Fox News Debunks Its Own Attack On President Obama’s ‘Czars’
Fox News Debunks Its Own Attack On President Obama’s ‘Czars’
Yesterday, Fox News breathlessly introduced “All the President’s Czars,” citing a list from Taxpayers for Common Sense of “more than 30 czars” that “do not need to be confirmed by the Senate like Cabinet secretaries do.”
Fox’s Jane Skinner asked “where the oversight is” and “if it is really actually constitutional.” But Fox correspondent Wendell Goler demolished the “czar” attack in the segment, explaining that the existence of Presidential advisers like these “go back as far as FDR, and maybe further,” that “there is no constitutional issue,” and that many of these “czars” are “confirmed by the Senate.” He reminds Skinner that the Bush administration officials were famously unaccountable:
The one complaint from critics is that they can’t compel some of the czars to come to Capitol Hill and testify. That’s a relatively small number. In fact, it would include people like the national security adviser. When she was national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice declined a Senate invitation, a Senate subpoena to come and testify about the evidence of Iraq’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. But frankly, few czars would decline an invitation. And others are actually, like the drug czar, are confirmed by the Senate, and would have to testify if they were invited, Jane.
Watch it:
In fact, the “czars” displayed by Fox News include at least eight Senate-confirmed positions, from “intelligence czar” Dennis Blair to “border czar” Alan Bersin. “Regulatory czar” Cass Sunstein is yet to begin working, victim of a Republican hold on his confirmation. John Holdren, depicted falsely by the right wing as a “science czar” who favors “forced abortions,” is the Senate-confirmed presidential science advisor. One “czar” — Elizabeth Warren — is actually chair of a Congressional oversight panel. The debate over the role of unconfirmed Presidential advisers reaches back to 1832, with critics accusing President Andrew Jackson of running a “Kitchen Cabinet” in place of the official one.
Transcript:
SKINNER: Already, President Obama has named more than 30 czars, as they’re called, people to help out with everything from securing the border, fixing the auto industry — There’s a picture of them. Look at all of them! Much of this work was assigned to Cabinet secretaries in previous administrations. These czars, it’s important to know, do not need to be confirmed by the Senate like Cabinet secretaries do. And now even some prominent Democrats are asking where the oversight is and if it is really actually constitutional. Wendell Goler has been looking into this for us. Wendell, are they constitutional?
GOLER: Jane, some critics claim that the czars violate article two, section two of the Constitution, giving the Senate power to advise on nominations and execute nominations. But if that’s the case, presidents have been ignoring that part of the Constitution back as far as FDR, and maybe further. The one complaint from critics is that they can’t compel some of the czars to come to Capitol Hill and testify. That’s a relatively small number. In fact, it would include people like the national security adviser. When she was national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice declined a Senate invitation, a Senate subpoena to come and testify about the evidence of Iraq’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. But frankly, few czars would decline an invitation. And others are actually, like the drug czar, are confirmed by the Senate, and would have to testify if they were invited, Jane.
SKINNER: Huh. What do constitutional scholars say about it?
GOLER: Well, scholars like Steven Hess of the Brookings Institution say there is no constitutional issue here. They say there really is just a political issue. While you have got criticism from Democrats, including Sen. Robert Byrd, the longstanding champion of the legislative branch, who says that President Ozama’s, uh, Obama’s czars may eat into the legislative branch’s powers. Most of the criticism has come from Republicans who are out of the White House now, and complain that the czars eat into their already minority status in Congress. Georgia Republican Congressman Jack Kingston today introducing legislation that his aides say will address the issue, but it’s not likely to get far in the Democratic Congress, Jane.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Wow! I don’t see a single Rove/Rasputin amongst them!
July 16th, 2009 at 10:02 amFoxNews???
Shocking…
July 16th, 2009 at 10:03 amI guess Emperor Bush had no czars as well as no clothes.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:07 amFoxNews is obsessed with hierarchies and oligarchies.
God only knows what their “journalists” would do if someone threw a hundred dollar bill at them.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:08 amHmmm,
I’m being moderated for quoting SNL…an old Akroyd /Curtain verbal exchange that could well have applied to the above story.
You know the phrase; ‘Jane you ignorant sl*t’, which is exactly what Mr. Goler should have replied back to Jane Skinner.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:11 amAh, FOX Noise… making America more ignorant, one inbred redneck household at a time.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:11 amWhen did Fox News decide to include the facts with their news? This is a dangerous precedent for them….
July 16th, 2009 at 10:12 amOh, how scary! Hopefully Obama puts competant people in key positions. Unlike Bush, who would stick any suck-up or kiss ass in a positions of power. Monica Goodling and ‘Doing a heck of a Job’ Brownie comes to mind.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:14 am. .. …
p.d.,
where are the “brownies”?
:(
July 16th, 2009 at 10:17 amBush/Cheney put some 26 year old repiggie clown in charge of the nascent Baghdad stock market, right after the end of the invasion in 2003, whose sole qualification was that he opposes abortion.
FoxNews, to my knowledge, never uttered a peep about that one.
By the way, why wasn’t that 26 year old serving in the military in Iraq at the time?
