Van Jones resigns

[RobMoney$]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/06/obama.adviser.resigns/index.html


The resignation of Obama administration figure Van Jones, following controversies over a petition he had signed and his comments about Republicans, did not come at the request of the president, the White House senior adviser said Sunday.

"Absolutely not -- this was Van Jones' own decision," David Axelrod told NBC's "Meet the Press" when asked if the president had ordered the resignation.

The chairman of the House Republican Conference, Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, had called for Jones to resign or be fired.
"I think Van Jones did the right thing," Pence said Sunday about the resignation. "His extremist views and coarse rhetoric have no place in this administration."
Jones has frequently been dubbed a "green-jobs czar" for the administration.

"The president should suspend any future appointment of so called czars while the administration and the Congress carefully examines the background and qualifications of the more than 30 individuals who've been appointed to these czar positions," said Pence, speaking to reporters. "And the Congress ought to initiate a thorough inquiry into the constitutionality of this practice which has spanned Republican and Democrat administrations."

In a statement Saturday night, the White House said Jones was giving up his post at the Council on Environmental Quality, where he helped coordinate government agencies focused on delivering millions of green jobs to the ailing U.S. economy.
"On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me," Jones said in the statement. "They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide."
Adding that he came to Washington to "fight for others, not for myself," Jones said in the statement, "I cannot in good conscience ask my colleagues to expend precious time and energy defending or explaining my past. We need all hands on deck, fighting for the future."
The decision followed an uproar over a petition Jones signed in 2004 calling for an investigation into whether government officials deliberately allowed the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/September_11_Attacks) to occur.
In a statement last week, Jones said of the petition on the Web site 911truth.org: "I do not agree with this statement and it certainly does not reflect my views now or ever."
An administration source said last week that Jones had not carefully reviewed the language in the petition before signing.
Jones has also come under fire for comments he made, also before his White House job, including those in a video that can be seen on YouTube. In it, he uses a vulgar expression to describe Republicans.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/tabs/video.gifWatch what Jones called Republicans » (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=8#cnnSTCVideo)
In 2005, Jones was quoted in the East Bay Express as describing the impact that the acquittals in the police beating case of Rodney King in 1992 had on him. "By August, I was a Communist," he says in the article, describing his sense of radicalization at the time.
In his statement last week, Jones said, "If I have offended anyone with statements I made in the past, I apologize."
One of the most prominent conservative voices condemning Jones in recent days has been FOX TV host Glenn Beck.
Jones is a co-founder of colorofchange.org, a group that recently has been pressing advertisers to boycott Beck's program after Beck called Obama a racist.
Colorofchange.org lists Jones as "inactive." He has not been involved with the group's recent efforts.
Though the controversies have taken center stage, Jones was previously known primarily for his environmental work. In May, he won the praise of former eBay CEO Meg Whitman, a Republican candidate for governor in California.
"I am a big fan. He's done a marvelous job," she says in a video on the San Francisco Chronicle's Web site.
Whitman now says she did not know Jones well and that he holds views she rejects.
Axelrod said Jones "is internationally known as an advocate for green jobs and that's the basis on which he was hired." He stepped down so that his previous comments would not distract from critical issues the administration is dealing with, and "I commend him for making that decision," Axelrod added.
Asked whether Jones was the victim of a smear campaign, Axelrod did not say either way, but did say "the political environment is rough, and so, you know, these things get magnified."
On ABC's "This Week," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/Barack_Obama) does not endorse the controversial actions by Van Jones from before he joined the administration, but added that Obama thanks Jones "for his service to the country."
Last week, when asked whether Obama still had confidence in Jones, Gibbs would only say that Jones continued to work for the administration. The response was considered a signal that Jones might have to step down.
A prominent Democratic strategist argued Sunday that Jones' departure is a sign of Republican efforts against Obama.


"This administration has the potential to be FDR or Jimmy Carter and I think the Republicans are going to do everything they can to make him Jimmy Carter, to create a failed presidency," Joe Trippi said on CNN's "State of the Union."
Republican strategist Ed Rollins disagreed. "Presidents don't come down by what the opposition party [does] -- and that's what we are," he said.


