Thursday, October 22, 2009

The Great Czar Debate

Over the past 8 months or so, the Democratic leadership as well as the Obama administration has come under fire for using and appointing Czar's to manage various areas of policy. We have the health care czar, the climate and energy czar, the car czar and so on.

Republicans are constantly attacking the use of czars to aid the entire policy process, almost making the argument that the obama administration should be able to handle all these things without delegating these duties to people whom the responsibility would be entirely their own.

What's wrong with that?

The Bush administration used Czars. In fact, almost every single administration since Lincoln, both Republican and Democrat, have used and delegated Czars to handle various functions. I see no problem with this whatsoever.

What I do see is a Republican spin machine, desperate to bring President Obama down. Whatever it takes. Weather other Presidents called them Czar's or not is irrelevant.

You can't attack the obama administration for "doing their job" and then turn around and claim, "their not doing their job". What do you think?


  1. The use of 'Czars' actually started with Nixon, and all the term really means is an unofficial descriptive title to describe the function of an appointee with an actual title that's two feet long when written out. Repuglicans are expert at muddying the waters with non-issues.

  2. Hey tom. It did start with Nixon, but prior to that, Czars had diferrent titles.

  3. The whole Czar thing is comical. Many of the wingnuts are saying it's "communist" even though the communists hated the Czars and exterminated the Romanovs to make sure there would never be another Czar in Russia.