"We need an Ebola Czar"

Contendah I think you would have made a better Ebola Czar than the one appointed by the Pres. Seems all you really need to be is someone who kowtows to the President but doesn't report to him.

__

And you   base your judgment of the President's appointee on what?  He has been in office about 2 days now.  Have you conducted a full performance review?

Well the president is't a executive or a leader so it only follows that the Ebola czar wouldn't be a doctor or have any experience in emergency management. 

___

You are entitled to your purely speculative opinion.

So what if the new Czar doesn't do a good job? Will he be fined, jailed or fired? Probably not. But what about the people who are infected with Ebola due to his incompetence? Do they get well and not have to worry about dying? 

___

You are entitled to your panicky, presumptuous speculation.

 panicky, presumptuous speculation

Wow! He asked perfectly good questions and you call it 'panicky, presumptuous, speculation'?

Having an Ebola Czar will not do anything to help.  

__

And is not the ASSUMPTION that people WILL BE  " infected with Ebola due to his incompetence"

a presumption?  Is that not speculative?

That question from Bulldog63 was not of the "What if?" type.  It assumed that a specific thing WILL happen.  Do you know what presumptuousness is?

Nothing at all wrong with speculating, and yes I know what presumptuousness is, I also know what panic is. Do you?

I told you Contendah, you would make a good Democratic appointee. Spin doctor extraordinaire. Don't answer the question, deflect the subject and discredit the person who ask the question. YOU ARE HIRED! 

___

Best's reply was essentially a non-answer, and so was your carping, irrelevant attack.

My comment has not yet been answered; perhaps YOU should give it a try:

"And is not the ASSUMPTION that people WILL BE  ' infected with Ebola due to his incompetence'

a presumption?  Is that not speculative?  That question from Bulldog63 was not of the "What if?" type.  It assumed that a specific thing WILL happen.  Do you know what presumptuousness is?"

Here is the list of czars appointed by Obama and their positions.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26779.html

And, a description of their backgrounds, although, admittedly, by a rather prejudiced eye.

http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaCzars.htm

 Either way, I see no need for this bunch on the federal payroll.

However, for the Ebola plague, there may well be a need for someone to coordinate the actions of the federal activities.   So far, the powers that be haven't instilled much confidence,  

Dr. Nicole Lurie, Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR),  should be the person in charge.  However, with reports that she diverted grant money for Ebola research to Democrat donors, the administration keep silent.  Instead, they appointed a political hack to be a political flack.

There are a number of people Obama could have chosen with experience and a history of being non-political.  The Army, Navy and Air Force have medical commands,  The chiefs of those commands, or any of the G-3 or 4 people (operations or logistics) would have been a much better choice.

The tired old criticism of Obama's "czars" has been dealt with repeatedly.  Here is the most recent debunking of  right-wing nonsense on the matter of "czars."  All the wingers who keep their panties in a wad over "czars" need to read this and get educated.

http://www.politifact.com/trut...e-elected-officials/

_____________________________________

My comments were upon the utter uselessness of the persons appointed.  That other presidents appointed such is just a "so's your old man'" argument.  Doesn't justify the existence of such.

___

Interesting to learn that you have personally conducted an assessment of the "usefulness"  of all 45 "czars." You must have lots of time on your hands.

____________________________________________________________________

Typical audit requires reading and understanding about 700 pages of information,  

___

Pretty vague comment, dire.  'splain yourself,

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Not vague, at all, merely pointing out I am used to researching and distilling quantities of data.

One important lesson we've learned is the government has not practiced its core responsibilities.  Instead of the calm doctors and scientists in hazmat suits taking care, as shown in the movies, we see the three stooges running around -- changing their stories as they go and a shortage of equipment. 

CDC, NIH and the US Health Service spent too much effort and funds on esoteric research and strayed far from their core responsibilities. I'm certain our enemies took notes.

Meanwhile, our friends to the north are learning a hard lesson about soft targets,