 |
 |
||
|
|
|
 And Now, a Word About ‘Czar’ MythologyPosted on Sep 28, 2009
Certain prominent media figures who shall remain nameless (particularly one whose name just might rhyme with “Shmenn Shmeck”) are getting all worked up about President Obama’s “czars” and, having latched onto this term as fodder for a little old-fashioned partisan punditry, are busy freaking out their followers with sinister socialist imagery—but let’s take a good look at the recent history of this term in American politics, shall we? —KA
Advertisement Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment
|
HOME|Digs|Reports|Arts & Culture|Uncovered|Ear to the Ground|A/V Booth|Cartoons
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation 
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved. |
Obama’s Job Approval Slips Below 50 Percent
Email
Print
Share
BlinkList
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Fark
Furl
Google
LinkedIn
Mixx
MySpace
NewsVine
NewsTrust
Propeller
Reddit
SphereIt
StumbleUpon
Technorati
TwitThis
YahooMyWeb
YahooBuzz
By Gmonst, September 29 at 12:53 pm #
I have always thought Czar is a bad term to use for the head of any department. I guess it makes good sound bites and is short, but it does carry a lot of historical weight. Maybe we need to come up with a new one word term for chief adviser. To contradict shemp333 if one reads the full factcheck article one will find that actually the use of the term czar for a chief adviser goes back to at least FDR.
Report thisBy Gmonst, September 29 at 12:51 pm #
I have always thought Czar is a bad term to use for teh head of any department. I guess it makes good sound bites and is short, but it does carry a lot of historical weight. Maybe we need to come up with a new one word term for chief adviser. To contradict shemp333 if one reads the full factcheck article one will find that actually the use of the term czar for a chief adviser goes back to at least FDR.
Report thisBy shemp333, September 29 at 12:13 pm #
Ronald Reagan was the first pres to use the term czar in appointments to his staff. Czars have no power. They are advisors. Scary stuff I know. LOL!
Report thisBy Anoosh Hambarsumian, September 29 at 11:47 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
All I can say is that Glenn Beck is DANGEROUS!! He is just saying these things to boost his ratings… excuse me his rantings.
Report thisGlenn Beck stay out of everything. You are not a good American.
By Flabbergasted, September 29 at 11:18 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Homework : How many “Czars” have not gone through congressional approval? How many appointees were approved by congress and how many were still waiting by month 4, 6 and 8 of this adminstration?
Report thisA practical issue: How are you suppose to govern if to fill up the positions takes more than 1 year out of your 4 yrs of mandate?
A logistic issue: In the meantime, is the president supposed to do everything by himeself or go cleaning brushes until congress approves the appointees?
By GB, September 29 at 10:38 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Never in our history has a media network publicly announced it will oppose everything our elected president tries to do even if the policy is a continuation of the last one they loved. Fox is the first. They are not only spitting lies in our society to confuse the least educated but they are inciting the worst elements in our society because their politicians are out of power and legitimizing the remaining racist and insane republicans keeps the bucks rolling in. If the people who believe the bile oozing from Fox realized they are being used by the richest corporations we would get our democracy back.
Report thisBy The Mad Loon, September 29 at 9:54 am #
everyone seems to be missing the real issue here and that is that too much power has been placed into the hands of non-elected officials.Czars, advisers, political staff and lobbyists all have more power than those elected to represent the people(but don’t)
Report thisBy ridinginfaith, September 29 at 5:40 am #
come on,wake up! It’s not the amount of czar’s that is in question. IT’S THE RADICAL BACKGROUND OF OF THESE PEOPLE!
(P.S. ChaoticGood you don’t have to go out to show how stupid you are you can just stay here I doubt you even need the hat)
Report thisBy ChaoticGood, September 29 at 3:30 am #
The CZARs are just another boogeyman for the Republicans to scare us with. If we don’t heed their words and continue on as we are, we run the risk of having free universal healthcare. Not only that, we might have educated children because of school loan reform and fewer wars on various things because we don’t need to import so much oil. What a terrible thought.
Report thisScary….
Better get busy decorating my straw hat with old teabags and get out there and show the world how stupid I can be.
By Blockwatch, September 28 at 4:02 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Czar is indeed merely a label, yet it could be we’re just ‘worked up’ about non-
Report thiselected (or un-electable through the often-cumbersome electoral vetting
process) officials making heavyweight, policy altering decisions on the voting
taxpayer’s dime.
By MThomasNC, September 28 at 3:49 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Yes, Obama got too many ‘czars’, not born in USA, ‘you lie’, too friendly w the terrorists, he’s not this, he’s not that, he’s gonna take our guns. (What did I miss?)
Report thisWe have a 24/7 media system devoted to demonizing PresObama, so that they and their cronies (bigbusiness) can continue to rip us off. Remember how grateful, big business was to Obama when he was bailing out the banks and wall street. Everything was positive about Obama. As soon as he started bailing out the auto companies, passing the stimulus bill without giving bigbusiness their tax breaks, then onto climate change where energy companies have to give up or pay up, then the negativity started coming out.
Heaven forbid we get a ‘public option’ to give them competition on the health insurance preminums. No, no, they can’t have that. Yes, they want those 47 mil new people, but no, they don’t want govern’t to provide any type of control thru public options. They want free reign to charge whatever they want as premiums but have govern’t to subsidize what the individual can’t pay.
Never has there been such an organized, corporate sponsored media driven right wing vituperative against the leader of our country.
Obama will do well. There are enough of our countrymen that still remember the Bush years that brought us to where we are today.
Bigbusiness will do well to get on the band wagon and help this president move this country forward so that in 10 to 15 years there can be money in the coffers for them to rip off again. Right now the people are at bare bones, there is nothing left for these capitalists to steal from us. Oh yeah, they want carte blanche on the 47 mil new health insurees.
By Jean Gerard, September 28 at 3:28 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Horror of horrors! Czar, Julius Caesar, Kaiser Wilhelm, Czar Nicholas—all haunting us from the grave! That’s what’s wrong with language—it carries the echoes of history on its back. And it is almost infinitely exploitable, and doesn’t care a bit who is exploiting it, or for what nefarious purposes.
Report thisAnd that is exactly why “patriotism is the last refuge a of scoundrel”—or words to that effect. Patriot, pater (father), pater familias, patrimony, patriarch, patricide, patriarchy, pro patria, faith of our fathers, Heavenly Father etc. etc. ad nauseum. Words kill, and words giveth life.
Be careful when you open your mouth. You may put your foot in it.
By GW=MCHammered, September 28 at 3:16 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Back on the anxiety and mood stabilizers Becky Boy. Or we’ll hold you in contempt of truthiness.
Health Care and Glenn Beck
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkbclcQKSkQ
Glenn Beck is Bipolar (the movie)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoASELccAr0
~no offense intended to bipolar sufferers~
Report this