30 individuals appointed to czar positions without any approval from Congress or the Senate?
Who's paying for that?



But there's no reason to call him a dictator or a socialist.

[Bob]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/06/obama.adviser.resigns/index.html




But there's no reason to call him a dictator or a socialist.

you know who else was a dictator

[yeahwho]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/06/obama.adviser.resigns/index.html



30 individuals appointed to czar positions without any approval from Congress or the Senate?
Who's paying for that?



But there's no reason to call him a dictator or a socialist.

This fellow Mike Pence has been a Congressman in the U.S. House of Representatives since January of 2001. I do not remember his outrage over George W. Bush's 35 Czar positions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._executive_branch_czars#Summary_table_-_Number_of_czars_per_administration_.28see_the_sor table_table_below_for_details_and_references.29).

Now that I think about it I do not remember you using Bush in the same sentence as a dictator, socialist or any other number the moronic statements you sympathize with.

[RobMoney$]

you know who else was a dictator


I actually thought about you while I was posting this and how you said you were getting tired of the Hitler comparisons, so I figured I'd back off on this thread.

But you went ahead and did it for me. (y)

[RobMoney$]

I do not remember his outrage over George W. Bush's 35 Czar positions.

Now that I think about it I do not remember you using Bush in the same sentence as a dictator, socialist or any other number the moronic statements you sympathize with.


Just curious, what do you remember about my opinions from that time period?
Since you're obviously versed enough about them to speak about them.



Also, wasn't this D-Bag supposed to be about "Change"?

MEET THE NEW BOSS!

[yeahwho]

Just curious, what do you remember about my opinions from that time period?
Since you're obviously versed enough about them to speak about them.



Also, wasn't this D-Bag supposed to be about "Change"?

MEET THE NEW BOSS!

You are depressing aren't you. Trying to carry on any sort of a political conversation with you turns into an adventure of denial or complete disregard of fact, then offensive language couple with your bizarre self aggrandizement program.

If only you could turn down the affront and ego enough to converse, then perhaps we could carry on an intelligent conversation.

[RobMoney$]

So I'll take that as a "Nothing".
You remember nothing about my political opinions from the Bush admin. because I rarely, if ever, posted them here.
So for you to assume that I somehow condone anything W ever did based off of the fact that I don't support Obama, is flawed logic.

I also have to laugh at you criticizing my being defensive with the mob-mentality that exists against me on this MB.

I expect more out of someone with such advanced political opinions.

[yeahwho]

So I'll take that as a "Nothing".
You remember nothing about my political opinions from the Bush admin. because I rarely, if ever, posted them here.
So for you to assume that I somehow condone anything W ever did based off of the fact that I don't support Obama, is flawed logic.

I also have to laugh at you criticizing my being defensive with the mob-mentality that exists against me on this MB.

I expect more out of someone with such advanced political opinions.

Mob mentality, we have a mob mentality? If you spouted off insults in person in my neighborhood as easily as you do here on this board the people would fucking run you off the block faster than you could blink an eye.

You are offensive, you are vulgar and you have spouted nothing less than vitriol hate of the President and those who voted for him. So my Jewish, Nigerian, Norwegian, Dutch and Asian neighborhood basically would ask you in no uncertain terms to turn it down, a big notch or leave.

But here on the internet you can be a lout all you want. It doesn't change the fact you are unable to carry on even the most rudimentary conversation about politics.

[RobMoney$]

No one here is interested in a conversation about politics. They just want to be right.
A conversation is a dialogue, as in a conversation involving two or more people.

No one here is interested in listening to, or giving respect to a differing opinion. I don't expect you to really understand this as your liberal, Pro-Obama opinions are part of the majority here.
Personal insults towards me are routine because I'm not part of that majority.
I call that a mob-mentaltiy.

Don't blame me for the way this place is.


Also, why should I be run off of some imaginary block because I happen to have a different opinion than everyone else?
I sincerely doubt that would ever happen because I would come back with my imaginery block and kick the living shit out of you imaginery block's ass.
I've seen you & Lambert refer to me and conservatives as your "political enemy", and now you want to have a fucking conversation?
I think you might be a little bi-polar.

[Bob]

I actually thought about you while I was posting this and how you said you were getting tired of the Hitler comparisons, so I figured I'd back off on this thread.

