Russ Feingold Takes On "Czars": A Plea For A More Civil Discourse?
At 1:30 p.m. today, in Room 226 of the Dirksen Building, Senator Russ Feingold, D-Wisc., will hold a hearing on the "History and Legality of Executive Branch Czars." Since Feingold is a liberal Democrat, this raises eyebrows. Why would Feingold embrace a topic--so often distorted and misunderstood--that has been the purview of Fox News and sundry other detractors of President Obama?
The answer may be as simple as: Feingold believes we are better than all that. To explain what I mean, allow me to excerpt from Michelle Cottle's compelling take down of the conservative scaremonger Betsy McCaughey in The New Republic.
In the piece, Cottle quotes Stuart Butler, the vice president of domestic policy at the conservative Heritage Foundation, saying this about McCaughey's misleading attack on Ezekiel "Zeke" Emanuel, a White House adviser whom I have also written about: "Personal attacks on good people like Zeke are outrageous. There are real policy issues that should be debated vigorously, but slandering a good person's name is beyond the pale."
What Butler is pleading for here is not an end to debate, but a return to a more basic standard of fair play. The idea that we can talk about improving the health care system by re-aligning incentives, and even thinking reasonably about how to distribute scarce resources like donated organs, without effectively accusing each other, as McCaughey does, of murderous intent.
In the same way, the debate over "czars" has come to resemble not a reasoned discussion but a knife fight in a back alley.
To hear Glenn Beck, and others on Fox News tell it, the so-called "czars" that Obama has appointed are a nefarious, extra-constitutional force, about whom little is known about agendas or motivation. The Beck line is complicated by the fact that no one has a clear definition of what distinguishes a "czar" from any of the thousands of other executive branch employees; the list of 32 czars most often circulated includes 9 officials who are subject to Senate confirmation, and therefore constitutional checks and balances.
For many on the right, and for those in the conserv0-tainment world of Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh, the czars are a means to an end, a way of dramatizing the unseen, mendacious plots and agendas that President Obama is said to, knowingly or unknowingly, harbor. They are, in other words, a plot device, a MacGuffin in the great battle for ratings, public opinion and power. It doesn't matter if we actually know a lot about what these czars do; it's better to say we don't know what we don't know. It doesn't matter that many of these czars bear virtually no relation to a Russian monarch; it sounds better, vaguely socialistic even, to call them after terrible despots like Nicholas II, Emperor and Autocrat of All The Russias.
Which returns us to Feingold. What is he up to? In September, at the height of the czar pandemonium, Feingold sent a letter to the White House asking for more information on the assignation of "apparently significant policy-making responsibilities to White House and other executive positions." In raising the concern, Feingold points to language in the Constitution:
The Constitution gives the Senate the duty to oversee the appointment of Executive officers through the Appointments Clause in Article II, section 2. The Appointments Clause states that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise proved for, and which shall be established by law." This clause is an important part of the constitutional scheme of separation of powers, empowering the Senate to weigh in on the appropriateness of significant appointments and assisting in its oversight of the Executive Branch.
As a member of the Senate with the duty to oversee executive appointments and as the Chairman of the Senate Constitution Subcommittee, I respectfully urge you to disclose as much information as you can about these policy advisors and "czars." Specifically, I ask that you identify these individuals' roles and responsibilities, and provide the judgment(s) of your legal advisors as to whether and how these positions are consistent with the Appointments Clause. I hope that this information will help address some of the concerns that have been raised about new positions in the White House and elsewhere in the Executive Branch, and will inform any hearing that the Subcommittee holds on this topic.
Now in an alternate universe--where Van Jones was just an activist who made some bad decisions (not a Communist infiltrator) and where Zeke Emanuel was just a highly accomplished academic with some provocative academic work (not a miserly bureaucrat after your grandma)--such a request would seem reasonable, if not a little bit overly cautious. (The issue of unconfirmed executive appointments with significant power dates back decades before Obama, after all.)
So the question then arises: Is it possible to have a reasonable discussion in what Glenn Beck likes to call, without irony, "unreasonable times"? I am doubtful. But it seems to me that Feingold, if he can stick to the straight and narrow and avoid the populist distortions that surround this issue, should not be criticized for trying. If he plays it right, he might even be able to elevate the debate, and thereby improve us all.
