Did this sound not-stupid when you thought about posting it? (Assuming there was thought involved.)
What else can you do with something as dumb as this?
This notion of yours that Sam Stone claimed the VP was a czar - you do realize it is quite clear that you made it up, don’t you?
Regards,
Shodan
Sam’s own words.
**Bo **did not claim that **Sam **said Cheney was a czar.
I had simply forgotten that it was the VP’s office, and not one of Bush’s czars. Again, however, I fail to see the difference. The argument was that the meeting was not transparent, because it was done in the White House and the White House wouldn’t release the names of the oil execs. As I recall, a Freedom of Information Act request was filed to release the names of the oil execs who met with Cheney, and the White House invoked executive privilege to prevent the release of the names.
How is that any different than if Cheney appointed a Czar to meet with them? The issue wasn’t specifically who met with them, it was that they had access to the White House and that they were anonymous. Or maybe it is… maybe the issue really was just Cheney, and the left would have been just fine with any other White House official secretly meeting with oil execs and letting them help formulate energy policy.
You don’t see a difference? I thought your entire complaint was predicated on the idea that czars are somehow different from other government positions? If there’s no difference, why is it a bad thing that Obama has all these czars?
http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/a_list_of_obamas_czars
Would the female be a Czarina? They are just people in charge of tasks. A couple years ago the TARP head would be called just that. Now calling them czars has a special ,scary cachet. I fear Sam is going off the deep end . Fox screams about czars. They are silly when they do it too.Perhaps we can call them CEOs of each department or task. Then Sam would be happy.
The problem was the secret meetings with the oil industry, not the administration official conducting the meetings. It wouldn’t have made a difference if they were meeting with the VP, Secretary of Energy, or some Energy Czar. The problem was the appearance of undue influence of the oil industry on policy.
What about if we subtracted the nine czars that WERE approved by Congress? Would the numbers balance then? 
I’m pretty sure the idea is that China should allow the Tibetans to decide for themselves what they want, and not have it imposed on them as is currently the case.
That’s exactly what I was trying to say. Because the Czars answer only to the president, and are not subject to congressional oversight, there is little transparency into what they are doing.
However, I have to say that I used Google’s timeline function today to filter out articles about ‘czars’ from this year so I could go back and get a general sense of how angry liberals were over Bush’s czars, and I honestly couldn’t find much. It appears that the left gave him a pass on his collection. So I was conflating Cheney’s meeting with the czar issue.
I think you should reread my post because if its exactly what you were trying to say then you wouldn’t have brought up czars in the first place.
Heh. How do you feel now Sam. You’ve got a problem with him and the man is a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
I don’t really care. The Nobel Peace Prize became a joke quite a long time ago. However, I would apply a variation on the Gremlin/Tribble rule - don’t feed the ego.
wrong thread.
They don’t do anything. They only advise. There’s nothing to oversee.
I’m no Bush fan and voted against him both times, but I’ve always had a hard time with this meme about Bush being unpopular the world over.
BBC recently pointed out he maintained an 80%-plus approval rating in India throughout his eight years, and indeed an Indian friend of mine in Bangkok, an educated professional, insists India benefited enormously from his policies. He was well liked in China. There’s almost half the world with those two countries alone. Throw in Africa, where he was generally well regarded, and that tips the balance.
I can tell you Thailand and much of the rest of Southeast Asia liked him just fine. Up to the end of his presidency, I was still being thanked by Bangkok taxi drivers for the war in Iraq. (Hell, for the Thais, all you have to do to get them to like you is kill Muslims. Pretty much ANY Muslims. There’s been a violent uprising in Thailand’s Muslim-majority deep South for five years now, with 3000-plus killed, and your average Thai honestly does not seem to see anything wrong with just going in and wiping them out. “Peaceful Buddhists” my ass!)
It seems like people basically mean some Western countries when they talk about his “worldwide” unpopularity.
Well he allowed businesses to get tax money to help them move to India and then China. I guess they would appreciate getting our jobs and manufacturing. They did not have to come up with better products of methods. Just give them very cheap labor and no environmental laws and they would give you every job in America.
Israel’s extended the franchise to the Palestinians in the territories that Israel controls?
If they have, it’s news to me.
And if they haven’t, it’s democracy for some, but not for others.
When a boss appoints people to head up task solving, who should they answer to? They are carrying out the presidents wishes. What is wrong with that? Oh yeh, I forgot they are czars. That means something else. I wonder what? This is just more manufactured outrage. Rightwing rhetoric that is designed to raise righty blood pressure. Who could fall for such crap?