SubscribeThe only question I have about Van Jones' resignation as the White House green czar is why didn't they call me before they hired him. You would think that, as part of the vetting process, they would have called the mayor of the city where he was from.
I would have said, "Yeah, I know a lot about him. He's really a pain in the ass. When he ran Bay Area PoliceWatch, he slanted every case to make the cops look as bad as possible. And while he might be talented enough, he's totally and completely unreliable.
-Believes Social Security is insolventHere's a Glenn Greenwald article slamming the guy for advocating that Bush, etc not be prosecuted.
-Described John Yoo as a “a very interesting and provocative scholar” who “doesn’t deserve the demonization to which he has been subject.”
-Per his Nudge “economics” work, he subscribes to the silly theoretical promise of “paternal libertarianism” as the best guide for governance.
- He opposes any prosecution of Bush admin officials for spying, torture or illegal detention
-Supported Bush administration use – on supposed legal grounds – of military commissions to indefinitely detain suspected terrorist. Which has since been legally rejected by the Hamdan decision
-Supported granting retroactive immunity to those implicated in warantless wiretapping
-Suggested that FISA legal authority was ambiguous and thus the President’s “interpretation” was potentially meritorious
At the end of the day, Cass Sunstein is what you might call a TNR liberal. He has very flimsy principles regarding the rule of law and a unreconstructed neoliberals viewpoint of economics. He churns out neat sounding yet empty work that excites people who, well, think like him.
Some of the people whom conservatives and mainstream media voices alike have labeled "czars" have been confirmed by the Senate. Some of them, and others, hold jobs that were created by previous presidents.And here's their verdict on some of the so-called "czars":
Take a look at Politico's list of 31 "czars," which shrinks to 30 without Van Jones. Republican strategists like Ed Rollins have used that "31" number to allege that there's a problem here. But perhaps the most controversial people labeled "czars" by Beck and by reporters have gone through Senate confirmations. Cass Sunstein, whom Politico labels the "regulatory czar," is waiting for the end of a Republican filibuster so he can lead the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, an office created in 1980. John Holdren, the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, was confirmed by the Senate, unanimously, six months ago. But none of that seems to matter to their critics. Michelle Malkin, whom, again, Politico credited for making this an issue, relentlessly refers to Holdren as the "Science Czar" as if it was his actual title.
Pre-exisiting jobs:
"AIDS Czar" – Actually the Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy, created in 2001 by George W. Bush.
"Border Czar" – Actually the Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for International Affairs and Special Representative for Border Affairs, created in 2003 by George W. Bush.
"California Water Czar" – Actually the Deputy Secretary of the Interior, who was given this extra portfolio by Secretary Ken Salazar in June.
"Central Region Czar" – The Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for the "Central Region," on the Nation Security Council.
"Drug Czar" – Actually the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, created in 1989 by George H.W. Bush.
"Faith-Based Czar" – Head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, created in 2001 by George W. Bush.
"Intelligence Czar" – This is actually the Director of National Intelligence, a position created in 2005.
"TARP Czar" – Actually the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability of the United States Herb Allison, who was confirmed by the Senate in June.
"Weapons Czar" – Not actually an executive branch position, but the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics.
New jobs held by eminent people or people previously confirmed by the Senate:
"Afghanistan Czar" – Actually the United States Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the man holding that job, Richard Holbrooke went through a Senate confirmation hearing in 1999 when he became Bill Clinton's U.N. ambassador.
"Economic Czar" – Actually the President's Economic Recovery Board, chaired by Paul Volcker, the deeply uncontroversial former chairman of the Federal Reserve.
"Energy and Environment Czar" – This is Carol Browner, the Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, who was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in 1993 to run the Environmental Protection Agency under Bill Clinton.
"Guantanamo Closure Czar" – Actually the Special Envoy to Guantanamo, Daniel Fried, who was the final Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs in the Bush administration.