UPDATE: Greg Sargent notes that the White House responded to Feingold's letter, mostly dismissing the issue of "czars." For his part, Feingold has incorporated the White House critique into his opening statement, as prepared for delivery, which follows below.
“I think it is fair to acknowledge that there has been a lot of discussion about the Obama administration's appointment of so-called czars to various positions in the White House and other departments or agencies. I called this hearing today because I think this is a serious issue that deserves serious study. But I want to be clear that I have no objection either to the people serving as advisors to the president, or to the policy issues they are addressing. These are some very talented people working on some very important issues that this administration absolutely should be addressing, from climate change to health care. I hope that this hearing will enable us to get beyond some of the rhetoric out there and have an informed, reasoned, thoughtful discussion about the constitutional issues surrounding the president's appointment of certain executive branch officials.
“I should note that while the term ‘czar' has taken on a somewhat negative connotation in the media in the past few months, several presidents, including President Obama, have used the term themselves to describe the people they have appointed. I assume they have done so to show the seriousness of their effort to address a problem and their expectations of those they have asked to solve it. But historically, a czar is an autocrat, and it's not surprising that some Americans feel uncomfortable about supposedly all-powerful officials taking over areas of the government.
“While there is a long history of the use of White House advisors and czars, that does not mean we can assume they are constitutionally appropriate. It is important to understand the history for context, but often constitutional problems creep up slowly. It's not good enough to simply say, ‘well, George Bush did it too.'
“Determining whether these czars are legitimate or whether they will thwart congressional oversight requires analysis of the Constitution's Appointments Clause and a discussion of some complicated constitutional and administrative law principles. I am therefore very pleased that we have such an accomplished group of witnesses who can help us determine whether there is a basis for concern here or not, and if so, what are possible remedies that Congress ought to consider. I want to thank the Ranking Member, Senator Coburn, for helping to put together this distinguished panel.
“I think it is helpful to break down the officials whose legitimacy has been questioned into three categories to better understand the potential legal issues. The first group are positions that I have no concerns about, and frankly, no one else should either. These positions were created by statute and are subject to advice and consent from the Senate. For example, some have called Dennis Blair the Intelligence Czar. But he is the Director of National Intelligence, a position created by Congress based on the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. Like his predecessors Mike McConnell and John Negroponte, he was confirmed by the Senate. Calling him a ‘czar' does not make him illegitimate or extra-constitutional. There are roughly nine officials that fall into this category, yet have appeared on some lists of czars. Any serious discussion of this issue has to conclude that there is no problem with these posts.
“The second category of positions also does not appear to be problematic, at least on its face. These are positions that report to a Senate confirmed officer, for example, a Cabinet Secretary. All of these positions are housed outside of the White House and all of these officials' responsibilities are determined by a superior who Congress has given the power to prescribe duties for underlings. I will leave it to our distinguished constitutional law experts to further discuss this category, but as I understand it, these officials are likely to be considered ‘inferior officers' under the Appointments Clause, and therefore they are not automatically required to be subject to advice and consent of the Senate. Most of these positions are also housed within parts of the government that are subject to open records laws like the Freedom of Information Act, and many of them have already appeared to testify before Congress. Indeed, of the 32 czars on a prominent media list, 16 have testified this year and two others are in positions where their predecessors under President Bush or Clinton testified. There does not appear to be a constitutional problem with these positions in theory, although it is possible people could identify one in practice, if for example, some of these people were determined to be taking away authority or responsibility from a Senate-confirmed position. However, I do not have any reason at this point to believe that to be the case.
“I am most interested in the third category of positions, and I think we are talking about fewer than 10 people, in part because we know the least about these positions. These officials are housed within the White House itself. Three weeks ago, I wrote to the President and requested more information about these positions, such as the Director of the White House Office of Health Reform and the Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change. The response to that letter finally came yesterday, and I will put the response in the record and plan to question our witnesses about it.
“The White House decided not to accept my invitation to send a witness to this hearing to explain its position on the constitutional issues we will address today. That's unfortunate. It's also a bit ironic since one of the concerns that has been raised about these officials is that they will thwart congressional oversight of the Executive Branch.