July 16th, 2009 at 10:19 amjoe cantwell says:
. .. …
p.d.,
where are the “brownies”?
:(
I’m guilty, joe. I got kicked out of Cub Scouts for eating Brownies!
July 16th, 2009 at 10:22 amThe right wing loves to use the term “czar.” (Although no such office exists, there is no job title or description for “czar”, and the term is one largely manufactured by the news outlets because it has an emotional bang to it.) But here is why they like it:
Czar sounds so Russian.
And Russians are Communists.
And Communists are Socialists.
And socialism is bad and so un-American.
And Obama is trying to instill socialism into our society.
So, their reasoning goes, the unmitigated use of so called “czars” are Obama’s way to instill socialism as our government.
Welcome to Paranoia and Distortion 101, courtesy of your friendly right wing. Please check your brain at the door and let us instill the fear in you.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:26 amWell, there are a couple of big differences between Obama’s advisers/”czars” and GDumbya’s.
1. It appears that President Obama has chosen bright pragmatists while GDumbya picked ignorant ideological party hacks.
2. President Obama has the character and intellect to actually listen to, understand and integrate the opinions of his people while GDumbya’s primary objective was to gather “yes-men” around him to soothe his huge ego.
3. President Obama’s folks are not likely covered by the “executive privilege” that GDumbya blanketed his people with in order to hide the fact that he and his administration were totally incompetent.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:27 amWendell Goler must be their token black guy at FoxNews, just to keep the Feds off their back.
From this clip, I would say that he does seem infinitely more informed and qualified than all those angry white boys over there.
This is only my opinion. I don’t watch FoxNews, so I am no expert on that bunch.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:27 amUh, TP, what’s to stop a troll from pushing that little thumbs down button for every Progressive post and messing up the comments section? Besides, ‘vote down’ seems so Republican…
July 16th, 2009 at 10:29 amFox Noise – living up to their mission of catapaulting the propaganda.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:29 amFor eight years, the Republicans were warned that any powers granted to the Executive under Bush/Cheney would be available to any future President — including Democrats. That would include the so-called Unitary Executive.
Suck it, GOP!
July 16th, 2009 at 10:31 amUh, TP, what’s to stop a troll from pushing that little thumbs down button for every Progressive post and messing up the comments section?
Shhhhhhh! Don’t give them any ideas. They’re trouble enough already.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:31 amMore evidence that the Republicans really don’t have much to criticize President Obama with. Their accusations might have some teeth if they found something that they themselves weren’t guilty of when they were in power.
For example, their complaint that Obama hasn’t “released” his long-form official birth certificate would make more sense if George W. Bush had “released” his. Never mind that states keep original birth certificates safely locked away in their archives and don’t release them to ANYONE — not even the birthee (they do, however, release a stamped “certificate of live birth” to the person born or his/her family members upon request — which was done in Obama’s case). So it’s doubtful that either Bush OR Obama would have their original long-form birth certificate in their hands to wave around.
And their argument about Obama using a teleprompter might gain some traction if Bush hadn’t used one. Or Clinton. Or Reagan. Or McCain. Or Palin. Or any political speechmaker since the teleprompter was invented.
And now the criticism comes down to Obama’s “czars” (a term I hate — can we call them something that doesn’t suggest they are monarchs?)? Are we to believe Dubya didn’t have any czars of his own?
When Obama gets us into a war based on lies, I promise to scream as loud and long and hard as I did when Bush and Cheney did it. When Obama’s staff members blatantly trample the constitution and ignore Congressional subpoenas, I will complain. When Biden “outs” a covert CIA agent as punishment for a political enemy, I will demand action.
But until the opposition manages to find something negative about the Obama administration that A) isn’t laughably trivial, or B) hasn’t been standard practice for practically every president before him, they should just STFU.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:32 amWhat’s to keep a progressive from voting thumbs up?
There aren’t that many trollie rollers here.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:33 amMostly because they have a better moral fiber than anything that existed in the bush admin….
I gave your post a vote up…..couple of good ones here this morning.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:34 amunbelievable says
July 16th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Besides, ‘vote down’ seems so Republican…
______________________________________________________________
Would you prefer that instead of saying “vote down” it should just say “flush”?
July 16th, 2009 at 10:34 amIt’s good to come here daily and be reminded of the countless egregious offenses committed by Bush&Co. For instance, I had nearly forotten about the twenty-somethings who worked for the RNC or the Heritage Foundation or who graduated from Regent University and were given the assignment to run the developing financial system in Iraq.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:34 amBooks that I have read over the past 8 years are being kept on my shelf for posterity; there is just too much to risk being forgotten.
unbelievable says:
Uh, TP, what’s to stop a troll from pushing that little thumbs down button for every Progressive post and messing up the comments section? Besides, ‘vote down’ seems so Republican…
Well, it would only take one TP regular to vote up every Progressive post, and correct that attack. But hopefully TP’s software will detect anyone who votes down each and every comment.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:34 amFox’s Jane Skinner asked “where the oversight is” and “if it is really actually constitutional.”
When did they get a constitution in alternate reality?
