White House snubs Sen. Feingold

It is very stupid for the Hill to equate Feingold with Glen Beck. so demeaning!!



http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/61953-white-house-snubs-sen-feingold

White House snubs Sen. Feingold

By Susan Crabtree - 10/06/09 08:20 PM ET
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) scolded the White House for not showing up to an oversight hearing Tuesday to answer questions about executive-branch czars.


“The White House decided not to accept my invitation to send a witness to this hearing to explain its position on the constitutional issues we will address today,” Feingold said at a hearing of his Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution.




“That’s unfortunate. It’s also a bit ironic, since one of the concerns that has been raised about these officials is that they will thwart congressional oversight of the executive branch.”


The White House did send a letter, from White House counsel Gregory Craig, explaining its position to Feingold’s panel.


Feingold has become an unlikely ally to Fox News host Glenn Beck and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) in the national debate over policy “czars.” These are officials who hold White House positions but are not subject to Senate confirmation.


President George W. Bush also named several czars to his government, but critics of President Barack Obama say the trend has increased under his administration. They argue the proliferation of czars undermines democracy by shifting power from appointed officials and Cabinet members overseen by Congress to White House aides who answer only to the president.................

:)

find it objectionable that the Hill would make such a leap. In addition the title is very misleading.

how silly or absurd or factually wrong the accusation is.

But, with you around, we don't need to read Free Republic to see what they're saying.

and with good reason I'm confident. Feingold knew they'd turn it down... all part of the plan to bring the issue to the table, get answers and put the damned thing to bed.

another committee in which it will be brought up also.

Get it all out there. Let's get all the questions answered. Ideally, I'd like to see them cleared of all "charges" and the finger-pointers with egg all over their faces. I think that's very possible. OTOH, if they're guilty, then at least we can let it rest (sort of).

a serious inquiry.

Panel finds no fault with Obama system of policy 'czars'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4093035

No wonder the White House sent a letter..it's already been taken care of.

Glenn Beck's czar conspiracy theories.

So, of course they were going to snub his ass.

Not surprising that the concern trolls are so, concerned about this.

Ask the guy sitting next to you at a diner what his name is.

from his home state and I was curious for names. But I see you are referring to residents of WI. My mistake. But there was no need for your snide and rude comment.
Have a good day. I do not care to carry on posts with rude posters.

I've grown tired of your constant personal attacks on liberals and progressives you don't like.

If you stop doing that, I might take you off my ignore list sometime next year.

Boo hoo.

If you are on the opposite side from that person, you are doing something right.

Feingold doesn't have a strong track record of "pandering".

Judging by his truly progressive track record, I must consider other explanations.

a hardcore progressive. Perhaps he just feels strongly on this point, and considering our current admin's penchant for keeping the power that B*sh usurped over the years, I will trust a progressive senator over an administration any day, even one that I strongly support. perhaps there's more to the story than we know... (of course there is)

best2u

Feingold doesn't pander. If he was the pandering type, he wouldn't have been the lone vote against the Patriot Act.

What he was doing was taking the issue off the table once and for all. Now the idiots who try to wield it as a tool against the administration will look like even bigger fools, if that's possible. The reason they're making a big stink about the Whitehouse not showing up is that they no longer have anything else remotely legitimate to say about Czars.

No disinfectant in politics like sunshine. Thank you, Russ Feingold.

He deserved to be snubbed

Very interesting logic.

Why don't you mention the issues where Feingold is at odds with these right-wingers?

I admire Feingold for many reasons--especially his antiwar stand and votes==and his vote against the Patriot ACT. He is a serious Senator who takes his job seriously.

Here is an interesting article from today.



http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/senators-take-on-the-czar-wars/

.................And in this polarized climate, the word has taken on a meaning of its own. “I should note that while the term czar has taken on a somewhat negative connotation in the media in the past few months, several presidents, including President Obama, have used the term themselves to describe the people they have appointed,” Mr. Feingold said. Then he ventured into the turf of his hearing on the substantive issue of executive power vs. legislative roles:

“But historically a czar is an autocrat, and it’s not surprising that some Americans feel uncomfortable about supposedly all-powerful officials taking over areas of the government. While there is a long history of the use of White House advisers and czars, that does not mean we can assume they are constitutionally appropriate.

