Lieberman Takes on Obama's Czars
There aren't many Democrats that would be willing to take on their own White House on the sensitive topic of czars – especially since the mere mention of the word by virtually any elected official sends Fox News in paroxysms. Russ Feingold weighed in a couple of weeks ago. And today at 2:30pm, Senate Homeland Security and Government Relations Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman will hold the first full committee hearing on the topic (okay, Lieberman's not a Democrat, but he still caucuses with them). A story on what to expect at the hearing.
Update
Below is the letter that Greg Craig sent to Susan Collins for those interested in reading it:
Read it here.
-
1
OMG! Obama has advisers!
-
1.1
Okay, admittedly I'm a little late to the pile on, but am I missing something here?
Isn't this whole "czar" flap is just another juvenile attempt by Republican leaders to get their halfwit supporters foaming at the mouth -- "Obama has czars, the soviets had tsars, don't you see Obama is a closet soviet out to COLLECTIVIZE THE COUNTRY!!!" -- and does it take any kind of special knowledge to understand that?
-
-
2
Please tell me that Joe isn't trying to position himself as McCain's running mate in 2012. Butt Boy I'll believe. Running mate, no.
-
3
Joe Lieberman is still a senator? Who knew?
-
3.1
And his constituents in Israel are very happy with him.
-
3.2
Makes me mad that Sore Loserman snuck in thru the back door. Most honorable peole would just accept that they got beat.
-
3.3
I just have to note again how masterful of a move it was for President Obama and Harry Reid to let LIEberman keep his gavel earlier this year without even a hint of remorsefulness on his part. I mean really ninja, juijitsu, chessmaster stuff there!
.
/snark -
3.4
sgw: Nice to see you back. Back for good or just a drive-by?
-
-
4
What a surprise, liberals on the wrong side of a debate from the American people.
-
5
If we're going to complain about czars, can we complain about BS Congressional committees such as Homeland Security and Government Relations?
-
5.1
Let's include the Drug Czar too. How to keep the prison industry growing when everything else is shrinking.
-
5.2
Seriously there is a committee on "Aging": http://www.congress.org/congressorg/directory/committees.tt?commid=ssage
Thanks for doing the work of the people Congress...
-
5.3
Hey folks, congratulations you have just taken a conservative view of government. With every committee, subcommittee the taxpayers outlay for office space, salaries, HC, retirement, computers, office supplies etc grows.
Cut the committees and their salaries and perks and have legislators meet for one month in the fall and one month in the spring to deal with budget business and for emergency reasons of security.
You might be surprised how efficient citizen legislators might be
-
5.4
Do you mean like the conservative view of government from January 2001 through January 2007 when conservatives had the White House, Senate and House of Representatives and government expanded more than at any time since FDR's New Deal? Maybe that isn't a good idea to take the conservative view.
-
5.5
sacredh
Not at all. Bush's entire focus after 9/11 and Iraq. He spent the rest of his time trying to appease other factions at the expense of a smaller more efficient government
-
5.6
"Not at all. Bush's entire focus after 9/11 and Iraq. He spent the rest of his time trying to appease other factions at the expense of a smaller more efficient government."
Bwahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dude, you should be writing comedy. This is the funniest thing I ever read!!
-
5.7
Who did Bush try to appease? The gods of the volcano?
-
5.8
slowp
For me to write comedy I would have to play with the home lobotomy kit but wait that would make me a liberal--no chance of that.
Bush worked with Kennedy to pass the Medicare drug plan which Kennedy decried as being too cheap and now Dumos cry about how expensive it is. The norm liberal schizophrenia.
-
5.9
sacredh- you nailed it. Republicans had such a huge opportunity in 2000-2007 (particularly in 2005 and 2006) to install small, conservative, principled government. They had healthy majorities and adequate political capital. They have no one to blame but themselves.
.
This is something that I relent daily. What a missed opportunity. -
5.10
apollyon07
You are correct in that conservatives blew the opportunity. Instead of kow-towing to the bipartisan blather that the MSM spewed they should have just pushed forth their agenda just as they did in 1994.
