Well the only thing i really think i am disagreeing with is the idea that the president holds the ability to create offices of power or “czars” regardless of senate approval. President Bush, Johnson, Obama and roosevelt have appointed “Czars” based on nothing other than executive order/presidential appointment.

“The actual title of the so-called “science czar” is Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and he was unanimously confirmed by the Senate.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holdren
So I don’t really see what you’re disagreeing with at this point.”

I already know that. I already said my example of Science Czar was not an accurate one for my argument ( at least that is what i intended to say, i probably should have elaborated.) And i am not disagreeing with anything per se. I mean you and i both demonstrated that the whole Czar thing is nothing new. I also agree that the term “czar” is a blanket term. So again, what i am disagreeing with is that the president has the power to create offices/czars/organizations/whateverthefuckyouwanttocallit, without senate approval. If i were to admonish one president i would have to admonish everyone since FDR. I don’t get what you are defending since i have already demonstrated that this is not a problem that lies with a specific person or party. Now if i may be cocky here i think the reason that you assume i am disagreeing with a specific person is typically touted by conservatives and republicans and you and other people are having a though out knee jerk reaction because of that. In addition this is also a popular talking point on anti-obama arguments and seeing as this is an anti-obama image you may have a preconceived notion that statements against the system in use by our current president is a direct statement against the president. But you are right in that i did fail to make the distinction that “Czars” are not 100% empowered by the president. But the reality is that this system has been in use before obama was even born.

You said that people with “real positions of authority” in the “czar” term are nominated by the senate and president. In turn one could argue that neither the senate or president alone should have this power because it disrupts the distribution of power by undermining our system of checks and balances. But at that point you are arguing the basic mechanics of how our government is run. I guess that is the point i may be making here. The concept of “czars” as a blanket term for all figures of presidential and senatorial nominated authorities is an inherently unbalanced system which can lead to abuse. I mean in reality we are probably safe assuming the government hasn’t been infiltrated by people who intend to abuse that power since it has been demonstrated that offices such as OSTP and ONDCP were headed by people elected by the senate. I guess ultimately that is my point. It is a system that has potential for massive abuse regardless of party lines or senatorial/presidential decree. That is why i do not support it. Even though it can work, it creates problems that we shouldn’t have to begin with. But i guess that is the problem with all politics. I mean a republic can inadvertently create an oligarchy and capitalism can create a plutocracy.