In expressing disappointment that Obama aides didn’t see fit to appear, Mr. Feingold took a swipe at the administration’s public strategy of batting back these charges over the air or in the public arena of blogs or TV. (Anita Dunn, the communications director for the administration, picked apart the Glenn Beck hit list of 32 czars a few weeks back on the White House blog, which has of late become an online war room for taking on its nemesis, Fox News and in particular, Glenn Beck.)
“The White House seems to want to fight the attacks against it for having too many ‘czars’ on a political level rather than a substantive level,” Mr. Feingold said. “I don’t think that’s the right approach. If there are good answers to the questions that have been raised, why not give them instead of attacking the motives or good faith of those who have raised questions? ”....................

czar craziness peddled by Beck and enabled by Feingold.

Feingold is posturing, not leading.

called to testify to the committee (thanks to the Chair Feingold). We should thank Feingold for calling this hearing and hopefully laying the issue to rest via the experts (at least for this committee anyway).

I take issue with your use of the word 'enabled'. That rheortic is divisive. I would expect regugs to use that term-NOT Democrats.

Any Democrat who pushes Fox "News" crap should be slapped down--I don't care if it's Ben Nelson or Russ Feingold.

A sound strategy since you'll be right 99.99% of the time, which is hard to beat.

with things over party.

abnormal or offensive to the Constitution about having presidential advisors report to the President.

You are buying Teabagger bullshit by the pound, just like Feingold did.

is all he has. NO DOUBT. No amount of intimidation will get many of us to fold come 2012.

points and who are ACTIVELY rooting for him to fail are the ones who need to buy a clue.

Just because you're loud, angry, and obnoxious does not make you right.

What I'm attempting to convey is that President Obama has NOT changed any policy with regard to our foreign policy. Don't be surprised if the rest of the world finds him "less than sincere."

That's all. Continue to think everything's fine. I'll try to be gentle when all this neo-liberalisms figuratively blows up in your faces. Well, unless you're in the ranks of the upper 1-3%, then you don't give a f**k if we continue with endless warmongering and continued corporate welfare. :shrug:

Again, just because you're angry, loud, and exceedingly negative doesn't mean you're right.

The Democratic party is not a good fit for you.

It seems very much like a distraction to conflate random stuff to attempt to score a point.

We'd likely be at war with Iran had Walnuts! been elected; we'd be supporting Honduras' coup regime to the hilt; and we'd have pressed ahead with Bush's plan for land-based missile defense in Eastern Europe, which would have gratuitously antagonized Russia further while accomplishing no good worth mentioning.

And you're correct, that is exactly where we would be right now.

That'll show those damn Democrats!

It baffles me that so many people are willing to give up their principles for just one man in the White House. Feingold is one of the most liberal voices in the Senate -- which is rare -- and we need that. After all, he was the only Senator courageous enough to vote against the Patriot Act -- and all of its renewals. He also voted against FISA -- unlike someone else we know -- and fought hard to protect the Fourth Amendment and government intrusion into our personal lives. But let's slander him, because Obama walks on water, right? No, really, he does. I hear he can turn water into wine as well.

You know, it seems to me that right-wingers, teabaggers, and assholes who never liked him are the only ones calling him the "Messiah".

something else. I'm wondering where the outrage over czars has been prior to this administration?

but I didn't hear Russ Feingold utter a peep about that.

Feingold was the only senator who wanted to censure Bush. Where did Obama stand on that?

Sorry, but Feingold is peddling crazy here.

I definitely think Feingold's strong support for Israel contradicts his anti-war position. See how easy it is for me to point out my disagreement with someone I support?

on this issue, and that Barack Obama and every constitutional scholar who testified yesterday are wrong?

it is? Unbelievable and sad.