But you went ahead and did it for me. (y)

you called him a dictator, apparently based solely on the fact that he did something without the oversight of congress (AN UNPRECEDENTED ACT FROM THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IN AMERICAN HISTORY, FASCISM IS COMING). i wouldn't call that "backing off"

[yeahwho]

No one here is interested in a conversation about politics. They just want to be right.
A conversation is a dialogue, as in a conversation involving two or more people.

No one here is interested in listening to, or giving respect to a differing opinion. I don't expect you to really understand this as your liberal, Pro-Obama opinions are part of the majority here.
Personal insults towards me are routine because I'm not part of that majority.
I call that a mob-mentaltiy.

Don't blame me for the way this place is.


Also, why should I be run off of some imaginary block because I happen to have a different opinion than everyone else?
I sincerely doubt that would ever happen because I would come back with my imaginery block and kick the living shit out of you imaginery block's ass.
I've seen you & Lambert refer to me and conservatives as your "political enemy", and now you want to have a fucking conversation?
I think you might be a little bi-polar.

Less than half truths, outright lies and still avoiding any response to Bush's Czars and self appointees which outnumber Obama's. Is/was Bush Hitler?

[RobMoney$]

The big criticism that the left had about Bush was that he wiped his feet on the Constitution, and I wholeheartedly agree with that.

So now Obama is doing the same and all you can give me is the partisan bullshit excuse of "he did it too?"


I can't even laugh, this country is absolutely fucked.

[yeahwho]

The big criticism that the left had about Bush was that he wiped his feet on the Constitution, and I wholeheartedly agree with that.

So now Obama is doing the same and all you can give me is the partisan bullshit excuse of "he did it too?"


I can't even laugh, this country is absolutely fucked.

What concerns me is you have jumped beyond "wiping your feet on the constitution" comments, directly into Obama runs a dictatorship. Was George W. Bush a dictator too?

I lean way left of Obama, who actually doesn't lean very left at all. But at no time did I or anyone else on this board that I can recall say Bush was a dictator. I never called him Hitler, because that would just be fucking moronic. It would be stupidity and so far off the fucked up map nobody could, would or should take me seriously.

You can call the USA absolutely fucked all you want, all the rest of us have to do is just consider the source.

[Documad]

I've got no idea who this guy is, but what is unconstitutional about the president hiring staffers? What part of the constitution does it violate? Does the constitution also prohibit them from hiring speechwriters? personal assistants?

I get that there are many positions (like secretary of state, judges, solicitor general) that need to be a approved, but surely all positions don't need approval. I'd be happy if the president had less staff. I couldn't believe that Cheney had all those security types doing his nasty work instead of using the CIA, but we also want the president to get to hire staff. Who draws the line and where? Can congress cut his budget drastically? At what point does that unconstitutionally tie the hands of the executive?

[kaiser soze]

But at no time did I or anyone else on this board that I can recall say Bush was a dictator. I never called him Hitler, because that would just be fucking moronic.

I would gladly compare bush to hitler than obama - bush successfully killed hundreds of thousands for a crusade?

[RobMoney$]

I've got no idea who this guy is, but what is unconstitutional about the president hiring staffers? What part of the constitution does it violate? Does the constitution also prohibit them from hiring speechwriters? personal assistants?

I get that there are many positions (like secretary of state, judges, solicitor general) that need to be a approved, but surely all positions don't need approval. I'd be happy if the president had less staff. I couldn't believe that Cheney had all those security types doing his nasty work instead of using the CIA, but we also want the president to get to hire staff. Who draws the line and where? Can congress cut his budget drastically? At what point does that unconstitutionally tie the hands of the executive?


These aren't staffers such as security or speech writers. These are "czars" who are influencing policy.
Look at this Jones character and his extremist views.
Why shouldn't this position be subject to some oversight or an approval process?

and "Because Bush did it" isn't an excuse.
We're supposed to be righting the wrongs of the Bush administration, aren't we?

[Documad]

These aren't staffers such as security or speech writers. These are "czars" who are influencing policy.
Look at this Jones character and his extremist views.
Why shouldn't this position be subject to some oversight or an approval process?

and "Because Bush did it" isn't an excuse.
We're supposed to be righting the wrongs of the Bush administration, aren't we?

