Long live our glorious leader.

[kandrathe]

Yeah, well, FactCheck.org refutes you right back. And that page can't be edited by anyone with a partisan axe to grind.

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.

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?

Wikipedia at least cites the source, and why they should be included in the list. Their criteria are;
* A member or members of the media have identified and/or "coined" the czar position in a citable publication (citable per Wikipedia policies).
* The czar position holder (the individual i.e. John or Jane Doe) is appointed specifically by the U.S. President and/or other high level executive branch office holders (i.e. Treasury Secretary, Homeland Security Secretary, etc.) to champion the particular cause related to the representative czar position.

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.