-
5.11
The Limbotomy appears to have been successful...if that's the right word for it.
-
5.12
I wouldn't quite go so far as to say conservatives had the White House the last eight years. Very few conservative principles were espoused during the Bush Admin. Just because someone calls themselves conservative does not make it so. Actions, not rhetoric, illustrate one's true ideological positions. I'm not sure what you would label the Bush Administration. Certainly not conservative, nor liberal obviously. Perhaps, Federalist.
-
5.13
'Just because someone calls themselves conservative does not make it so'
.
I agree completely. But it's fair to call the Bush administration a typical REPUBLICAN administration. They pursued corporate friendly policies while ignoring the 'small government' mantra -- just like all republican administrations have done since St. Reagan.
.
The only recent administration that actually made reductions in the size and cost of government (rather than expanding it) was Clinton -- implementing polices developed by Gore.
-
-
6
I wonder when he'll get to those hearings on government malfeasance during Hurricane Katrina that he promised when he was running against Ned Lamont and trying to trick Connecticut into thinking he was a Democrat?
-
7
"There aren't many Democrats that would be willing to take on their own White House on the sensitive topic of czars"
.
JNS,
.
Joseph Lieberman is not a Democrat, he is an Independent. It seems you should be able to get at least the most basic details of these things right.
.
On the substance of the "issue," this is beyond ridiculous. If these pompous, preening morons like Lieberman really thought there was a Constitutional issue with "czars" (a word that merely means "advisors"), why did this only come up now and not during the Bush Administration who also had a bevy of "czars" for every problem that ailed them?-
7.1
'If these pompous, preening morons like Lieberman really thought there was a Constitutional issue with "czars" (a word that merely means "advisors"), why did this only come up now and not during the Bush Administration who also had a bevy of "czars" for every problem that ailed them?'
.
Because IOKIYAR -
7.2
Maybe we're trying to make Russia our sworn enemy again.
-
7.3
piper1: If you'd care to read to the bottom of the one-paragraph post you'll see I note that Lieberman is an Independent. Are you always so premature in your... um, opinions?
JNS -
7.4
Joe Lieberman will hold the first full committee hearing on the topic (okay, Lieberman's not a Democrat, but he still caucuses with them)
caucus: a group of people united to promote an agreed-upon cause.
*
Fail. -
7.5
Don't worry, piper, Jay's botched a few things in here, like her view that the rest of the world is governed by the Kyoto Treaty.
.
In any event, Jay, one thing you missed, your shot at Fox News notwithstanding, is that Obama himself played up the czars. And when you call a guy a "czar", you are basically saying that there's gonna be some real power there. Czars ain't supposed to be advisers.
.
How long before this twit has to resign:
.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-philbin/2009/10/22/safe-schools-czar-funded-anti-christian-gay-porn-art-exhibit
-
-
8
"...the sensitive topic of czars..."
.
Uh, that's sarcasm, right?
.
Please tell me that's sarcasm. -
9
Wait, this is an actual thing? I thought it was just the idiots at Fox news that didn't like the word czar. People are actually upset?
-
9.1
Those of us that are going to start the midnight shift won't be able to sleep because they're called czars.
-
9.2
Hmm maybe those idiots at FOX News have a better handle on the American people than say oh CNN, MSNBC, NPR, Time.com. Actually its not a maybe. Since the MSM has taken the guided tour of Obama administration they re clueless about what the American people want or feel.
-
9.3
freep - Do you honestly believe that anybody in this country outside of FoxNews/Beck-land gives a shiite about this made up "czar" non-issue? You need to leave the echo chamber every once in a while. There are plenty of other reasons why people are somewhat down on Obama...and the biggest reason is the jobs situation. But outside of the relatively small universe of FoxNews viewers, "ohs noes....there are 32 bazillion czars!" falls way down the list of top concerns for most American voters...if it even makes the list. You and Lieberman can go on believing that focusing on this silliness will bring victory in 2010 and/or 2012. And you can go on believing it after Obama wins re-election, the Dems don't lose Congress, and Joe Lieberman is no longer the "Independent Democratic" Senator from Connecticut after being voted out by CT in voters in favor of a real Democrat.