Maybe I would like presidents to have less staff but that does not mean that something is unconstitutional. In general I think the president should get to pick anyone he wants for the big policy jobs. That is how he implements his political agenda. There should be some limits like he shouldn't get to break into private offices or have people killed but he was elected to implement a political agenda and he should have tools to do it. I say that regardless of who is president. Implementing an agenda isn't abuse. It is how our system works.

[yeahwho]

These aren't staffers such as security or speech writers. These are "czars" who are influencing policy.
Look at this Jones character and his extremist views.
Why shouldn't this position be subject to some oversight or an approval process?

and "Because Bush did it" isn't an excuse.
We're supposed to be righting the wrongs of the Bush administration, aren't we?

Did you happen to notice he resigned? He voluntarily left the post. Glenn Beck was all over him because after Mr. Beck called Obama a racist Van Jones led the rally to have advertisers ban Beck's show.

He is definitely a poor choice due to his brazen out-spoken views (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/06/obama.adviser.resigns/index.html#cnnSTCVideo), but like the header of this thread, he also removed himself from the post.

What more are you looking for? A complete dismantling of the way the Presidency works? Join the club, it's 300 million strong.

[YoungRemy]

the Pres needs to vet his staffers a bit better to avoid controversy like this...

[RobMoney$]

Did I happen to notice he resigned?

I titled the thread "Van Jones resigns"



He is definitely a poor choice due to his brazen out-spoken views, but like the header of this thread, he also removed himself from the post.

Am I supposed to be impressed that he resigned instead of Obama asking him to resign?
I'm not.
I'm once again left puzzled that Obama would choose not to ask for this guys resignation.
Yet another display of Obama's complete lack of a spine.

But he's bringing both sides together...reaching across the aisle.

[DroppinScience]

Nigga Please.

I know you're baiting us... but I'll bite.

In light of how your previous use of the "n-word" has got you in trouble before, I'd think you'd be more cautious when it comes to hiding your racism.

[yeahwho]

Did I happen to notice he resigned?

I titled the thread "Van Jones resigns"




Am I supposed to be impressed that he resigned instead of Obama asking him to resign?
I'm not.
I'm once again left puzzled that Obama would choose not to ask for this guys resignation.
Yet another display of Obama's complete lack of a spine.

But he's bringing both sides together...reaching across the aisle.
Nigga Please.

You are without a doubt an arrogant ass.

[RobMoney$]

.

[yeahwho]

relax there, Lambert X.
I doubt anyone would be stupid enough to take that as racist.

Besides you, of course.

not funny

[RobMoney$]

What a complete bunch of women.

Yeah, I'm done with this forum.
Been leaning on quitting this place for a minute now.

Enjoy your liberal circle jerk.

[QueenAdrock]

fapfapfap!

[DroppinScience]

I give Rob two days tops before he cracks and comes back to posting. He couldn't keep me on ignore, afterall.

But man, the conservative movement on this board is gonna suffer. I guess we got valvano to kick around, but his spelling and intellect are even more pitiful than Rob. Sheesh.:rolleyes:

[Bob]

What a complete bunch of women.


and a sexist too!

[kaiser soze]

Enjoy your liberal circle jerk.

and a pervert too!

:rolleyes:

[DroppinScience]

and a sexist too!

Yeah man. I'm pretty sure most (sane) women wouldn't put up with Rob's shtick.

[yeahwho]

RobMoney$ resigns?

[Micodin]

This isn't the first time Rob has used the n-word or has been sexist. He should be called out on it every time he makes a post.

I love how the coward goes and edits it out after the fact. Ooops. Caught again!

White males shouldn't be using the n-word or call people "woman" as insults. You don't get a free pass when it comes to that.

Have a blast a your new forum that caters to 40 year old racist sexist overweight right-wing white males! Let your hate begin in a new realm!

[Micodin]

ANthony Keidis, lead singer of the Chili Peppers said
"I pledge to be of service to Barack Obama".