“The White House seems to want to fight the attacks against it for having too many ‘czars' on a political level rather than a substantive level. I don't think that's the right approach. If there are good answers to the questions that have been raised, why not give them instead of attacking the motives or good faith of those who have raised questions?
“No one disputes that the president is allowed to hire advisors and aides. In fact, the president is entitled, by statute, to have as many as fifty high-level employees working for him and making top salaries. But Congress and the American people have the right to ensure that the positions in our government that have been delegated legal authority are also the positions that are exercising that authority. If – and I am not saying this is the case -- individuals in the White House are exercising legal authority or binding the executive branch without having been given that power by Congress, that's a problem. And Congress also has the right to verify that any directives given by a White House czar to a Cabinet member are directly authorized by the president.”
-
1
"Why would Feingold embrace a topic--so often distorted and misunderstood--that has been the purview of Fox News and sundry other detractors of President Obama?"
.
Ah, simple questions deserve simple answers.
.
Because the Constitution calls for these appointments to be reviewed by Congress, and Obama is thwarting the Legislative Branch from doing their jobs.
.
I commend Feingold for up-holding the Constitution and to bring this issue to the forefront of the American voters minds. Especially when he and the rest of the corrupt people in Washington have sworn an allegience to defend and protect this document from the unabashed attacks by the extreme left liberals who want the Constitution destroyed.-
1.1
Confirmed by Congress? You mean like these?
- R. Gil Kerlikowske, confirmed as the Director of National Drug Control Policy on May 7; listed by Fox as the "drug" czar;
- Dennis Blair, confirmed as the Director of National Intelligence on January 28; listed as the "intelligence" czar.
- Cass Sunstein, confirmed as the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget on September 10; listed by Fox as the "regulatory" czar.
- John Holdren, confirmed as the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy on March 19; listed by Fox as the "science" czar.
- Herbert Allison, confirmed as the Department of the Treasury's Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability on June 19; listed by Fox as the "TARP" czar.
- Ashton Carter, confirmed as the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics on April 23; listed by Fox as the "weapons" czar.
- Aneesh Chopra, confirmed as an associate director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy on May 21 and also named Chief Technology Officer of the United States by President Obama; listed by Fox as the "technology" czar.
- David J. Hayes, confirmed as Deputy Secretary of the Interior on May 20 and appointed by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar as "lead official for Interior and the Obama Administration in coordinating the federal response to California water supply" on June 28; listed by Fox as "California water" czar.Two other "czars" are appointed to positions specifically created by statute and require no Congressional confirmation:
- The position occupied by Vivek Kundra, the chief information officer for the Office of Management and Budget, was created by the E-Government Act of 2002. Fox listed Kundra as "information" czar.
- The position occupied by Earl Devaney, chairperson of the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, was created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Fox listed Devaney as "stimulus accountability" czar.Another FOX News moron. So sad.
-
1.2
As so often occurs, our esteemed liberals offer up "evidence", but without any sources for their supposed facts.
.
Would you like to link your source for us jaimymoore, that would be greatly appreciated. -
1.3
Oh rusty, you are such an intellectual sloth. Check here for a list of 'czars' and which ones are confirmed. There are a total of 132 references for you to peruse. And, you're welcome.
-
1.4
"Because the Constitution calls for these appointments to be reviewed by Congress, and Obama is thwarting the Legislative Branch from doing their jobs. I commend Feingold for up-holding the Constitution and to bring this issue to the forefront of the American voters minds"
Oh really?
Would you also be saying the same about UNCONFIRMED BUSH "CZARS" if Feingold was saying this about THEM? I don't think you would, actually.
Did you want to investigate those such as: Bush's AIDS Czar, or Bush's bioethics Czar, or Bush's Bird flu Czar, or Bush's Birth control Czar, or maybe his OTHER 16 UNCONFIRMED BY THE SENATE Czars, LMAO!?
BTW, Obama only has 8 "Czars" who are "appointed" directly by him.....LESS THAN 1/2 the number of them that Bush had.