-
-
10
First this-
. White House Counsel Greg Craig. "It is simply false to suggest that any of these (or other similar) positions are newly created 'czars' that lack accountability to Congress," Craig wrote in the letter obtained by TIME. "Under this definition, the Bush Administration reportedly had 36 czar positions filled by 46 different people - more than the highest estimated current number.
And then-
"There's been a real proliferation of czars under this administration," Collins says. "
Which is accurate? TIME's story doesn't say.
-
10.1
PNTTO:
I presented both sides of the story. I'll leave it to columnists and readers to draw their own conclusions on who had the best case.
JNS -
10.2
In matters of opinion that's fine, I suppose, but if you are writing about "czars" you must have a definition of what one is.
.
It appears Craig is using a specific meaning and either he or Collins is wrong.
.
Either there are fewer or there has been a proliferation under this administration. -
10.3
And I am quite sure Craig is using a specifically defined definition that is most favorable to the Administration
-
10.4
PNTTO:
I do believe that is why I included this paragraph:
Every Administration has defined its czars differently, but generally speaking, they are appointees, not confirmed by the Senate, who help coordinate issues across agencies, says James Pfiffner, a presidential historian at George Mason University. These advisers cannot make decisions themselves; instead, they whittle down the options to present to the President. For example, the National Security Adviser — a position created by John F. Kennedy to navigate disputes between the Departments of State and Defense after the Bay of Pigs — falls under Pfiffner's definition of a czar. Yet these days the title of czar has varied wildly. Conservative political commentator Glenn Beck, for example, has a list of 32 "princelings" on his website; he has claimed the scalp of one of them, green-jobs czar Van Jones. Jones was widely criticized by conservatives for past associations with the radical left and was forced to resign. Pfiffner, however, did not define Jones as a czar, since he reported to a department head who answered directly to the President and Congress. -
10.5
I read that JNS, but your story has Craig citing a definition in the letter that TIME has.
.
Have you read the letter and does he say what the defintion is? It reads as if it is Collins definition.
.
If all that is so then either this administration has fewer or more by the Senator's own definition.
. -
10.6
And I could say that Collins is using a definition that best suits her and her party's purposes.
-
10.7
PNTTO:
I presented both sides of the story. I'll leave it to columnists and readers to draw their own conclusions on who had the best case.
JNSRead more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/10/22/lieberman-takes-on-obamas-czars/#ixzz0Ugf99uMU
From the article:
There has been a lot of talk — and some hyperbole — in recent weeks surrounding the Obama Administration's growing stable of imperial "czars." But is there anything to all this chatter?
If you're attempting to determine whether or not there is anything to all this chatter wouldn't it be worthwhile to determine if there is any merit to what people are saying?
-MBirchmeier
-
10.8
Shorter JNS: "Shape of Earth: Views Differ."
-
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/04/shape-of-planet-blogging/
-
JNS, please consider the possibility that the MSM's failure to unequivocally inform readers about facts is part of the reason for its unpopularity.
-
20% of this country identifies as Republicans. Every single one of them is over 60 and white (yep, it's a fact). You have no rational reason to dumb down your reporting to please those people, who will be on a jihad against you no matter what you do anyway.
-
Thanks for being so engaged on this thread. -
10.9
PNTTO:
In the interest of transparency, I'm working with our tech folks to upload a pdf of the letter. I'll let you know when there's a link to it.
JNS -
10.10
That would be great JNS.
.
Thanks for the effort. -
10.11
Both sides? If you covered an issue involving NASA would you allow moon hoax conspiracy theorists "equal time". I believe that about 25% of americans believe that is a hoax, while 20% identify as Republicans.
.
I am not picking on you in particular JNS but this "both sides" thing is the death of the media. There are many assumptions you make without presenting both sides.
.
Motherhood and apple pie are good. The flag is nice. Hitler was evil, the Holocaust was one of history's greatest horrors.
.