But really, what does any of that crap those weirdos were pledging to do have to do with Obama?
Are we to assume that they would be unwilling to VOLUNTEER for charity work for anyone but Obama?
Nigga Please.
These celebrities are going to lend their name to charities because they're business is being a public figure. It's fucking free publicity.
I mean Soliel Moon Frye for christ's sake.
I wonder how she fit the filming for that in her busy schedule.



Originally Posted by RobMoney$
Did I happen to notice he resigned?

I titled the thread "Van Jones resigns"




Am I supposed to be impressed that he resigned instead of Obama asking him to resign?
I'm not.
I'm once again left puzzled that Obama would choose not to ask for this guys resignation.
Yet another display of Obama's complete lack of a spine.

But he's bringing both sides together...reaching across the aisle.
Nigga Please.

Here's what they think of you.

Fucking Racist.

[Michelle*s_Farm]

No one here is interested in a conversation about politics. They just want to be right.

That is an over-statement Rob and unfair. I for one care about political debate and discussion. Further I like the fact that not all posters agree on these matters. However winning a debate or being right is not the driving motivation for my participation in these discussions. Granted some people who post here appear to only care about winning a debate 'by any means necessary'. Not all commentators here are similarly motivated.

A conversation is a dialogue, as in a conversation involving two or more people.

Wise words.


No one here is interested in listening to, or giving respect to a differing opinion.

Do not paint everyone on the BBMB with this brush please.

Also, why should I be run off of some imaginary block because I happen to have a different opinion than everyone else?

Different opinions are critical for the survival of a political message board. Further change can only happen if there is conflict among people who respect each others rights to voice their opinion.

Unfortunately the democrat-republican divide in America is a trivial conflict hyped up by the major media outlets. I wish the BBMB could move beyond American politics as usual.

[Whatitis]

White males shouldn't be using the n-word or call people "woman" as insults.

So is it OK for other races to do either? Just looking for clarification.

[Micodin]

So is it OK for other races to do either? Just looking for clarification.

Here is the clarification you was looking for.

No it's OK for other races to say it.

I'm really not sure what "other races" have to do with it, because Rob was the only person to do it. More than once.

[Whatitis]

Sorry, I did not know Rob spoke for white males as a whole.

[Micodin]

Sorry, I did not know Rob spoke for white males as a whole.

No need to apologize.

It's cool.

[Micodin]

I do find it ironic for someone that has "If your world was all black and if your world was all white Then you wouldn't get much color out of life now right" as their signature... that they really need clarification on when it's OK to use the "n-word".

[Randetica]

What a complete bunch of women.

Yeah, I'm done with this forum.
Been leaning on quitting this place for a minute now.

Enjoy your liberal circle jerk.

but YOU ARE the forum!

[Whatitis]

I do find it ironic for someone that has "If your world was all black and if your world was all white Then you wouldn't get much color out of life now right" as their signature... that they really need clarification on when it's OK to use the "n-word".

Clearly you do not get it.

Move on.

[Randetica]

lol

[yeahwho]

Clearly you do not get it.

Move on.

I don't get it. I have a hard time moving on. WTF are you on about?

Why don't you explain to us what we don't understand? You seem pretty vague and full of innuendo. Why don't you just come out and say what is on your mind?

Explain to us what needs to be known about using racial epitaphs and how they are important part of expressing political views.

Most everyone here is being completely open. This isn't about liberal or conservative points of view, it's about society and what level of acceptance should be tolerated. Are the members of the BBMB lesser people because they do not find racist statements humorous or cute? Especially when the topic is about two black men?

What is your point?

[yeahwho]

but YOU ARE the forum!

I hate to see the guy go. His hatred of all things Obama will be missed. He started hating Obama early on and never wavered, the hatred grew exponentially with each new thread he made.

I'm tempted to make a "I Love Obama more than America" thread just to lure him back.

[Randetica]

I hate to see the guy go. His hatred of all things Obama will be missed. He started hating Obama early on and never wavered, the hatred grew exponentially with each new thread he made.

I'm tempted to make a "I Love Obama more than America" thread just to lure him back.

haha, sounds like a master plan


this forum is not even worth a read without him, no offence

[kaiser soze]

haha, sounds like a master plan


this forum is not even worth a read without him, no offence

No offense but robmoney did the ditchin'

blame him for ruining your day, he's the real jerk :(

[Randetica]

No offense but robmoney did the ditchin'

blame him for ruining your day, he's the real jerk :(

better a jerk than a boring smartass

[DroppinScience]

this forum is not even worth a read without him, no offence

Well, there's always Stormfront to fill the void.