And they're wrong, because they're lumping all liberals into that category. In another thread, I pointed out that those who blindly support Obama are no better than those who blindly criticize everything he does. Both groups are detached from reality. But supporting someone no matter what just because they're on "your team" is appropriate for a sporting event, not political issues. Blind Obama followers are no better than the neocons who supported Bush blindly for eight years.

What the subject says. I disagree with Feingold on many things. Some of you have already gone after Frank Rich and Paul Krugman for standing up to Obama. Now, Jon Stewart is speaking out as well. I look forward to your slander of him. No one stands up to Obama and gets away with it.

in a legitimate policy critique here. Every constitutional scholar who testified told him he was barking up the wrong tree.

If you and Feingold decide to throw in with Glenn Beck and the Republican party against the truth on this, shame on you.

Not like Obama tried to pander to the Republicans when he championed Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln, right?

is pursuing a meritless issue.

Talk about projection.

Thank you for honoring our great board Mr. Beck. Or are you Hannity this week? Limbaugh perhaps? You're one of the three seeing as how you're pushing the "he walks on water" bullshit that the right wing pukes love to spew.

but it does sort of sting to have this come up NOW , when other administrations have had just as many or more czars...it makes it seem as if OBama is doing something differently or worse. Oh well.

Feingold is a politician. He's better than most, but he stil is not above some stupid, unprincipled pandering.

that I don't really get him on this one...

I didn't get it when Feingold started it and I have to say..I'm surprised the White House sent a letter like one. Whoa!

I'm guessing they think they have every right to have their people in position who only answer to the president without going through the channels of the Senate? Hey, maybe they need some progress?

Who's being simplistic now?

evidence of pandering and poster just makes the claim over and over and provides no evidence.

;)

Beck.

Feingold is up for re-election in 2010.

The Obama=evil folks here have yet to offer a defense of Beck's czar nutjobbery.

attempt to defend Beck.

"The Obama=evil folks here have yet to offer a defense of Beck's czar nutjobbery."

someone in the White House about this--you know, call them up?

Why legitimize the Glenn Beck crowd's bogus talking points and memes?

the hearing. That will provide you with answers.

Just because you agree with Glenn Beck on something doesn't make it correct.

or deserves to even have his concern addressed.

Sorry, this is a non-issue and the administration has every right to refuse to indulge it. Yes there is a real need to play some party politics and it stands to reason that if he hasn't brought this concern to the table over the past nearly two decades then now is hardly the time.

This is far from a bash of Feingold because he's someone that I'd certainly LOVE to see President some day but that doesn't mean that on any particular action that I'm not going to call bullshit on adding legitimacy to a bullshit meme when examined in any context. Its not Obama's fault that the media and the freepers are to stupid and lazy to call these positions by their actual names. They are calling the Sec of Energy a freaking czar and they are calling mid-level advisers czars the range of being nonsensical is pretty wide and it is simply not practical to have every damn soul in the Executive go through confirmation because it would take two whole terms to go through the initial people. Look at where we are on confirmations as is, Congress has got to maybe half of them to date.

If you don't see whats going on here then you need to stop and think rather than kneejerk emotion.

Prez one day..I have to ask, "Could anyone see a Senator Barack Obama getting an oversight hearing going on "Pres Feingold's" people who he wanted to adivse him without going through the Senate when he didn't bother when bush had all the power?

Feingold has done a lot of good but this just smacks of catering to the lowest common denominator.

czars. but he did not.

http://www.archipelago.org/vol6-2/feingold.htm

Feingold and Kucinich have THE biggest balls in Congress, now that Teddy is gone.

Yesterday they were bashing Dennis Kucinich. Today they're bashing Russ Feingold.

Which REAL Democrat gets the two minute hate rant tomorrow?

all it did was reaffirm GOP talking points. Is Feingold above criticism too?

even if the criticism is based on rightwing paranoia.

Newsflash: FEINGOLD IS WRONG and OBAMA IS RIGHT on this issue.

Sorry if you Obama-hatin' folks can't accept reality on that.

Instead, you follow Feingold like a flock of sheep because you don't think for yourselves.