Most people would not disagree with those "givens". What I think many of us disagree with is that there are many things that should be givens that the Republicans have learned to make "open for debate" that journalists have acquiesced too, in order to present "both sides". 99% of climate scientists believe in global climate change. Yet 1%, many of whom are funded by people like Exxon "disagree". We need to present "both sides" for balance.
.
Well, why? If a journalist would ever discuss why things are given, unopen for debate, and others have "two sides", and how that determination gets made, it would be raining purple unicorns because there is no logical consistency in how this is done, and that is where our cognitive dissonance comes from. If each of the last several presidents had czars, but now one side decides that it is the worst horror ever, a journalist should be under no obligation to do he said/she said reporting on it. -
10.12
PNTTO:
As you probably have noticed by now, the pdf of the letter was posted yesterday.
JNS
-
-
11
Uh, no. In your lead you refer to JL as a "Democrat" who is "willing to take on [his] own White House...". Lieberman backed McCain. He ran against a Democrat for his seat.
.
The whole point of the story is wrong.-
11.1
...Should have been a reply to 7.3. [Sighs]
-
11.2
You may not consider him a Democrat but he was forgiven by both Reid and Obama and welcomed back into the fold. He is the MAJORITY chairman of the Homeland Security committee and caucuses with Democrats. His criticism is considered as much friendly fire as Feingold's -- and Lieberman has much more to risk, ie his chairmanship.
JNS -
11.3
"Lieberman has much more to risk, ie his chairmanship.
JNS"
.
From your keyboard to God's ears JNS.
.
Also-thanks for engaging today. -
11.4
'You may not consider him a Democrat... '
.
Oh, come on Jay. You're making rationalizations now. NOBODY considers Lieberman a Democrat, including Lieberman.
.
'His criticism is considered as much friendly fire as Feingold's'
.
Considered by who? You?
.
Lieberman campaigns for republicans. Is that 'friendly fire'? He has been an active critic and obstructionist on virtually all of the Democrat's key issues this year. He is currently as much a Democrat as Spector is currently a republican. The fact that Lieberman is allowed to keep his chairmanship is more indicative of Reid's poor leadership than of Lieberman's loyalty to the Democrats. -
11.5
What "risk" is there for Lieberman as long as Reid is majority leader??
.
Seriously, what risk?
.
There is a greater risk that the Nutmeg state will break off and fall into the Atlantic.
-
-
12
...since the mere mention of the word by virtually any elected official sends Fox News in paroxysms..."
.
...and lying partisans and dumbsh*t "journalists" respond predictably...-
12.1
meaning CNN MSNBC and NPR?
-
-
13
Also, it's the power invested in Lieberman as a majority chairman that even allows him to hold this hearing. Minority members don't have the power to convene hearings on their own.
JNS-
13.1
Congressional Bill HR121 comes before congress to ban child prostitution. That's all the bill does. Party A is sponsoring the Bill. A Party A rep says "This bill will stop this horrific practice dead in its tracks and protect children." Party B Rep says, "This bill will undermine the rights of private business owners to do business as they see fit, and also will allow members of Party A to promote their socialist agenda. Also it will make hunting snipe illegal."
Jay Newton-Small/Beltway School of Journalism 101:
"Bill HR121 came before congress today. Party A representative said that the bill will stop a horrific practice, and ban child prostitution. Party B rep said that the bill goes to far, will take away gun owners rights and is socialist. Some say party A is right. Many also agree with party B."
Real Journalism 101:
"Bill HR121 came before congress today. Party A Rep explained that the bill would stop a horiffic practice and ban child prostitution. Members of Party B incorrectly stated that the bill would take away gun and private business owners rights. After five minutes of investigation, this reporter discovered that in actuality, the bill only bans child prostitution and would have no affect on gun owners or legal private businesses. Party A rep was correct. When asked to respond about making false claims, Party B Rep grew angry and claimed this reporter to be biased."
-
-
14
"I presented both sides of the story. I'll leave it to columnists and readers to draw their own conclusions on who had the best case."
.
My word. And you have no earthy idea how you condemn yourself professionally by that statement, do you?
.