[Freebasser]

No offense but robmoney did the ditchin'

blame him for ruining your day, he's the real jerk :(

Spelled 'offence' in UK English btw :p

[Bob]

Spelled 'offence' in UK English btw :p

slag off you ponse

[Freebasser]

Well boil me a briney, if you didn't just slime my greasehook and call me a meatpie! Broil your boffin, you cantankerous hoof!

[Bob]

i'm sorry i don't speak austrian

[Micodin]

Even the Austrians don't want to speak Austrian.

[YoungRemy]

I never got to tell him that I loved him :(

and to think, he will never read the rest of this thread...

[Echewta]

35 czars compared to 30 we have now. Thats a change of 5 czars. Less money and less czars. Go Obama!

Bet then again, do we know if czars are good or bad? Maybe they are good and Bush had it right. Or maybe they are bad and Obama is on the road to getting rid of them.

I turn to Allah in times like these...

[Bob]

you know who else had tsars? russia. you know who else had a socialist dictator?

think about it (but not too hard)

[Dorothy Wood]

I really like the word "czar".

anyway, to the topic, it doesn't really seem like this dude did anything that wrong. he seems kinda funny and cool. meh.

it's like, "oh shit, he signed an online petition, ARREST HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

dumb.

[saz]

Panel finds no fault with Obama system of policy 'czars'

In Senate testimony, constitutional experts say the president has the right to appoint independent advisors as long as the distinction between practical and legal authority is rigorously maintained.

By Joe Markman
The LA Times
October 7, 2009


Reporting from Washington - Five constitutional experts testified at a Senate hearing Tuesday that President Obama's extensive use of policy "czars" is legal -- as long as the officials do not overstep their authority.

In a city where power is carefully hoarded and monitored, Obama has drawn complaints from Congress about his use of the so-called czars, officials he has appointed to coordinate environmental, health and other policy areas among various departments.

Lawmakers in both parties have sent letters to the White House saying the czar appointments skirt Congress' authority to confirm top executive branch officials and subject them to oversight hearings.

But the panel of constitutional experts testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on the Constitution did not support the complaints.

Called together by Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.), who had written to Obama asking for more information about the czars, the panel concluded that Obama had the right to appoint independent advisors. The experts said the principle had been established by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

"The president's personal staff are independently responsible only to the president -- and in the end he is the only czar that is," said Bradley H. Patterson, a presidential scholar. "And he is accountable to the American electorate."

John Harrison, a University of Virginia law professor, compared the czars to the position of White House chief of staff, saying both hold great influence and can speak for the president, but their legal powers are limited.

Their "practical authority . . . is not legal authority, and as long as the distinction is rigorously maintained there will be no legal problem," Harrison said in his written testimony.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who had also written Obama questioning the czars, said in a statement the issue was not dead. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, where she is the ranking member, will hold a similar hearing next week.

"The appointments of so many czars have muddied the waters, causing confusion and risking miscommunication going forward," Collins said.

Obama's czars include Nancy-Ann DeParle, who coordinates healthcare issues within the White House; Carol Browner, who coordinates energy and environmental issues; Adolfo Carrion Jr., who works on urban affairs; and Lynn Rosenthal, who works on domestic violence and sexual assault issues.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), ranking member of the Constitution subcommittee, said at the hearing that he was worried in particular about the actions of Obama's "pay czar," Kenneth Feinberg, who has been criticized by lawmakers for taking the lead on crafting executive pay limits without enough oversight. The expert panel, however, said it found no constitutional violation.

White House Counsel Gregory Craig defended the Obama administration's appointments in a letter to Feingold.

"Neither the purpose nor the effect of these new positions is to supplant or replace existing federal agencies or departments," Craig wrote.

The experts also agreed that Congress had limited options if it chooses to rein in these positions.

T.J. Halstead of the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service testified that the most effective answer for Congress is persistent oversight.

joseph.markman@ latimes.com


Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times


.