July 16th, 2009 at 10:43 amLuis Chapulin M says:
unbelievable says:
Uh, TP, what’s to stop a troll from pushing that little thumbs down button for every Progressive post and messing up the comments section? Besides, ‘vote down’ seems so Republican…
Well, it would only take one TP regular to vote up every Progressive post, and correct that attack. But hopefully TP’s software will detect anyone who votes down each and every comment.
There would have to be 10 trolls, operating in concert, to have any real effect. At this point, it seems like they’re slithering off to other blogs and leaving TP alone.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:44 amI noticed some of the best posts are getting voted down if they are critical of neocon icons.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:49 amokie dokie says:
I noticed some of the best posts are getting voted down if they are critical of neocon icons.
Really? I haven’t noticed that.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:02 amWhat I have noticed is that the neocon trolls posting drivel are getting voted off fairly quickly.
Maybe you could point one out. I fail to see what you are talking about except to try to say something to cause trouble.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:02 am27 okie dokie
A TP regular, I believe it was Pete, corrected me yesterday by explaining that the number displayed is a TOTAL vote count.
A negative shows up as a (-#)
I got confused because the TOTAL is right next to the “thumbs down” pic.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:04 amjohnny dol1ar says:
A TP regular, I believe it was Pete, corrected me yesterday by explaining that the number displayed is a TOTAL vote count.
A negative shows up as a (-#)
It’s just like this:
Date/Time Hotter | Colder | (temperature) | Report Abuse
July 16th, 2009 at 11:12 amJeez, Goler, they went to a lot of trouble to set up those graphics and frame the discussion and you screw it up by telling the truth!
PS: I say the term “Czar” should be replaced by “Coordinator.”
July 16th, 2009 at 11:14 amYesterday I made a post making fun of McCains pose in the photo. It dropped to -1, -2 then later +2. Other posts were fluxuating, too, but not all.
It’s no big deal, but it kind of compromises the perspective of the ratings.
And Fred, when I cause trouble, I don’t do it here!
July 16th, 2009 at 11:23 am. .. …
“vote me up,
vote me down,
but don’t call me late for dinner!”
– carl sandburg
. . …
July 16th, 2009 at 11:32 am33 okie dokie
I think this system works pretty good.
So far, TP regulars vote down a troll or an ignorant comment and the post is masked.
Only those who are actually interested to read the original post will take the extra step of removing the mask (Click to read)
Desperate trolls will come back again and again with the same garbage, just to be ignored AGAIN. So I think this system works.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:39 am. .. …
johnny,
without proud,
tp would be an empty shadow space.
**
long may his tomfoolery reign.
:)
July 16th, 2009 at 11:43 amSo few progressive comments get voted down that it seems there are only a couple of trolls using many names.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:43 am* * *
doodle,
there’s only one great big troll brain out there.
and it’s a timeshare.
:|
July 16th, 2009 at 11:49 amI agree, johnny $.
The objective of the trolls is to be distracting, and the vote down elimination works well for that.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:54 amI just think if the voteup votedown were not averaged at the end, you would see a more accurate measure of approval,troll or not.
The trolls vote down just the re-pukes vote no with their Audacity of Nope…….
July 16th, 2009 at 12:09 pmFunny, I don’t think I remember these people complaining about the numerous Czar’s that Bush appointed. And Bush didn’t have to worry about the Democrats obstructing every nomination he wanted to make. They pretty much let Bush have whomever he thought he needed to get the job done. Whereas the Republics have obstructed every appointment that President Obama has tried to make.
July 16th, 2009 at 12:24 pmDoodlebug Shayne says:
So few progressive comments get voted down that it seems there are only a couple of trolls using many names.
I’m waiting for Troll Central to come up with a scheme to create at least 10 new monikers to come here and start voting our posts down as retaliation.
July 16th, 2009 at 12:26 pmokie dokie says:
I noticed some of the best posts are getting voted down if they are critical of neocon icons.
I think you are misinterpreting what you are seeing. The number next to the “vote down” notation is a accumulation of positive and negative votes a post has garnered. If it is a positive number, that means the post got more “vote up” than “vote down”. I believe it takes a -10 to get the post closed down. I like this system and it has been my observation that the posters here aren’t abusing it by voting down all trolls. If a troll has made an on-topic point and is willing to debate the point, the post doesn’t get voted off the island. On the other hand, when an attention getting troll shows up to fling poo on the wall, their post gets shut down pretty darn fast. Now, if posters would just not quote these useless posts, all would be well. It doesn’t help when the original post gets shut down but lives on in another poster’s post because they quoted the original post.
July 16th, 2009 at 12:32 pmMaybe the reason President Obama has appointed so many “Czars” is because that is the only way he can get the help he needs. The Republics have obstructed every appointment Obama is trying to make so it’s down to appointing them all as recess appointments or creating a “Czar” position to get someone in there to do a job.
July 16th, 2009 at 12:38 pm“Czar” is the Russian word for Caesar.
July 16th, 2009 at 12:52 pmIn German it’s “Kaiser.”
It is a fascist title.
FauxSnooze: Another day, ten more falsehoods in the name of advancing the Republican political agenda….
Cheers,
July 16th, 2009 at 1:41 pm