John Deering for September 18, 2009

Bill Clinton had seven “czar” positions during his 8 years. Bush 43 had 31 czar positions during his 8 years.

So scott guess Bush 43 did a lot of spitting on the Constitution quite flagrantly

scott, bcs is right – and many of the so-called “czars” where (1) carryovers from positions started by the Bush Administration, and (2) were praised by some of the same people mouthing this nonsense today. As for the “negative rights,” it’s perfectly clear that the Constitution forbids things, you know, like “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. ” Libertarian fave Robert Heinlein suggested exactly this as a better approach to a constitution: “Accentuate the negative!” List all the things government should be forbidden to do. That was a novel and terrific thing in our constitution, and I should think you would appreciate that, scott.

Tsar or Czars have not been in power in Russian since 1917

The “czar controversy” has to be one of the stupidest conspiracies yet. HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. It’s just a term made up by the media because they don’t like using the whole title of the leaders of all the departments.

Please don’t fall for this stupidity.

Thanks for the comments. Regarding anyone “spitting on the constitution”, I absolutely do not believe it was President … Clinton’s, or Bush’s or Obama’s intention to do that when they appointed or retained “czars”. Can we sometimes have political cartoons that lean more toward satirizing EVERYTHING , in a Mel Brooks/ Stanley Kubrick fashion, rather than cartoons that always have to be polarizing? My all time favorite cartoonist is Pat Oliphant. I think he’s the modern equivalent of Thomas Nast ( without the 19th century ethnic stereotypes Nast used). Much earlier in his career, not long after he moved to the U.S., Oliphant’s cartoons simply seemed to spoof everything - something that was a refreshing change from the heavy, sometimes paranoid approach many American cartoonist were still using coming out of the 1950’s.When I say “many”, please note that I am NOT talking about the wonderful Bill Mauldin. I write all of this just to try to convey more of where i’m coming from with cartoons like this one that are more ambiguous. The missile defense shield question is a serious change in foreign policy,sure. A serious topic. The whole “czar” thing, not so much. .

bueller, I really enjoy reading your comments and your interaction with us.

Oliphant is wonderful because he does skewer everything that strikes him as hypocritical or silly. I think editorial cartoonists are most effective when they do NOT lean toward one perspective. I love Oliphant, so if he’s your favorite, you’re on the right track.

(also agree the whole czar thing is silly, especially when it’s put into historical perspective)

Pat is good. It is also as outdated and trite to use the “czar/tsar” theme as teleprompters.

Maybe we could move on to “teabaggers” needing velcro shoe closings as opposed to complexities like laces??

Horray for bueller for interacting with us. I agree that Oliphant is one of the best. I have enjoyed his work for probably 20 years as he is a regular in our local paper. The czar issue is really getting old. It’s just a term used for head of a department. Maybe it has outlived it’s usefullness and should be discarded. This toon is good satire and that is appreciated.

I’d say everything that the above folks just said but, well, they just said it. So, Amen, and thanks bueller for being there.

oldlego, i posted this elsewhere. Bill Clinton had 7 czars, Bush 43 upped it to 31. Obama has kept many of the czar positions Bush created. Did you find Bush 43’s czars “dangerous to the freedom of the America we have known and loved?”

Ah, yes, if we could only return to those halcyon days before wholesale domestic wiretapping . Oh, wait…that would be before Obama’s PREDECESSOR. Well, the days before the president had the audacity to intrude on our childrens’ classrooms with “political indoctrination”… oop…Bush did that too? Both Bush AND Bush the Elder? And Clinton?

Well, at least THEY were, you know, nudge nudge, wink wink, real Americans…

bueller, you’re fun. glad you’re here. Reagan spoke to kids nationwide too, and got into trickle down economics, how big tax cuts are good for the deficit and gun control too!

Bcs, Yeah, that was the speech where Reagan said “There you go again” when he saw the school’s lunch menu . Seriously, no problem there, either. Because unless we have some kind of truly “radical” detour in American politicians,we can be assured that if the president goes on tv to address American schoolkids, what he (or she) says will be about as subversive as a well-balanced, nutritious breakfast. BTW, fennec, thanks for the post from yesterday about the reaction of the foreign press to the missile shield policy shift. Interesting in that curious way that many of our foreign policy initiatives, (particularly when it comes to defense issues) always seem to have unexpected consequences.

Possible, though we should keep in touch that Sweden still has some of the highest tax rates anywhere. Bush, since you want to drag him into this, was in a period of historically low taxes, and was waging wars. Everything is good in moderation.

About the european czar;

It may be a czar, but it’s theirs.

rick-e-bear, I like your commonsense.