Posted on 09/17/2009 11:39:23 AM PDT by Domandred
Just posting a link is all for reference, go if you want but whatever.
Over at the DNC they've now made claim that Bush had 47 czars.
For positions looks like they have 27 actual positions listed, as opposed to Obama's 45+.
Some of those positions were temporary positions (Gulf Coast Reconstruction Czar) only existing for a short amount of time, as opposed to Obama's 45+ permanent positions.
This count is over Bush's ENTIRE 8 years, as opposed to Obama's entire 8 months.
Finally to get to 47 the DNC must count every person that filled the czar position. For example there were 5 "AIDS Czars" over Bush's eight years. Instead of counting the position once, the DNC is counting it FIVE times.
Posting for reference as the DNC is releasing a 30 second Glenn Beck attack add about Glenns hammering of Obama's czars.
Don't believe the numbers, it's disinformation.
Of COURSE it is....
DNC=Disinformation News Center.
good to know, although the whole concept sucks and it shows why the GOP should never set bad precedents like this. Even though Obama is using Czars in a completely different way, it still gives them fodder to bat down legitimate criticism.
Nonsense. Nor do I believe any of the Bush czars were America hating communists.
Does anyone have information about how much power these Czars actually had? Were they advisory without budgets and offices? Did they have budgets, did they make decisions?
Wow, in only 9 months Obama has been reduced to “See? I suck only slightly more than Bush!”
Let’s just pretend that Bush had all these Czars for a second.
Is the DNC actually justifying 0bama by comparing his administration to Bush’s?
Are they saying “see, it’s OK, Bush did it too. 0bama is no different than Bush!”?
What ever happened to all this CHANGE we believed in?
hence the extension of there arguement is rat-wingers are now admitting the messiah zero is no better than that evil GWB??? or is it the other way around??? I’m confused...
Yep. The entire "czar" thing is unconstitutional.
I have less a problem if they are temporary positions, IE disaster recovery and cleanup, once that's done so is the "czar". In the business world these are basically project managers, once the project is done they either leave the company or reassigned to another project/position.
If they are permanent positions they need to be fully vetted and confirmed by Senate, and only AFTER the position itself is created via legislative process.
Had a problem with them under Bush, and still have the same problem now.
Not to mention the DNI and Homeland Security Director are counted as “czars” because some libtard in the media called them czars when the position was created. I find it ironic that all the czar titles are sourced from media reports.
So they are admitting that Obama is like George Bush, the man they said was 47 times worse than Hitler?
There are 57 states too....DNC math at its finest
Thanks for this information. I’m sure I’ll get a nana nana boo boo email from someone saying how Bush had 47 Czars, etc...
So what? Are they admitting that czars are a bad thing?
Bush had employeed dozens of czars to bypass Congress, and IF
Bush had used them to thumb his nose at congressional oversite, and IF
The Dims would have been upset about it all, THEN
The lefty nutroots would have been screaming about it 30 hours a day for the entire Bush administration.
So,
Without even looking into it any further, I can promise you there is virtually ZERO chance these "czars" are ANYTHING like Obama's czars.
There is your difference. I don't have the patience to count how many actual czar positions were new and permanent under GWB not confirmed by the Senate.
Good post.
Bump! Since glenn just mentioned this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.