Obama's done a great deal on his own to normalize some of the practices of the Bush presidency when it comes to national security. But the logic of Obama's decision to issue a signing statement on the "czars" provision of the budget bill aside, as I explain at Greg's place the "czar" issue is one that is related to the Senate refusing to confirm executive branch nominees:
The larger context here is important. To the degree that the prevalance of so-called “czars” is a problem, it's because of the Senate's dysfunction, and the GOP's exploitation of that dysfunction for political ends. The “czars” are a direct result of Republicans in the Senate abusing their advise and consent role, turning every presidential appointment into an exercise in indulging parochial concerns and in political score-settling.
The big problem here is an institutional one. As E.J. Dionne and William Galston have written, far too many positions — over a thousand — are contingent on Senate confirmation. There’s no denying that Obama has been inconsistent on signing statements. But conservatives who profess to want fewer Obama “czars” might start by calling on Republicans to stop exploiting that dysfunction to grind the nominating process to a halt.
it's clear that some of the howling from conservatives is in response to executive overreach, but in active promotion of it.
Former White House press secretary Dana Perino, who took to Twitter Friday afternoon to voice her displeasure at the lack of outrage over Obama's signing statements, said Saturday she was more appalled by the media doubled standard.
"I'm not at all bothered by the practice, which presidents have used for over 200 years," Perino said in an email. "But when the Democrats and left wing came after President Bush relentlessly, a reporter [Savage] won a national press award for his 'dogged' coverage, and the current president campaigned against the practice making promises he doesn't keep - the media just shrugs it off as either it is a) not a big deal to them if President Obama does it or b) unremarkable that he has backtracked on yet another issue."
Right. So her point is, next time a Republican president decides to say laws against torture don't apply to him, remember Obama defying Congress over staffing his administration. Same difference. Perino wasn't trying to decry the abuse of power, she was trying to normalize it.
Obama should be held accountable to his own statements, but in the past three years we still haven't seen anything like Bush declaring his intent to ignore thousands of laws as president.
