concurring with his assessment if he should ever want to change his byline date. All of those statements can, and should be applied to present reality.
His current silence on the subject speaks volumes regarding his agenda.
If there was a different perspective you wanted to raise it would be a great thread topic; although the Bush Administration comparisons must be wearing thin because I note their frequency dropping. Could it be that they point to results better not brought to light?
|
|
|
|
