What are Obama's Czars?

So I decided to figure out what all these 'Czars' are about that have everyone in such a panic.

I mean how can we have 50 different rulers? Is that what they are? Or are they something different and that name just stuck?

Should Obama cave in on this term like he did on the word 'terrorist' and draw all kinds of criticism from the right again? Or should he stand his ground with this word and draw criticism from the right? Either way I guess.

So first up I found this post of the president not doing anything, but being lucky that his war czar is actually listening to the generals and advising on what to do:

ABC News is reporting that Lt. General Douglas Lute is going to be named the White House "War Czar."
Those of us who have a rudimentary understanding of the military and Constitution know that there is already a war czar. The position has a different name, though -- commander in chief, or as the president says, 'the commander guy.'

Click to expand...

Oh wait this is from 2007, so a czar helped turn the tide....

Hmm so I am trying to find out the powers off all these extra czars and all I can find is website after website, saying things like 'sweeping powers' and 'doesn't answer to congress' and 'not in the constitution'.

But nothing that actually says what it does. The closest I could find is this from Fox News: http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/07/17/2105/

Merriam Webster online defines a 'czar' as "the ruler of Russia until the 1917 revolution." But it's the dictionary's alternate definition, "one having great power or authority", that has ruffled many a feather lately.


While the term 'czar' is unofficial, the prevalence of such executive posts in President Obama's administration has gotten noticed.


The administration has nearly three dozen czars. While some of those jobs are actually mandated by congress, others are entirely new creations of Mr. Obama.

Although analysts note it's not likely all of the czars get face time with the commander-in-chief-- only ten actually report directly to the president-- they say the executive branch does have the feeling of top-heaviness.

Click to expand...

So we are talking about a ficticious word used by the people that are reporting these appointments. And 'analysts' say that it 'feels' top-heavy, not that it actually is.

The White house doesn't even like this term according to Fox News:

The term czar, by the way, is one rarely uttered by Mr. Obama or his aides, unless they are trying to correct its use. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has been known to alter the terminology, "If there's a marketing czar, I've failed to get his or her memo."

Click to expand...

So there is no actual information about what these people do other than 'oversee' their areas. So in essence that would mean that they are observers. And don't have any power to do anything other than report. And not that they have any 'power' to do anything in those areas (Note: There are a few Czars that are mandated and have powers but those have been there before now, and have to be approved by congress.)

So it really seems that these appointments that everyone is so worried about are nothing more than people with expertise in these fields reporting what they see to the president, and possibly giving their opinion on if it would work or not.


So even the people against van jones would have to admit that even if he is a communist (which he said when he was in college, and how many people say stupid stuff in college?), he would have strong feelings about job creation in the green sector right.

So if he was just advising if these companies where producing the jobs needed wouldn't that be fine?

Or should he draw criticism and just cave into the paranoid and change their name to something less scary, like "Advisers". Not that it would even matter, because it would never be dropped by the very people that are so against this term.

Guy you know the reason....but great post once again...

hanimmal, I think you're missing the entire point of the animosity towards Van Jones. You seem to be hung up on the title, I could care less if they had called him Czar, Special Adviser, Darth Vader or Strawberry Shortcake. Let's be clear as to why he resigned, he is gone purely because of Glenn Beck. Not Hannity, not Fox News, not Levin or anybody else, purely because of Glenn Beck. He was able to do an entire week on this complete scumbag's RECENT speeches and radical, anti-American, racist positions (HO BOY are they racist). This guy had no business being involved in a sitting president's inner circle. If he had been properly vetted by Congress, he wouldn't have been let within 500 yards of the Prez. I won't even go in to what that says about our President that he was. He was GONE long before the "asshole" comment hit the airwaves.

and I guess you a Gwen Beck fan ????

hanimmal, I think you're missing the entire point of the animosity towards Van Jones. You seem to be hung up on the title, I could care less if they had called him Czar, Special Adviser, Darth Vader or Strawberry Shortcake. Let's be clear as to why he resigned, he is gone purely because of Glenn Beck. Not Hannity, not Fox News, not Levin or anybody else, purely because of Glenn Beck. He was able to do an entire week on this complete scumbag's RECENT speeches and radical, anti-American, racist positions (HO BOY are they racist). This guy had no business being involved in a sitting president's inner circle. If he had been properly vetted by Congress, he wouldn't have been let within 500 yards of the Prez. I won't even go in to what that says about our President that he was. He was GONE long before the "asshole" comment hit the airwaves.

Click to expand...

All that said and done, I really wanted to know what Czars where that had everyone so scared, I didn't even know who this dude was before he got appointed.

People that been all over the word Czar, and I think that you know that. I just wanted to find out what it was all about.

But to Van Jones, I ask this: If someone made a radio Czar wouldn't Rush have a lot of insight on it? I think that he could do that job and be able to report what happens, even though I think everything you had said above applies to him too. It is just an advisory role, not someone that has any effect on them, unless you feel that getting information from different sources with differing ideas is a bad thing, which I don't.

P.S. I have been neglecting Glenn for a while, and have no clue about anything that you are talking about.

and I guess you a Gwen Beck fan ????

Click to expand...

He should be listening to Glenn saved him a bunch of money when he said the sky was falling and he pulled his money out of the stock market.

He could have listened to all the economists that were saying it, but he chose Glenn.

Actually, I was listening to the economists he interviewed on his program. Beck is the first one to say no one should listen to him on financial matters. However, the people he had on his show were the same economists whose warnings were being mocked, roundly, on other networks (to their face)... most prominently MSNBC and CNN. As it turned out these fellas were dead on balls accurate, actually calling it down to the month, and they did have a great deal to do with rescuing half of my savings. These same economists predicted the current and quite temporary recovery of the DOW and I was able to get back in at just the right moment and substantially increase my bling.

Getting ready to pull out again around December if memory serves, right around there or shortly after is when it should dive again. Probably going to take the whole shabang and buy gold around then, gonna need it as a backstop for the upcoming inflation. Not to mention the warnings these same guys made, how the most dangerous event that could happen to our economy is other countries going off the US dollar. Sounds like that is just around the corner... as predicted.