Quote:Right. Did you read the discussion page. The inclusion criteria are discussed. The article you cite by FACTCHECK is also written by one person, who did not cite their criteria for inclusion either. Who double checks their work?Obviously not you, because they give their criteria quite clearly, and they are pretty much the same as you are claiming for the Wiki article. They give their list with citations - every name is a link. I linked to the list at the bottom of my post. Go over it again, and tell me exactly which twenty-or-so of those "czars" shouldn't be on the list - without similar logic knocking them off Obama's list.
Edit: So, funniest thing about that list on wikipedia... it bears an eerie similarity to the Factcheck.org list. In fact, it practically *is* the Factcheck.org list! Someone's just hacked up the list totals to display the wrong numbers - if you actually go and count them in the list, the numbers are basically as Factcheck.org reported them. Oops!
And as for Factcheck.org vs. Wikipedia, on a hot-button current-affairs issue where inclusion criteria are dubious at best, Factcheck is the far better site. I love wikipedia, but this is an article that plays directly to all of its weaknesses. The discussion page is ample evidence of how much of a mess this article is.
Quote:Afterthought: Also, isn't this a bit like comparing who slept with the fewer harlots? I never said Bush was the saintly model of Presidential leadership. I would say the same about Executive orders, abuse of power is abuse of power no matter who practices it, or what political party they represent.Right, although I'm not quite sure why people are so paranoid about executive appointments.
However, I don't remember you taking this line of attack with Bush - but it comes up constantly in discussions about Obama, even ones that have nothing to do with executive power.
-Jester