So, DID YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT THEM? NM, I know the answer to that.......:(
-
1.5
Oops almost forgot the FACT ck.org link to my Czars post: http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/Czars.pdf
-
1.6
Anyone who has a problem with Senator Feingold's Opening Statement lacks good judgment and common sense.
Feingolds statements are totally reasonable and if we are to have a strong Democracy we must have the checks and balances that are part of our constitution.
It appears that L/P really don't support our constitution. They want to make their own rules so they can do whatever it takes to achieve their socialist views.
I have news for you. 80% of Americans do not believe as you do. They are happy with our Democracy and constitution and do not want your socialism.
-
-
2
Michael Scherer:
.
This is a decent blog post, about which a few relevant points come to mind:
.
The New Republic's editors just increased their credibility on the subject of the charlatan McCaughey with this simple sentence:
..McCaughey (pronounced "McCoy") blazed to fame in 1994 as the person who drove a stake through the heart of Hillarycare, with a detailed (and, as it turned out, false) takedown of the plan published in this very magazine.So the question then arises relevant to your "reasonable discussion in unreasonable times" query: Why are proven liars endlessly provided platforms from which to lie http://mediamatters.org/blog/200910060012 ?
.
How does the act and acceptance of lying contribute to "unreasonable times"?
.
...And just one more thing:...if [Feingold] can stick to the straight and narrow and avoid the populist distortions that surround this issue...
Your elite, centrist, pro-institution, pro-profession bias is showing, Michael Scherer.
.
The distortions to which you refer aren't "populist", they're political, they're organized, they're disseminated by established institutions, and they're rightist .
.
The distortions that "surround this issue" are just as much a product of elite institutions and their organizations, interests, conventions and contributors like yourself as the political-entertainment consuming public, Michael Scherer.
.
To frame the discussion in anti-populist terms, as if ordinary people's culture and proclivities --and not The New Republic's or Fox News'-- are the defining attributes of mass disinformation is to betray a shocking un-self awareness with respect to your own professional, centrist and establishmentarian biases.-
2.1
"So the question then arises relevant to your "reasonable discussion in unreasonable times" query: Why are proven liars endlessly provided platforms from which to lie"
Good question however if the platforms would be removed think of all the liberal journalists that would have to find honest work. Think how many liberal bloggers here would be talking to themselves (Although I think most do anyway).
We have a President who has not spoken a true word about HC reform.
We have had enormous coverage of the "photo op" at the White House of doctors supposedly supporting Obamacare. Some questioned were not sure why they were even invited.
Some Clinton reject was arguing 47,000 people die because of lack of health insurance. I have searched and searched and there is no basis, nor any question from the left wing rags. I even checked WebMD and there is no disease called "lack of insurance"
You among others here have complained ad naseum about how insurance companies are the root of the problem. The AMA's own report card tells a different story that not only contradicts "your facts" but also brings into heavy question the feasibility of any public option.
The arrogance and sanctimony of the left never ceases to amaze me with its non-stop ability to libel folks while performing the same acts.
-
2.2
Hey RUSTYBUTT--
Why didn't you tell FreeinPee that s/he needs linkies too? Do only libruls need linkies?
-
2.3
conversets
Since liberals only believe there own truth they dismiss all links that do not support their version of the truth most of which are not worth the keystrokes to copy.
Besides it gives libs another chance to call somebody else a liar while they keep lying to themselves.
-
2.4
freeinpa:
.
The study which everyone refers to which claims 45,000 Americans die every year from lack of health insurance, is a Harvard study published in the National Journal of Public Health.
.
http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/2009_harvard_health_study.pdf
.
The AMA report card you cite also happens to mention that inefficient processing alone among insurance companies wastes $210 billion.
.
Since I provided said links for you, I suppose you start doing the same.
-
-
3
Is there some good reason why Mr. Feingold is looking into this issue NOW, and not, say, 2 years ago when Obama's predecessor was appointing "czar" after "czar?"
.
This is a ridiculous non-issue brimming with hypocrisy from the Hate-America Right; Mr. Feingod should not be wasting the Senate's time pursuing this when health care reform hangs in the balance and large environmental legislation is next on the docket. All this shows is that Democrats are more than willing to do the bidding of their mortal enemies (and yes, Republicans are clearly trying to kill Obama's presidency and mortal enemy is the position they have chosen to take).