Certainly not me, that's for goddamn sure.

You're one of the most blatant jokes on the pom-pom squad. I've seen Freepers who bash Democrats less than YOU do.

And I have criticized Obama when I thought he has screwed up.

But, I will have his back against Glenn Beck leftwingers like you.

being called a cheerleader again. Tell me, whats that make you? A hater?

This was a bullshit hearing and Feingold knows it as do those here defending him. It's just being used as another bullshit story to justify an attack against President Obama.

Cheerleader? Nah. Just someone who calls bullshit when it's bullshit.

No, that's what Feingold does. If only we had 59 more like him in the Senate, instead of the fucking DLC/Blueballed cowards. :evilfrown:

Cross posted from LBN

RamboLiberal (1000+ posts) Tue Oct-06-09 11:30 PM
Original message

Panel finds no fault with Obama system of policy 'czars'
Source: LA Times

In Senate testimony, constitutional experts say the president has the right to appoint independent advisors as long as the distinction between practical and legal authority is rigorously maintained.

Reporting from Washington - Five constitutional experts testified at a Senate hearing Tuesday that President Obama's extensive use of policy "czars" is legal -- as long as the officials do not overstep their authority.

In a city where power is carefully hoarded and monitored, Obama has drawn complaints from Congress about his use of these so-called czars, officials he has appointed to coordinate environmental, health and other policy areas among various departments.

Lawmakers in both parties have sent letters to the White House saying the officials' appointment circumvents Congress' authority to confirm top executive branch officials and subject them to oversight hearings.

But the panel of constitutional experts testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on the Constitution did not support the complaints.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4093035

He's part of the "Obama is always wrong and Obama supporters are morons" chorus.

Even if it means blowing Glenn Beck.

That adds "I don't about the facts, I'll whine if damn please" to the chorus.

against a sitting Democratic President.

I respect Freepers more than you Glenn Beck Democrats.

P.S.

FEINGOLD IS WRONG AND YOU KNOW IT. YOU ARE TOO CHICKENSHIT TO PUT UP AN ARGUMENT.

still doesn't mean that he was right in doing this.

Cross posted from LBN

RamboLiberal (1000+ posts) Tue Oct-06-09 11:30 PM
Original message

"Panel finds no fault with Obama system of policy 'czars'
Source: LA Times

In Senate testimony, constitutional experts say the president has the right to appoint independent advisors as long as the distinction between practical and legal authority is rigorously maintained.

Reporting from Washington - Five constitutional experts testified at a Senate hearing Tuesday that President Obama's extensive use of policy "czars" is legal -- as long as the officials do not overstep their authority.

In a city where power is carefully hoarded and monitored, Obama has drawn complaints from Congress about his use of these so-called czars, officials he has appointed to coordinate environmental, health and other policy areas among various departments.

Lawmakers in both parties have sent letters to the White House saying the officials' appointment circumvents Congress' authority to confirm top executive branch officials and subject them to oversight hearings.

But the panel of constitutional experts testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on the Constitution did not support the complaints.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4093035

I just hope that I am one of them.

The Executive Office of the President has existed for quite some time and there are lots of powerful people not subject to Senate Confirmation. The National Security Advisor and his/her staff, for example, is far more powerful than any of the new "czars" that Obama is creating.

Besides it's not like this is totally without checks and balances. If Congress doesn't want a particular "czar" they can just choose not to fund that office or pay the salary.

Feingold is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee. He wants some questions answered on the czar issue. That could easily be answered by saying that czars are advisors and don't set policy. Czars have been used for decades. Before that, when the term czar meant advisor, you can go all the way back to George Washington.

Ferchrissakes, have someone from the White House take a little ride to the Senate and put this to rest!

And FUCK Glenn "College Dropout" FUCKING Beck!

5 constitutional experts who I believe laid this issue to rest. see my posts upstream. Good on Russ for calling the hearing.

You mentioned the 5 constitutional experts who put the issue to rest... just get an Obama official to reiterate their claims and it indeed will completely blow up and Beckoid claptrap.