Perhaps we'll just increase our amusement factor and save ourselves considerable cost and heartache and replace your entire industry with well-trained African parrots. In addition to repeating what they're told without any understanding of what they're saying, they do tricks.-
14.1
shepherdwong:
Actually, I believe quite firmly that the proliferation of Huffington Posts, Matt Drudges and other slanted news is what's killing our profession. If you are looking for news with an opinion, that's great. But I think news should be about representing both sides; striving for balance and fairness. Unfortunately, reliably unbiased news is harder and harder to come by these days because news agencies are trying to cater to people like you: people who prefer to view the world through one lens or another but rarely both.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/24/AR2008102402757.htmlJNS
-
14.2
Jay N-S:
I believe if someone takes an objective view of the business of journalism you will find that the ship of unbiased journalism sailed around the time of the Vietnam War. To believe that newspapers and MSM outlets were unbiased since then gives a clear answer as to why outlets like Drudge, Huffington et al have flourished.
The fantasy that most journalists are unbiased is belied by the fact today's journalists where their beliefs on their sleeves.
So it should not be a surprise that newspapers of old are now circling the drain while other outfits flourish.
-
14.3
Well, Jay, I believe quite firmly that the fact that you can read an article and TIME magazine and not know which side is lying is what's killing your profession. Objectivity isn't the same as neutrality.
-
Aasif Mandvi thinks CNN is the most professional news outlet, while John Oliver claims it's an organization that only wants to seduce goats. A useful news report will inform viewers as to the merits of the issue, not merely provide an equal forum for rival sides.
-
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-12-2009/cnn-leaves-it-there
-
The real story here is that the right wing can bark its head off about any false inanity, such as the czar issue, and you will treat it as news, put it in the magazine, because all too often, reporters seek controversy, instead of reporting relevant facts.
-
It's the "Around the Horn"/"Pardon the Interruption" approach to journalism, which generates heat but not light, and doesn't attract viewers and readers because it doesn't inform them. -
14.4
JNS - Drudge is a right wing site while Huffpost is a left leaning, celebrity heavy site. Neither makes any claim to be non-partisan or "fair and balanced". The problem is that too many members of the "news" industry take their queues directly from these partisan sites, especially Drudge. My problem isn't with Drudge, it with your colleagues who treat his red alert headlines like the journalists of old treated breaking news coming in over the wire services. Drudge and HuffPo aren't killing your profession, you are killing it yourselves. I'm not blaming you, personally (I'd have to scour your past posts/stories, which I'm not going to do - my unresearched impression is that you are one of the better ones out there)...but the "news" industry is largely to blame here.
..
There should be a place for both partisan news sources like Drudge and non-partisan sources like the traditional media. Here's a hint for members of your "profession" - don't let Drudge or Arianna rule your world. You can have your niche and they can have theirs. Nobody is forcing y'all to cater to people like us. I, for one, would love for both sides of an issue to be present in a non-partisan fashion...that's news, that's journalism...I can gey my punditry and opinion elsewhere. HOWEVER, "he said, she said" garbage without context and without calling out people when what they say is wrong (or a lie) is not journalism - it's stenography...and it's lazy.
..
All that said, I think your story here is just fine and good example of how this non-issue should be reported now that Beck and Drudge have forced your profession and publicity seeking members of Congress to waste their time looking into mid-to-low level non-policy setting presidential advisers who have existed in the administrations of both parties going way back. (as your story correctly notes) -
14.5
Elvis, at least Pardon the Interruption has a segment at the end of each broadcast dedicated to correcting all the factual errors made during the show. Imagine if we got that from the other cable news shows?
-
14.6
Jay Newton-Small,
.
Thank you for responding, though I'm not at all surprised by your beliefs. I, on the other hand, believe quite firmly that it is the very conventions of your corporate journalism: he-said-she-said over thoughtful and factual analysis, civility over decency, politics over substance, non-expert over expert, the embargo of liberal opinion and empirical truth, etc., is what's killing your profession. If you think that reciting two opposing political viewpoints without analyzing the respective truth of them is the formula for balance and fairness, it provides no surprise that you should rationalize that lazy and stupid belief with the false conceit of being “unbiased” (here's a little ugly truth you might want to take into account: sometimes people lie to advance their political interests). Again, I don't hold you individually responsible, it's an industry convention you and your peers are forced to adopt to survive professionally.
