Quote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._...ve_branch_czarsYeah, well, FactCheck.org refutes you right back. And that page can't be edited by anyone with a partisan axe to grind.
Wikipedia refutes you.
(list of lots of Czars)
The issue appears to be nomenclature, nothing but semantic smoke and mirrors. As soon as you call something a "czar", well huzzah, it's a "czar." At least according to the White House, many of the positions that Republicans are now complaining about as "czars" are exactly the same as positions Bush had, but were not at the time called "czars".
Since there's no badge, secret initiation, pay raise, or unique hairstyle for being a "czar", it's really kind of a muddle who is or isn't one. But when you have an anti-Obama campaign whose predetermined conclusion is that Obama is a totalitarian who wants to take power from "the people" (the people being defined mostly as the Tea Party crowd), suddenly everyone in the administration from the dog catcher to the janitor gets "czar" appended to their title - even ones where Obama had nothing to do with their appointment.
-Jester
Afterthought: Here's the compared lists, with names and actual jobs, from Factcheck.org. Obama 32, Bush 35.