.
Does Mr. Feingold really think that this act of conspicuous friendly fire is going to ingratiate him enough with his intransigent Republican colleagues that they will work in good faith on the Democrats agenda where they have thus far existed purely as the Party of No thwarting the will of the voters? Or does Mr. Feingold, whom I have largely respected, just like seeing his name in print? -
4
"Why would Feingold embrace a topic--so often distorted and misunderstood--that has been the purview of Fox News and sundry other detractors of President Obama?
Well I agree with Rusty a simple mind that wrote the blog deserves a simple response. Because it is an issue with a growing number of Americans who don't think that these wing-nuts who are essentially given Cabinet-level access and power with any scrutiny deserves a closer look.
It is naive or just stupid that Obama at many levels does not share the same extreme views as many of these folks. He once said to judge him by the freinds he picks. Apparently Feingold did and it is scaring him out of this liberal mind as well.
-
4.1
I think that Feingold has chosen this "controversy" because it falls apart at the slightest touch. Not only does Obama have fewer Czars than his predecessor, but a number of them have indeed been confirmed by Congress.
Conservative talking-points have grown to be so stupid that the worst thing you can do to a conservative is to take him at his word, read all the way down, and then humiliate him with his own chosen topic.
It's ridiculously easy to do.
-
4.2
jaimymoore
Typical arrogant liberal dismissive attitude. Your reasoning explains how a "vetted" gem like Van Jones was given any post in any administration. Move along nothing to see here.
It is hard for liberal sto get used to the fact that "your truth and facts" is not absolute as there are now avenues for reality to be seen. Now you are left with only the delusions of your greatness
-
4.3
freeinpa, you've already demonstrated that you can't handle the facts. If I seem arrogant, please try to understand: it's because you're inferior and I'm honest.
-
4.4
jaimymoore
"freeinpa, you've already demonstrated that you can't handle the facts. If I seem arrogant, please try to understand: it's because you're inferior and I'm honest."
Once again because you deem it to be does not make it so. Add delusional to arrogant and that's your complete package. Stay on the meds
-
-
5
rustyreturns @ 1.2:
As so often occurs, our esteemed liberals offer up "evidence", but without any sources for their supposed facts.
That's because liberals know how to use google, which is where I found the information that you, apparently, didn't know before you regurgitated what you'd been told to say about Obama's "Czars."
If you were in the habit of researching instead of repeating, this wouldn't happen to you, as you say, "so often." Then again, that would require you to have an opinion of your own ....
-
5.1
I believe that Rustydog is well within norms requesting links to sources that support your claims, even though he is also a (sometimes fevered) rightist.
.
If it's that easy to find, then there shouldn't be a reason not to include at least one link in your comment.
.
We demand as much in the way of standards from the journos, we should demand it of ourselves, as well, right? -
5.2
Actually, with any journalist, I feel free to select text, right-click on it, and then search. Journalists (even on the internet) do not hyperlink every cite.
.
As for the issue itself, I thought it was funny that rusty cited the legislative process only to show that he didn't know anything about the legislative process. Then, rusty indicated that he didn't know how to find out anything about the legislative process.
.
It's more instructive to let fools twist in the wind than to offer them the facts that they will not have the guts to confront (you'll notice: he hasn't). It's kind of like hanging a carcass on the fence to keep the other animals out.
-
-
6
My God, is it really taking rusty this long to find Senate confirmations on 'senate.gov'?
.
Here's a hint: if you're starting with conservapedia, you're sunk. I've been there and I know the way, and you can't get there from here. -
7
Feingold is absolutely right to raise this constitutional issue, but it is not likely to be resolved. Presidents have had kitchen cabinets since Jackson (& likely before), & those advisors who influence the President of the day are not always the ones confirmed by the Senate, some of whom may be mere window dressing. Often the First Lady has as much or more influence than Cabinet members, & alas, she never gets paid. (Not until we have a First Gentleman will the job be a paying one.)
The real questions are whether or not (a) the role of the advisors should be formalized & (b) the taxpayer should pay the czars & their staffs. I applaud Feingold's effort, however quixotic.