.
For instance, here are some facts that might bring some actual fairness and balance to a story about a partisan hack and serial liar such as Lieberman holding hearings on Obama Administration czars: 1) The term “czars” is actually shorthand for much longer and technical titles and is mostly a journalistic convention and 2) many if not most of these positions existed in the previous administration without controversy because until this partisan attack was contrived, no one on the left or the right considered them controversial. The “lens” is important and informative truth. It's a national tragedy that you and your cohorts no longer recognize what that is or why it's loss renders you worse than unnecessary.
.
BTW, unlike your colleagues whose world Drudge rules, I read other people, opinions [*gasp*] included, where I learn more important truth about what's happening in public policy in one column than I typically learn in a week's worth of Time columns. -
14.7
"If you are looking for news with an opinion, that's great. But I think news should be about representing both sides; striving for balance and fairness."
JNS-I was going to let all this just pass as a waste of time but your comment above is simply absurd.
This isn't a situation where one side says the Colts are the best football team and the other said the Jets are the better football team. Lieberman made a specific verifible claim that the Obama administration has more czars than previous administrations. Craig says it has fewer. One of those things must be true, and one must be false. These are not opinions they are verifible facts you can check with a little research.
.
If you don't feel its your job to check facts and tell us which is true, and which is false what is the point of you writing the article in the first place? There has to be in that case, some other motivation for you taking the time to write this article that you are specifically not sharing with us.
-
-
15
But I think news should be about representing both sides; striving for balance and fairness.
I think news should be about accurately describing reality to the best of the journalist's ability.
-
15.1
For example, what would be the problem with saying this:
"Every Administration has defined its czars differently, but generally speaking, they are appointees, not confirmed by the Senate, who help coordinate issues across agencies, says James Pfiffner, a presidential historian at George Mason University. Using that definition, the Obama Administration employs X czars, compared to X czars employed by Bush and X czars employed by Clinton. White House defenders and conservative commentators define the term differently, which leads to wildly varying estimates in the number of czars. Conservative political commentator Glenn Beck, for example, has a list of 32 "princelings" on his website; ..."
What would be the journalistic problem with saying something like that?
-
15.2
Had to tag JNS on her belief in the false equivalence doctrine.
-
15.3
@David - I still think JNS' piece here is OK but I do agree that the bit of factual background information that you suggested would definitely help re: context. But those are exactly the type of "boring" facts that I would expect would fall victim to an editor's redline, both to save space and to keep the story sexy. If you include hard numbers that show that all three adminstrations had about the same number of these so-called czars - and my guess is that would be the case - then you no longer have an issue...or at least not a partisan or new issue. JNS does a good job of explaining what these so called czars are or aren't, but she relies on partisan sources - a White House adviser and Glenn Beck - to provide the numbers. Perhaps getting Pfiffner - and maybe another historian well-versed in the subject, so you have two sources - to provide his estimate based on what he believes a czar to be would have helped here. But again, it's a good bet that the numbers would be pretty much the same whether it be the Obama or Bush II or Clinton or Bush I or Reagan WH. And an editor (I'm giving JNS the benefit of the doubt here) would rather exclude those estimates because including them would make the story less controversial/partisan. (and might also lead to the death of this non-issue, forcing the news profession to focus on real issues...and that's hard work and boring)
-
-
16
JNS, another point that has not been made is that by merely writing about the czar "controversy," you are basically agreeing to be a mouthpiece for the right wing. No one in the mainstream thinks there is a czar controversy -- it is 100% dreamed up by the loonies on the right. It is then repeated over and over again until the MSM picks it up as a "story." Just by running a story about it, however unbiased you think the story itself is, is biased, because the topic has been chosen by the rightwing. A journalist should be able to either dismiss these talking points as unworthy of consideration *or* turn it around and debunk the talking point by digging into the real story. As in, right wing operative Mr. X started the "czar" talking point, despite the fact that czars started under Reagan and there is no objective proof of an increase in the number or power of czars under the Obama administration. But instead of referring to it by its true name (a talking point) and calling it a "story", the MSM has already tilted the playing field toward the right.
