"But I don’t recall a single damned Democrat complaining that an abstinence Czar was unconstitutional Mr. Gibbs, only that the anointed abstinence Czar was a hypocrite, so on that front your accusations of Republican hypocrisy rebound. "

I am confused by these statements, perhaps because I am not familiar with the definition of "hyprocrisy" that Patrick is using. I usually see "hypocrisy" used in the context of indicating that someone's actions are in opposition to their professed position, and vice versa. For example, the Republican's current opposition to Obama's appointment of czars seems to conflict with their previous acceptance of Bush's czars.

But Patrick's argument seems to be that since the Democrats never complained about the unconstitutionality of Bush's czars, it is hypocritical for them now to accept Obama's czars. I understand that Patrick thinks all czars are unconstitutional, and that he's peeved that the Democrats haven't ever made that claim. But I don't see how being consistent on this topic makes them hypocritical.

Someone want to help me out?

I admire your skill with search engines.

Best regards!

Of course, even in those cases, the existence of the czar is problematic under your analysis, Patrick, because it both (1) reflects federal snooping and poking and grandstanding in areas in which the feds have no business, and (2) tends to obscure the nature and extent of actual legal involvement in those fields.

And I do think the issue is Czars and Tsars, without respect to party. Apart from perhaps Charles (Ezra hates both parties because they're not Left enough), we're not friends of Democrats or Republicans. Clinton had his Czars, as did Carter, as did Johnson, as did Truman.

We're against all Czars, unless someone really needs the knout, in which case we favor a Tsar. Any of them except for Nicholas II.