The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com
-
7.1
Freeport is a typical Becklandian who is too ignorant to look up his own facts much less ck anyone else's.
Unlike liberals I do not think facts are fungible and I don't have my own set of facts unlike liberals who do then belittle every one else when they arguments they make lack reason and sense. Two characteristics no high on a liberals list.
Like liberals when called to task name call. The faux intelllectuals above keeps questioning the number I quoted FROM HIS OWN LINK. And right wingers are called ignorant.
Grab the meds, put on your tin foil hat and go to MOM's basement-- your liberals and nobody likes you.
-
-
8
freeinpa @ 2.1
Some Clinton reject was arguing 47,000 people die because of lack of health insurance. I have searched and searched and there is no basis, nor any question from the left wing rags.
I would be careful about confessing your research impotence so openly. I found it with a single google search.
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE58G6W520090917
.
So now that's two wingnuts on this thread who barely know how to use the internet and don't have any facts at their disposal. Rusty doesn't know how to find senate confirmations and freeinpa can't find a study that generates 630,000 hits on google.
.
Like I said: humiliating conservatives with the very points that they themselves bring up is ridiculously easy to do.-
8.1
Thanks for proving my point. Your link:"Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year -- one every 12 minutes -- in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care"
NEARLY 45,000 is not 47,000. To quote the liberal Knuckleheads here LIAR LIAR!!!
My post remains correct
The humiliation is all yours I'm afraid.
-
8.2
Yes, RIDICULOUSLY easy to do, LMAO.
Freeport is a typical Becklandian who is too ignorant to look up his own facts much less ck anyone else's. And, also typical of RWNJ, is the way he posted accusations and then blamed HIS/HER INCORRECT claims on the OTHER poster.....SO, SO typical.
BTW, free...also apparently does nt GET that there isn't much overall difference btween 45000 and 47000, but I'll be nice and not ......oh nm, LOL!!!
These nitwits do nothing BUT smear, more likely than not, WRONGLY; and the thing that is so funny, is that they don't even have enough intelligence to be embarrassed by their own astounding ignorance.
I usually think the ignorance is willful, but in his/her case I may have to make an exception!
-
8.3
Ya see, Jaimy, you're placing too high a premium on intellectual honesty. What you need to do is start undercutting the argument, as so:
So freeinpa, if we're willing to stipulate that no more than 44,000 uninsured people die each year due largely to their lack of coverage, would you be willing to stipulate that this is unacceptable?
Something like 3 kids died from Lawn Dart injuries, and a Republican administration had them banned. Can we stipulate that 44,000 is more than 3? Or are you gonna keep reminding us that "45,000 is not 47,000".
While we're at it, I would also remind you that Republicans frequently get hinky about exact numbers (see Donald Rumsfeld on force depletion in Iraq, George Bush on tax cuts and deficits, and Karl Rove on "the numbers"), so lets not get into which side more likely to at least fall the standard deviation on any issue. It wouldn't make you look good.
Also, I'm not gonna cite anything on Lawn Darts or Rummy. I'm assuming you've got at a keyboard, internet access, and perhaps some post-secondary education, and thus should be able to do some of your own research. I need to get back to work (by which I mean posting things on my friends' FB pages and counting the hours until close of business).
-
-
9
What a bunch of crap and Feingold is playing into the wingnut's hands here. I second the commentator who asked where he was when Bush was pulling all this malarkey - if it is even that.
Can I just say: the idea of a President having well informed well intentioned advisors on the vast range of topics a President has to deal with in the course of his/her work is something that should be applauded not scorned or maligned. Full stop, no debate and no questions. The President was voted in by a significant majority and as part of that vote he was entrusted to make decisions and to pick those people who he thinks will help him most in governing the country. Otherwise, you may as well require that the President simply be picked and confirmed by Congress.
-
10
Correct me if I'm wrong, freeinpa, but wasn't it you who first posited the "47,000" number above (citing an unnamed and unlinked "Clinton reject")? And, in the end, isn't "nearly 45,000" deaths, per the report's findings, enough for you?
-
10.1
freeinpa has already admitted that she's too stupid to do her own research. If she had, she would have shown that the overall number is actually higher than the number directly measured.
.