-
17
Seriously, JNS, your sanctimony is comical.
"I presented both sides of the story. I'll leave it to columnists and readers to draw their own conclusions on who had the best case."
I'll say it slowly:
You.
Didn't.
Present.
Either
"Case."You presented two competing claims but gave us absolutely no data upon which to evaluate these claims. With what facts are we poor readers supposed to draw conclusions that allow you to stay under your invisibility cloak of objectivity?
Person A says the sky is green. Person B says the sky is orange. I'll leave it to you to decide who has the best case.
Go ahead, present both claims. But give us more evidence and less self-righteousness.
-
18
Lieberman ran for Senate, and was elected, as a member of the "Connecticut For Lieberman Party". Not as an Independent (e.g. Bernie Sanders), not as a member of the Independence Party (e.g. Dean Barkley) , and not as an "Independent Democrat" (?). The fact that he caucuses with the Democratic caucus, and that he calls himself an "Independent Democrat" means exactly nothing in terms of his actual party affiliation -- there is NO "Independent Democratic" party, is there? He could call himself a Martian, but that wouldn't change the fact that he's not.
.
"...news should be about representing both sides; striving for balance and fairness. " Umm, no. Is there some obligation to present both sides, or all sides, of an argument, when one is clearly false? You honestly believe that in the debate over whether the earth is round or flat, the best approach to report on that is to "present both sides, striving for balance"? Really? You feel NO obligation as a member of the media elite to inject any sense of context? To point out when someone is just flat out lying? So you subscribe to David Gregory's take on the role of journalists?
.
"I think there are a lot of critics who think that . . . . if we did not stand up and say this is bogus, and you're a liar, and why are you doing this, that we didn't do our job. I respectfully disagree. It's not our role."
.
"reliably unbiased news is harder and harder to come by these days because news agencies are trying to cater to people like you" Touched a nerve, eh? No, reliably unbiased news is harder and harder to come by because of hacks like you who are too lazy to do the hard work that actual journalism entails, and instead chase the "sexy controversial" story at the expense of reporting boring old 'facts', which we all know have a liberal bias anyway, right? -
19
You know I might buy this balance business of reporting both sides if the tradmed made a habit of doing so. But we didn't get both sides on the Iraq war rolllup, We are not getting both sides on Afghanistan only the warmongering side. We didn't see the gay rights march treated the same way the teabaggers were.
These are the news decisions that reallly matter--which stories with which slant--and those are made out of sight by the Stengels and the Kellers of this world.
-
20
19 is mine
-
20.1
19 ADMIN
Narc.
-
-
21
I have been away for three days and have spent a lot of time catching up with posts and comments - certainly glad I did it and didn't miss the big melt down - but had to say I think your post would have been helped had you noted another part of the story. One of the claims is that none of the czars (press term) have not been confirmed. Not so.
Of the 32 "czars" on Beck's list, nine were confirmed by the Senate:
Deputy Interior Secretary David J. Hayes ("California Water Czar")
Director of National Drug Control Policy Gil Kerlikowske ("Drug Czar")
OMB Deputy Director Jeff Zients ("Government Performance Czar")
Director of National Intelligence Adm. Dennis Blair ("Intelligence Czar")
OMB Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Cass Sunstein ("Regulatory Czar")
Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and OSTP Director John Holdren ("Science Czar")
Treasury Assistant Secretary for Financial Stability Herb Allison ("TARP Czar")
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Ashton Carter ("Weapons Czar")
OSTP Associate Director Aneesh Chopra ("Technology Czar")Many of the same critics who are decrying these roles have applauded or even pushed for them in the past. Sen. Robert Bennett has criticized czars as "undermining the Constitution," but reportedly prodded President Clinton to appoint a Y2K Czar. In a 1999 CNN appearance, Sen. Bennett said "I think John Koskinen has been superb. I wrote the president six months before John was appointed, recommending that he appoint a Y2K czar."
