White House: A Very Weak Defense On Czars

How do you know when a politician is under attack and they have no valid means of fighting back against legitimate criticism? Simple. There really is no defense, just an attack and the ridiculous defense of, well, they did, too!!

They offer little defense at all and the Obama administration certainly does seem to enjoy throwing the word lie, or liar around quite a bit. That's odd, coming from a party that seems to take such offense at the word being directed at them.

Last week, when the President addressed the Joint Session of Congress in a speech on health reform, he referred to some of the untruths – okay, lies – that have been spread about the plan and sent a clear message to those who seek to undermine his agenda and his presidency with these tactics: "We will call you out." So consider this one of those calls.

To use their chosen word, the fact is, the only defense they do offer is actually a lie.

Many hold policy jobs that have existed in previous Administrations. And some hold jobs that involved coordinating the work of agencies on President Obama’s key policy priorities: health insurance reform, energy and green jobs, and building a new foundation for long-lasting economic growth.

I guess it all comes down to what the definition of "coordinating" is. Or, as the LA Times and others pointed out, Obama is rigging his administration so that it isn't even clear who's in charge in any given area.

The confusion about competing roles played by czars and their Cabinet counterparts was on display Monday as White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs tried to explain how authority would be divided between DeParle and Sebelius as they steer health reform through Congress. At first, he declared that DeParle "will be in charge." Then he acknowledged a role for Sebelius and others.

It's laughable that an administration that benefits from some of the most adoring media coverage anyone has seen since JFK would try to blame Republicans over attacks on the one area in which the press has actually bothered to do its job and criticize them.

And given all the previous Bush bashing from Obama and the Dems, the defense of they did it, too, just doesn't wash. Maybe it's time to start washing out more czars like the now infamous Van Jones from this administration and stop telling lies. That's especially true given the conniption fit they threw when Rep. Joe Wilson had the courage to call them out for some other lies they've told.

Comments

[Bob Reed]

I agree Dan,
I wouldn't mind the idea of "czars" if they functioned as advisors, or acted in an administrative or managerial fashion for the Presidents legislative agenda. But, the fact that they have broad authority, and in some cases large budgets of taxpayer dollars, all without any Senatorial consent or congressional oversight whatsoever troubles me. I believe that it circumvents the checks and balances intended by the founders of our nation when they wrote the US constitution...

I don't mind a strong executive, but not an autocratic one.

[MarkJ]

Don't like Obama's czars? Then you must be a raaacist!

This czar-shtick is going to turn out very, very, very badly for the Boy President, isn't it?

[xerocky]

"This czar-shtick is going to turn out very, very, very badly for the Boy President, isn't it?"

Yeah, people get a little weird when you hear about a communist with a budget of $30billion+ for something as vague as "green jobs".

Anyone who isn't politically tone deaf could have seen that coming.

[WPE]

Maybe Karl Rove can weigh in, you know, Bush's "Domestic Policy Czar"

And Bush, the guy who REALLY liked Czars, actually had more than Obama.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars

Of ocurse, Fox News can't count and seems to think 36 is actually 16.