So why would we expect her to get her numbers right? We should expect her to do exactly what she did: seize on a nominal discrepancy and then claim that her public humiliation was really someone else's. -
10.2
Hey Einsteins. 47,000 was not my number but some ex-Clinton dimbulb on TV. I said I could find no support for that number. And jaimymoore apparently has trouble with math as well as reading. The number in the linked article was "nearly 45,000". And I still remain correct there was no support for the 47,000 figure and you two remain the above mentioned knuckleheads
-
10.3
Hey Einsteins [sic]. 47,000 was not my number but some ex-Clinton dimbulb on TV.
Assuming that you even have the correct quote (you've already proved on the Narcissism threat that you're too stupid to count), I've already explained why you're wrong on this, too. You still haven't read the article, have you? You know, the one you admitted you were too stupid to find?
.
Would you like me to explain it again? I could make some flashcards .... -
10.4
i have talked to several Pa RW'ers and have to wonder WHY they all seem to be some of THE MOST IGNORANT people in the country?
Since I can't seem to reply to freeinpa [missing any reply buttons to his posts, hm] I am writing this under your response to his/hers.....hope you don't mind too much.
FREEINPA,
It was YOU who tried to blame that number on Jaimy.....which was, if nothing else, entertaining.
Now, a rational person would admit the error and apologize for accusing the other poster of making YOUR error; Of course we are not at all surprised you did not - typical wingnut behavior that we are likely all used to.
It is also YOU who is trying to get out of that by harping on the HUGE difference in the number 45 and 47.....HILARIOUSLY enough we ALL know that this is how RW'ers operate; smear until you get caught in an inaccuracy and then try to change the point or subject just enough to place blame elsewhere ...good luck w/that!
It was ALSO YOU, who was apparently incapable of doing YOUR OWN CK on Jaimy's stats on Czars.....
So, being nice and all, I did YOUR HOMEWORK FOR YOU with regard to the uninsured:
http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/uninsured-kids-2008/national-report.pdf
also
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:ufYc3uA6nCoJ:www.soa.org/library/proceedings/record-of-the-society-of-actuaries/2000-09/2001/january/RSA01V27N373PD.PDF+47,000+uninsured+in+America+%2Bgovernment&cd=39&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-aNote that in the 2nd cite, it even gives us the number of hours a min. wage worker would have to work to pay for BASIC services like a doctors visit - and this was in 2001 [it would be worse now].....that particular number was 16 HOURS or TWO DAYS OF WORK, JUST for a visit to the doc's office! Lucky suckers, eh?
Now, FREEINPA, when you post back with new smears, please be aware that YOU know ZERO about ME and TRY to keep those smears believable; to do that.....instead of personal insults, TRY keeping to the facts; ie, at least read the cites before claiming I'm stupid/lying/whatever, lol!
-
-
11
MS -- Although your use of "assignation" as meaning "the process of assigning" is sanctioned by dictionaries, I think that in this age of John Ensign and Mark Sanford your use of it may have conveyed a lot more than you intended. "Assigning" would work just as well without all those unfortunate connotations.
-
-
11.2
Thank you for responding to commentary, Michael Scherer.
-
11.3
Actually, Mr. Scherer, I think you should keep it. It's so much more expressive than the alternatives.
-
-
12
freeinpa @ 8.1:
NEARLY 45,000 is not 47,000. To quote the liberal Knuckleheads here LIAR LIAR!!!
Thanks for a weak response. 47,000 was your number, not mine, and not the study's. Furthermore, the study only concerns employed adults, which means the actual number is much higher. If you had read beyond the headline, you'd know that.
I hope everyone reads your post so they can see how ignorant conservatives are these days.
-
12.1
I suggest you read your own link or better yet have somebody read it and your own posts and have them use small words.
The number from the study is as valid as the numbers liberals continue to throw around for those that are uninsured. No mention for the margin of error in the study of 9000 patients.
-
12.2
"Margin of error"?
You really have no idea what we're talking about, do you?
-
12.3
Are you still looking for a "margin of error" in that study, freeinpa?
Hilarious!
-
12.4
Aaaaaaaaaaand freeinpa has run away, just like rusty.
Neither one of them had a clue.
