Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Gibbs response to Faux Snooze Major Garrett on "czars" and other info

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 01:42 PM
Original message
Gibbs response to Faux Snooze Major Garrett on "czars" and other info
Part of the big hullaballoo about Obama's "czar problem" has been the utter inaccuracy of the number as well the fact that at least 8 were appointed by Bush.

Of the 32 "czars" on Becks 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")

Link and more info: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/The-Truth-About-Czars /


Beck's czar list includes these people who were appointed by George W. Bush. There is NO RECORD of any complaints by Republicans regarding these appointments:

AIDS Czar - Jeffrey Crowley
Border Czar - Alan Bersin
Drug Czar - Gil Kerlikowske
Economic Czar - Paul Volcker
Faith-Based Czar - Joshua DuBois
Health Czar - Nancy-Ann DeParle
Intelligence Czar - Dennis Blair
Regulatory Czar - Cass R. Sunstein

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/2... /


Robert Gibbs laid out what could be the response to those who want to know more about the issue and put it on record:



Garrett Q Okay. Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, sent a letter to the White House yesterday about the question of czars. He's the chairman of the Subcommittee on Constitution. He asked for more information about the czars' roles, the constitutional authority, how they're paid. The DNC today has sent out quite a few e-mails about czars have existed in previous administrations, this is sort of a phony issue. Could you just address for me what the White House thinks about, A, any questions about the czars' authorities, roles, or function in the administration; whether or not there is anything more it should disclose about what they're doing or what authority they derive? Any of those issues, raised by Russ Feingold and others.

MR. GIBBS: I have not seen Senator Feingold's letter. I think -- I don't know if you or anybody else sent around Senator Bennett's letter that several Republicans had signed. Look, I don't -- like I said, I don't know what Senator Feingold said. There are positions in the administration, there are positions in the previous administration. I think these are positions that date back at least to many, many administrations where there may be policy coordination between many different departments in order to make governmental responses more efficient. I'm struck by a little of the politics in this, Major. I noticed on your network they asked one of the House Republicans, Darrell Issa, whether he objected to the so-called czars in the previous administration. His answer was, no, we didn't. You know, I mean, I think it's -- I've noticed that -- you read Senator Bennett was pushing for a Y2K czar that he didn't think was powerful enough. You've seen Lamar Alexander call for a manufacturing czar. So, you know, somebody referred to in the Bush administration as the abstinent czar was on the DC madam's list. Now, did that violate the Constitution or simply offend our sensibilities? But I think it's been somewhat remarkable that in previous administrations so-called criticism of this has been a bit deafening -- the silence has been deafening, only to have it come around as a political issue now. I think what the American people would like every branch of government to do is get about dealing with the problems that real people have each and every day rather than playing political games back and forth, day after day, and not solving or addressing their problems.

Q Since you asked, I can tell you what the letter says -- it's brief; I'm not going to take a lot of time -- "I ask that you identify these individuals' roles and responsibilities, provide the judgments of your legal advisors to whether and how these positions are consistent with the appointments clause. I hope this information will help address some of the concerns that have been raised about the new position." Is this something the White House would be prepared to share with Senator Feingold --

MR. GIBBS: I would have to look at -- read the letter and have Counsel give me an opinion on that. Again --

Q But based on what I've read you, does that sound objectionable or something the White House would be opposed to?

MR. GIBBS: I think the American people hold the President accountable. That's what we would expect. And I think as it relates to, like I said a minute ago, any number of the political games that seem to be played each and every day in this little town -- I think we'd best be set getting back to dealing with real business.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NYC_SKP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
1. Awesome post! And, WTF unrecced???? I swear to God, unreccer, I'm gonna track you down and...
.
<---...gnaw at your ankles.

Recommended.

:P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flygal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 03:21 AM
Response to Reply #1
7. I almost unrecommended once by accident
If you're not here much and are not used to having unrecommend it's easy to put your curser right over. I caught myself a couple times. That may be what is happening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 05:47 PM
Original message
Gibbs nailed it. Garrett should be slapped up the side of his head
for his utter hypocrisy and partisian stupidity.

:spank: :spank: :spank: :spank: :spank:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phx_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 05:47 PM
Response to Original message
2. Oops. Deleted dupe.
Edited on Thu Sep-17-09 05:47 PM by Phx_Dem
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chat_noir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
3. BecKKK, did you forget Bush's Abstinence Czar?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PA Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 07:34 PM
Response to Original message
4. K & R.
Isn't Beck going after Cass Sunstein who was a Bush appointee?

Thanks for posting this! Great info.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 07:36 PM
Response to Original message
5. "Bush administration as the abstinent czar was on the DC madam's list"
:rofl:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 07:40 PM
Response to Original message
6. DNC video
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 19th 2014, 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC