Wow. I don’t know what Barack Obama has done to make the Washington Post so angry at him, but I can’t imagine the paper would trot out a Nixon analogy lightly:
Presidents have long strived to centralize influence in the White House, often to the frustration of their Cabinet secretaries. But not since Richard M. Nixon tried to abolish the majority of his Cabinet has a president gone so far in attempting to build a West Wing-based clutch of advisers with a mandate to cut through — or leapfrog — the traditional bureaucracy.
Obama’s emerging “super-Cabinet” is intended to ensure that his domestic priorities — health reform, the environment and urban affairs — don’t get mired in agency red tape or brushed aside by the ongoing economic meltdown and international crises. Half a dozen new White House positions have been filled by well-known leaders with experience navigating Washington turf wars.
But some see the potential for chaos within the administration.
“We’re going to have so many czars,” said Thomas J. Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “It’s going to be a lot of fun, seeing the czars and the regulators and the czars and the Cabinet secretaries debate.”
I guess we can let Pelosi, Waxman, Conyers, and the rest know that they ought to have their outrage at the ready. It seems that a whole host of important policies are about to be coordinated from the bowels of the West Wing, by shadowy staffers who never face confirmation hearings. It will be as if Karl Rove and Dick Cheney never left. Let the denunciations begin.
Or perhaps Congress will suddenly decide that a president needs to be able to exchange ideas with his advisers secure in the knowledge that his every thought won’t later be subject to Congressional subpoena?
In any case, it seems that Barack Obama is content to have ciphers or relative non-entities preside over a number of federal departments, while unconfirmed ‘czars’ will set key policies. For example, ‘Climate Czar’ Carol Browner will coordinate policy on drilling, cap and trade, nuclear power, Kyoto, etc., while Congress invites Stephen Chu and Lisa Jackson to testify (bonus points if you can name the agencies they will head). Counterterror ‘Czar’ John Brennan seems set to decide how we go after Al Qaeda, while Congress hears from veteran bureaucratic manager Leon Panetta. Eventually we will learn how much power will be entrusted to the ‘Car Czar’ — whoever he or she may be — but it will likely be Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner who appears before Congress.
Here’s the kicker. Obama’s team acknowledges that power will be concentrated in the hands of a few decision makers close to the President, instead of the Cabinet. And do you know why?
“Given the enormity of the challenges we face, it is critical to have someone in the White House every day, reporting to the president, coordinating policy and giving these issues the important focus they deserve,” said Obama spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter. “It allows for efficient, streamlined decision-making.”
We’re all used to the Left’s claims that George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Rudy Giuliani do nothing but parrot the like ‘9/11′ to justify every policy change. Get ready to hear the Obama team endlessly and mindlessly point to ‘the Financial Crisis.’

Obama
10ksnooker Thursday, January 8th at 11:54AM EST (link)And his Kenyan Obammunism is bad for America and its freedom and liberty.
For once BHO and I agree on something!
Achance Thursday, January 8th at 12:03PM EST (link)The supercabinet is what I’ve long advocated for Republican executives as a way to get around confirmation and to overwhelm bureaucritic turf battles and inertia.
Either leave the appointee position vacant or put some nice, confirmable guy in there with the full understanding that if he even hints at actually doing his job, he’s fired. Then, run the agency from the mayor or governor’s office or from the White House as the case may be.
In Vino Veritas
unity, secrecy, and dispatch
icbm Thursday, January 8th at 2:06PM EST (link)For a president nowadays, unity, secrecy, and dispatch may be crucial domestically (though not as crucial as in foreign affairs), requiring the assistance of a few key advisors more often than that of an ever-growing cabinet of department secretaries.
Savage's Law
Jack_Savage Thursday, January 8th at 2:26PM EST (link)When a liberal compares anyone else, liberal or otherwise, to Nixon. Unlike Godwin’s Law, when one does this in an argument the argument is onsidered to be won.
The end of the beginning or the beginning of the end?
in_awe Thursday, January 8th at 3:16PM EST (link)In my brief lifetime I have seen the steady erosion of the Founding Father’s principles and commitment to the Constitution.
The Courts have all but abandoned any reference to the Constitution, likewise the Congress and Executive Branch. We feel the rumblings of a reintroduced Fairness Doctrine, the crushing affect of political pressure against anyone who voiced opposition to Obama, the haughty disdain shown by the incoming administration to pointed questions from reporters. Last week most liberals lined up behind the actions of Harry Reid and various Illinois officials in opposing the seating of a legitimately appointed Senator. Do we really want to empower the Senate Majority Leader with the power to admit or turn away Senators solely on political motivations?
This concentration of power and the creation of a “super cabinet” beyond review and confirmation by the Congress and vesting in it powers rightly assigned to cabinet officers is scary. Liberals will see it as sinply an expedient way to achieve badly needed ends. But it opens a Pandora’s Box that this nation should want to avoid.
So much for the vaunted constitutional law professor restoring rspect for the Constitution and the rule of law in Washington.
Federalism
DerKrieger Thursday, January 8th at 8:53PM EST (link)is the only means by which we can bring the Federal government to heel. Red states need to pass bill similar to what OK is trying to do (http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/07/16/oklahoma_rebellion). If Liberals want to sink their states, let them. Under Federalism they won’t be ale to bring down the entire nation. The Founders never intended for the Fed to have so much power. The states were to be the “laboratories of democracy” free to fail or succeed on their own. Federalism works to keep taxes and regulation low by allowing citizens to leave an oppressive state for a more friendly state. The Democrats, and Leftists around the world (EU) always strive to centralize power and increase the number of layers between the governors and the governed.
“In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” - Thomas Jefferson
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence (OBAMACARE – mine), the money of their constituents.” – James Madison
agreed DerKrieger.....lets take the power back...
JadedByPolitics Thursday, January 8th at 8:59PM EST (link)from the federal government and give it back to the states…..period!
Whoever has his enemy at his mercy &
does not destroy him is his own enemy
Jaded...
OccamsRazor Thursday, January 8th at 9:08PM EST (link)Then the cities, towns, homes, and ultimately…the People.
Much agreed - but the OK statute is too vague
icbm Thursday, January 8th at 9:11PM EST (link)To challenge the usurpation of the national govt, it would be more effective for a state pick a particular issue and stick with it, even if the Supreme Court goes against the state. In order to achieve any measure of success, you would need not only a governor with determination like General Washington, but a super-majority of state legislative support, and, ideally, the support of several other state legislatures and governors. The political conflict would continue for years, and might even come to the use of national force against the state, so the state needs to be prepared for all possibilities. (I wouldn’t suggest responding with force, but with peaceful resistance, and continuing the battle politically.)