-
12.5
Aaaaaaaaaaand freeinpa has run away, just like rusty. Neither one of them had a clue.
They had a town hall meeting to get to.
-
12.6
Run away from a liberal. Glad you have a sense of humor.
No I learned don't argure with idiots people won't notice the difference. And you little school girls are idiots
-
-
13
Frankly, I think that the Senate approves way too many administration positions. It now takes years to fill the positions in the administration because so many positions need confirmation. Congress and the President need to get together to pare the huge list of Senate confirmations (over 500) down to a reasonable size. As far as "czars" go, the idea of specialists who coordinate a given policy which covers several departments or agencies is neither new nor threatening.
-
14
Feingold believes we are better than all that.
Well I hope that's not it. I never took Feingold for a sucker.
-
15
I hope that Feingold addresses Obama's new gay children czar, or as Obama would call it, his safe-schools czar. Same difference.
-
15.1
Presumably, Feingold isn't getting his information on Kevin Jennings from FOX News or the Washington Times (which got the story wrong five years ago) or any of their repeaters, so I don't think that will be a problem.
-
15.2
That's a funny link! Thanks.
-
-
16
If there is from Feingold "A Plea For A More Civil Discourse", then it has fallen on predictably deaf ears --at least in this forum.
-
16.1
Yes just as Ratigan on MSNBC did yesterday in a call for civil discourse right before he screamed over his guest today.
You gotta love liberals with the do as I say not as I do playbook
-
16.2
Then consider me deaf as a post. A "more civil discourse" about public policy with whom? Professional "conservatives" who are bought and paid to use any means available, no matter how miserable, to thwart any policy that might undermine the future profits of their corporate masters - which any policy that advanced the general interests of the nation would necessarily do? Or "the base", which consistently shows the intellectual and emotional advancement of a twelve-year-old-boy (see above) and is animated only by their hatred of liberals and government and the compulsion to do and believe whatever their authoritarian leaders tell them? Feh.
-
-
17
What is undeniably odious is that freeinpa finds it completely acceptable that 45000 people die in the US each year because they lack the insurance to provide quality care.
-
18
[...] care initiatives Obama may support, as well as childish regarding Obama administration “czars” driven by up and coming kooks like Glenn [...]
-
19
[...] Finegold is taking on the Czars Story here: Russ Feingold Takes On “Czars”: A Plea For A More Civil Discourse? - Swampland - TIME.co... Go figure... __________________ Appleseed Rifleman & Instructor INGO Moderator Husband & [...]
- michaelscherer In meeting with Obama, Pres. Lee jokes about S Korea's military traditional outfits--"Difficult to fight in," he jokes - 1 week ago
- michaelscherer Helo over Seoul like Blade Runner. G Lightfoot sings, "Sometimes I think it's a shame when I get feelin better when I'm feelin no pain" - 1 week ago
- michaelscherer Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao meets Obama, quotes Confucious: "You can only get the new knowledge when you have the old knowledge." - 1 week ago
Most Popular »
- UPDATE: Guess Who Came To Dinner?
- Time to panic again! Or, on second thought ...
- Blizzard: 'Who Knows' When Diablo III Will Ship
- Happy Thanksgiving From The AppleGeeks
- Checkout Line Conundrums: Should You Get the Extended Warranty? What about the Store's Credit Card?
- A Self-Inflicted Expectation Gap
- FLO TV Personal TV: Being a Couch Potato Has Never Been Easier
- Gleeks and Shrieks: Fox Unveils Midseason, Glee Gone Until April
- The Six Greatest Fantasy Novels of All Time
- Fantastic Mr. Fox: Wes Anderson Talks Puppetry Perfection
- The 00's: A Decade from Hell
- Helicopter Parents: The Backlash Against Overparenting
- In Italy, A Sex Scandal to Rival Berlusconi's
- Obama's First Year Policies Need Time to Settle In
- How to Get Smarter, One Breath at a Time
- A Brief History of Black Friday
- Workers of the World vs. China Inc.
- The Gospel of Glee: Is It Anti-Christian?
- Satyam Computer Fraud Grows to $2.5 Billion
- A Brief History of Pie
Quotes of the Day »
RSS