There are other problems with the list. The so-called "International Climate Czar," Todd Stern, is actually a special envoy who works in the State Department; several other "czars" were appointed to previously-existing institutions, like John Brennan, given a new portfolio in the 56-year-old National Security Council. But let's read the list this way, and stop calling "czars" the people who were confirmed by the Senate at one point or given previously-existing jobs. That scary Politico list of 30 names is down to 15 names. It's down to people like Lynn Rosenthal, the White House Adviser on Violence Against Women.
Sunstein is an academic, not a blogger. Some of his positions are reducible to soundbites that are unattractive. Sometimes he's more charitable to opposing viewpoints as a scholar than a partisan blogger would like. But this kind of language and lack of solidarity? This right here? It's the real cancer. -- anotherpanaceaSolidarity? Since when I am on the same team as Sunstien?
Whats offensive is the idea that some how a decision by African-Americans that a failure to sufficiently support the first black president constitutes good enough reason to leave the party would some how be "childish" and a "temper tantrum." They have every reason to believe that the party should support the best guy on our bench, especially when he is being attacked by virulent racists day after day.So you had a hypothetical imaginary world in your head where two prepositions are true: 1) Progressives want to get rid of Obama in 2012 and 2) African Americans would be so upset they would all leave the democratic party if they were successful. Preposition 1 is obviously false. I said preposition 2 is offensive.
My point isn't that Obama is a god or something. My point is that there is nobody else out there who can lead us right now and in 2012. If we stab Obama in the back because he might *gasp* compromise on some parts of the health plan with people whose votes he needs to pass it, there won't be anyone else to carry our standard in 2012. If Obama fails to pass healthcare, or his own party bolts on key appointments, such as Sunstein, or doesn't support his policies on security, then we are fucked. Plain and simple. Without our support he withers. And with him goes us. People are acting suddenly like there are no Republicans anymore or conservative democrats. The threats are real. People oppose our programs. Our GOP enemies will be emboldened by the lack of support he has.This is so paranoid and fearful it's hard for me to make sense of. But I did notice a lack of symmetry. If it's so contemptible for liberals to oppose Obama, isn't it also contemptible for conservative dems like Blanch Lincoln and Baucus not to support him? Why is it betrayal for liberal dems to push back against the president, but not for conservatives? Especially when he wilts so easily under pressure. Since progressives stood strong on the public option last week, Obama has been much more supportive of it.
Look, you said "Ignoring the hard choices is what got us here in the first place." And my point was we got to a pretty good place, and we should keep doing it. Ignoring hard choices didn't kill Ted Kennedy. I realize we no longer have 60 senate votes, but that's not because of liberals being hard headed.6) "Ignoring the hard choices is what got us here in the first place." Got us where? a 60 seat majority in the senate, control of congress and the white house? What are you talking about? And what hard choices am I ignoring? The fact that torturing people is a good idea and the perpetrators shouldn't be punished?We don't have a 60-seat majority. Ted Kennedy is dead and his replacement won't be on line until February at the earliest.
The special election is January 19, 2010. Were you aware of that? That means we can't bust a filibuster. Doesn't anyone count votes anymore? Because those is the facts, people. We don't have the votes to break a filibuster. And conservative dems like Max Baucus and Ben Nelson are not going to vote with us on key aspects of the health plan, such as the public optionl, let alone GOP moderatesLook up reconciliation. That's how Obama's budget passed. We don't need 60 votes.
A key Senate Democrat indicated on Monday that the party may route around the slow-moving bipartisan efforts of the Senate Finance Committee and instead use parliamentary procedures to pass health care legislation with only 50 votes, meaning that not even all the Democrats to be on board.etc
Speaking on a conference call with reporters, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), offered one of the clearest indications yet that Democratic leadership was entertaining use of the budgetary process known as reconciliation if a compromise bill doesn't emerge soon from the finance committee, where Chairman Max Baucus, (D-Mont.), continues to try to get his GOP colleagues on board.
« Older Jen Kwok implores you to Date An Asian. (SLYT, lan... | "My Name is Potato,"... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Academics make arguments they don't necessarily believe all the time. It's an 'intellectual exercise.' In any case, his feelings on animal cruelty don't matter.
But good luck making THAT a controversy. I don't think it's possible to like animals too much in this country.
posted by empath at 9:17 AM on September 15, 2009