Symbolically, and after the fact... BUT STILL STICKIN' IT TO HIM, 22nd AMENDMENT STYLE.

BIG TIME

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/taking-aim-at-the-next--karl-rove-2008-07-07.html

Quote :

"Taking aim at the next Karl Rove By Alexander Bolton Posted: 07/07/08 07:50 PM [ET] Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), who has primary jurisdiction over the executive branch, is considering legislation to eliminate Karl Rove-type advisers in future administrations. The chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hints broadly that such a bill could ban the use of federal funds to finance such a politically partisan office. “Why should we be using taxpayer dollars to have a person solely in charge of politics in the White House?” Waxman said in an interview. “Can you imagine the reaction if each member of Congress had a campaign person paid for with taxpayer dollars?”"

It seems pretty reasonable. Put the political guys on the party's dime.

While we're at it, the parties should at least go dutch on presidential reelection travel and what-not.

7/8/2008 10:43:02 AM

They'll just launder the money some other way. Powerful politicians will always have teams of political hacks. They wouldn't be powerful if they didn't.

7/8/2008 2:52:49 PM

7/8/2008 7:16:31 PM

Yeah stick it to Rove, that'll show 'em11!!!

Seriously, what a stupid idea. Is Waxman also willing to eliminate his own Chief of Staff positions in his own office? Are you telling me that nobody who works for a politician's staff deals with spin or political issues at all?

More symbolism over substance, but par for the course nonetheless.

7/8/2008 7:25:58 PM

unlike Wlfpk4life, I stand in favor of reducing the unnecessary waste of tax money at the federal level.

7/8/2008 7:54:32 PM

Whatever...it's just not practical. Eliminate every political staff position because mean Karl Rove orchestrated back to back wins for that meanie George W. Bush? Yeah that'll show 'em!!1!!!

But a nice typical knee jerk response. I can just see joe and boone standing behind Waxman slapping their hands together like trained seals.





[Edited on July 8, 2008 at 8:05 PM. Reason : better edit or I'll get singled out for doing what everybody else does]

7/8/2008 7:58:35 PM

^ Ron Paul FTW!


I guess it all depends on how you define "unnecessary".

7/8/2008 7:58:35 PM

i find it amusing that Wlfpk4life can sit here and defend wasting taxpayer money with a straight face.

7/8/2008 8:19:29 PM

It's not wasteful if the eventual outcome is his side winning.

7/8/2008 8:20:50 PM

Waxman should lead by example and eliminate all of his staff positions, since afterall they're all political in nature.

Having a staff isn't a waste of taxpayer money. Are you going to volunteer to do the work for free?

Likewise, the Deputy Chief of Staff is a long standing position within the White House. Other than the fact that Rove served in its capacity, give me one good reason why it should be eliminated. I wish I lived in such a myopic world to think that this is being done to save money, more like out of spite against the evil Rove...because everybody opposite than your view must be evil and therefore eliminated.

I mean seriously, did you not read the fucking title of this thread or Boone's original premise??? Yeah, stick it to Rove when he's not even in the White House anymore!1!!! That'll show him for winning those elections hahahahhahahaa *snort*


[Edited on July 8, 2008 at 8:27 PM. Reason : more]

7/8/2008 8:24:43 PM

Anyone who doesn't believe Rove was in charge of policy during Bush's White House is a complete and utter tool.

7/8/2008 8:30:17 PM

Rove's official role was Deputy Chief of Staff. The Deputy Chief of Staff can serve in any number of roles at the discretion of the President and/or White House Chief of Staff.

Anybody who thinks that the Deputy Chief of Staff shouldn't handle matters as dictated from the President and/or White House Chief of Staff which may include Presidential policy is an utter tool.

Besides, who is Waxman to dictate who the Executive can or cannot appoint to his own staff. I wonder how Waxman would feel if somebody had authority over who he appointed onto his own staff.

7/8/2008 8:37:54 PM

you sure are crying a lot.

7/8/2008 8:38:58 PM

I guess it beats having a man crush on those with neckbeards.

7/8/2008 8:40:03 PM

lol

7/8/2008 8:41:34 PM

Quote :

"It's not wasteful if the eventual outcome is his side winning."

but it IS wasteful if the eventual outcome is your side losing?

see also: Dick Morris, George Stephanopoulos


YEAH THAT'LL SHOW GEORGE BUSH.

7/8/2008 8:48:24 PM

White House staff salaries (2004)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/administration/whbriefing/2004stafflistb.html

Rep. Waxman's staff salaries (current)
http://www.legistorm.com/member/525/Rep_Henry_Waxman.html

7/8/2008 9:07:56 PM

dude's going down

7/8/2008 9:10:33 PM

nice photoshop, but isn't Rove fatter ?