-
22
"Under this definition, the Bush Administration reportedly had 36 czar positions filled by 46 different people — more than the highest estimated current number.”
This quote from the WH makes the comments by Collins almost laughable. If this review is not partisan from her perspective, then what is it?
All politics these days in Washington seems to be strictly stratified along political party lines so pardon me for not buying her non partisan remarks. They just do not ring true.
On the other hand, this questioning of the status quo is what a democracy is about--”checks and balances”. If the Czars are truly wielding so much power, and their access to the President is encroaching on the authority and effectiveness of congress, then it is worth a review.
However, Lieberman?? Now that is odd. Is this not the other "Mavericky" dude who changes with any “wind” which would guarantee his re-election? What is really driving his involvement here? Hmm... This should be interesting.
http://theblindspotsofgod.wordpress.com/2009/10/18/armed-robbers-use-technology-to-stalk-and-kill/
-
23
I'm reminded of Francis Bacon -- the philosopher, not the artist -- who complained about the pollution of knowledge by people who quibble over definitions and not things.
Seriously, Jay, if the term "czar" is basically a nebulous hindrance to the reader (which is the case here) then why hang the piece on it? You have a decent definition provided to you of the kinds of appointments that might cause Congressional ire -- ones with no Senate confirmation, that report directly to the president -- so why not use it, instead of diving back in to the czar-czar ga-boring quotes from pols?
-
24
This story could just as easily have been reported:
After eight years of no oversight from his committee regarding homeland security or any other issue under Senator Lieberman's purview, he has decided the time has now come, apparently responding to conservative complaints about "czars" in the Obama administration.
Of course, "czar" is an informal characterization referring to an appointee who advises the president, and helps in inter agency coordination.a coinage apparently made during the Wilson Administration
Lieberman's decision to raise this issue now is a curious one, as there was no shortage of such positions in the Bush administration. in face, one could argue that the head of Homeland Security is himself a czar, a particularly powerful version created by George Bush.
And then you ask Lieberman to explain what has changed.
-
25
WTF & HFS!
Remember when this blog didn't suck? Back when sgwhite and 53_3 were regulars? Now it's just, "I am SO a professional reporter-girl!" -- "Are not." -- "Am too!"
Spooge sounds almost sane in this company. Time to GTFO.
-
25.1
I never knew you cared.
-
- jnsmall @katieinDC medicine sans frontieres (doctors w/o borders in English). if not w/ them then they can refer you. - 2 hours ago
- jnsmall @katieinDC You should go-it's def an area where help is needed. maybe talk to MSF or the Adventist hospital (Adra). - 3 hours ago
- jnsmall @katieinDC The Israeli field hosp had 2 neonatal units -but those were the only 2 i saw in Haiti. There's a huge need there for obgyn care - 3 hours ago
Most Popular »
- Undercover Boss Is Phony and Manipulative. But Don't Hold That Against It.
- NBC: There Was Never a Conan O'Brien
- NH Poll: Dems Face A Thumpin'
- Gibbs Mocks Palin, Tea Party Convention
- Barack Obama: Then vs. Now
- Paul Ryan Won't Run For Prez In 2012
- Today's Health Care Checkup - GOP Plans Under the Spotlight
- Irony of the Day
- Do You Spend Less than $2,000 Annually on Internet, TV, Cell Phone Service, and Video Games?
- CO Gov Poll: Hickenlooper +4
- Asian Carp Battle: Foreign Fish Threaten Great Lakes
- Is the Bible Fact or Fiction? Archaeology's Discoveries
- Spain's Troubled Economy: Fears Over Euro Zone Outlook
- Kennewick Man, Archaeology Find: Who Discovered America?
- Al-Qaeda, Yemen, Wedding: Unlucky Name, Celebration
- Tea-Party Convention: Lessons on Palin and the Movement
- Venezuela: Chavez Protests at Ball Game Over Electricity
- Jim Frederick, Black Hearts in Iraq's Triangle of Death
- Marja: Operation Moshtarak Tests Obama's Afghan War Plan
- Why China Needs The U.S. -- And Vice Versa
Quotes of the Day »
RSS