Government waste at the congressional and presidential staff level is negligible in contrast to the wholesale redistribution of wealth made possible through social programs and the EITC. Sure some of the money ends up with truly needy people, but a lot of it is stolen or pilfered through cheaters and deadbeats.

7/8/2008 9:53:03 PM

wealth redistribution made the middle class last century. it didn't work out too badly then.

7/9/2008 12:35:04 AM

Henry Waxman is just a nutjob. What would this possibly accomplish? More lame-o "I wanna be a Senator!!!111" antics.

7/9/2008 1:12:56 AM

Dammit.

I was hoping this was actually intelligent.

How are our tax dollars not going to end up in the hands of political strategists when we permit public financing of elections?

:facepalm:

7/9/2008 1:28:12 AM

In abstract terms I am completely in favor of removing Rove-esque officials working for elected officials and being paid for by taxpayers.

In reality, I get that no reasonable piece of legislation can accomplish this goal. It can only make the means by which they are affiliated more convoluted.

Even disregarding that fact, any such efforts would skip over the real problem, is that voters themselves are to blame for the success and, indeed, necessity of such individuals.

7/9/2008 3:59:46 AM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25622771/

7/10/2008 4:07:54 PM

If he gets away with ignoring a subpoena, then the executive branch is trully on its way to government domination.

7/10/2008 4:14:10 PM

on its way

if only...

7/10/2008 4:37:47 PM

Amazingly, I agree with Wolfpack4life on this one.
What really bothers me is the link I'mStoned posted.

7/11/2008 11:20:19 PM

How does that link bother you?

7/12/2008 8:05:36 AM

hopefully it bothers him how brazenly Rove and others are ignoring what I think would be legally binding subpoenas from Congress

7/12/2008 8:56:20 AM

I get a feeling that's not why he's upset about it.

7/12/2008 8:57:44 AM

Quote :

"House panel votes to cite Rove for contempt"

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-he8f7AdVl4IRQAEFnivpPn6HOAD9288BJG0

7/30/2008 12:53:37 PM

lol.

Rove's a piece of shit, and I can't believe some of you are defending him here. It's amazing once you get behind a flag or camp the type of shit you'll cozy up next to.

7/30/2008 12:56:25 PM

is he that different than any other modern political strategist?

Quote :

"In abstract terms I am completely in favor of removing Rove-esque officials working for elected officials and being paid for by taxpayers. In reality, I get that no reasonable piece of legislation can accomplish this goal. It can only make the means by which they are affiliated more convoluted. Even disregarding that fact, any such efforts would skip over the real problem, is that voters themselves are to blame for the success and, indeed, necessity of such individuals."

word.

7/30/2008 1:10:51 PM

From the MSLSD link posted above:

Quote :

"The White House has cited executive privilege, arguing that internal administration communications are confidential and that Congress cannot compel officials to testify. Rove says he is bound to follow the White House's guidance, although he has offered to answer questions specifically on the Siegelman case — but only with no transcript taken and not under oath. Democrats have rejected the offer because the testimony would not be sworn and, they say, could create a confusing record."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25622771/



Yeah, this is the junior high school assistant principal you want running around investigating shit.

7/30/2008 1:27:09 PM

Executive privilege doesn't cover criminal activity. Plz to see US v. Nixon.

And for someone who looks like this:



I wouldn't go around making fun of people's looks.

[Edited on July 30, 2008 at 1:36 PM. Reason : .]

7/30/2008 1:33:38 PM

Now we are going to have a penis in this thread.

7/30/2008 1:35:20 PM

^^ Do you have proof of criminal activity, shithead?



This is kind of the way I picture you, Boone-Tard. You really are a suitable case for treatment of rabies and hooksaw derangement syndrome.

^ You hope, am I right, cowboy? How're things up on Humpback Mountain, nutsuckr?



[Edited on July 30, 2008 at 2:29 PM. Reason : .]

7/30/2008 2:28:32 PM

It's been a little lonely since my doppelganger killed himself.

7/31/2008 10:53:12 AM

Quote :

"In abstract terms I am completely in favor of removing Rove-esque officials working for elected officials and being paid for by taxpayers. In reality, I get that no reasonable piece of legislation can accomplish this goal. It can only make the means by which they are affiliated more convoluted. Even disregarding that fact, any such efforts would skip over the real problem, is that voters themselves are to blame for the success and, indeed, necessity of such individuals. "

pretty much

Quote :

"Rove's a piece of shit, and I can't believe some of you are defending him here. It's amazing once you get behind a flag or camp the type of shit you'll cozy up next to. "

who's defending Rove? maybe arguably wolfpk4life, and who really gives a shit about that?

7/31/2008 10:59:13 AM