![[Iowa map]](http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2005/12/05/GR2005120501681.gif)
Banning 'the Next Karl Rove'?
During his nearly seven years on the White House staff, Karl Rove became famous (and to his critics, infamous) as a supposed political puppet-master, influencing everything from the legislative agenda to candidate recruitment in order to extend and expand Republican power across the land. But if one key congressional Democrat has his way, Rove could be the last of his kind.
In an interview published today in The Hill, House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) broaches the possibility of pushing a bill that would prohibit future administrations from putting aides with explicitly political responsibilities on the White House staff.
"Why should we be using taxpayer dollars to have a person solely in charge of politics in the White House?" Waxman told The Hill. "Can you imagine the reaction if each member of Congress had a campaign person paid for with taxpayer dollars?"
Rove held a variety of positions in the White House, most recently as deputy chief of staff. Presumably, Waxman is thinking of Rove's earlier tenure as the head of the Office of Political Affairs when he muses about cracking down on such behavior in the future. The Californian's committee has spent a lot of time investigating the use of official email accounts by the Bush administration to send political messages, and the use of Republican National Committee accounts to send messages about official government business. Waxman has also probed allegations that a Rove deputy gave a briefing to officials at the General Services Administration about key congressional races this cycle.
Waxman complains that members of Congress and their staffs have to follow strict rules about doing political work using official time and resources, while White House aides operate under much looser restrictions. Of course, Hill aides take actions every day that are designed to help members win reelection. They push politically popular bills, send out press releases to make their bosses look good and meet with key constituent groups to rally support. And many aides "volunteer" for their employers' campaigns.
What congressional offices don't have are aides whose titles explicitly say they work on politics or political affairs. But it's hard to see Waxman's effort going anywhere even if he does introduce such a bill. Even if he could specifically ban the use of taxpayer money for, say, the Office of Political Affairs, the next administration could just give the office a different name and its head -- technically, the next Jonathan Felts -- a different title and continue business as usual. After all, the official description of the OPA says that it "ensures that the executive branch and the President are aware of the concerns of the American citizen." How could congress possibly block such a noble endeavor?
As energetic and aggressive as Waxman has been at conducting oversight, taking politics out of the White House is probably too tall an order. But it might be entertaining to see him try.
By Ben Pershing |
July 8, 2008; 10:47 AM ET
Branch vs. Branch
Previous: The Week Ahead: Top Hill Aides Weigh In |
Next: 'War Powers' Plan Faces Steep Odds
Posted by: katem1 | July 9, 2008 11:37 AM
Mr. Waxman has been trying to bring some sense of order to the shenanigans that have going on with this present regime. Public Television had a segment on Mr. Waxman that said he is easily elected to his seat, so he has less worry about raising so much money. If all our congressmen could help the American people as he does it would be wonderful.
Posted by: kml | July 9, 2008 1:47 PM
Not a bad idea, at all. In fact, something should be done about any candidate knowingly making false accusations against an opponent, a program known as swiftboating. This maneuver was tried by Obama on Dec.27/07, in a tape called "Obama's last speech in Iowa" & was shown on Wolf Blitzer's Situation Room during dinner time. He accused Hillary of causing Bhutto's death because of her vote to allow Bush to decide on going into Iraq. Millions of viewers saw this but CNN removed it from the show's transcript by the next day. Tim Russert knew of it, tho, & questioned Obama on it, in an interview. Obama told Russert that he did not believe it but he never retracted his statement nor made an apology to Hillary for having made it. Things like this should absolutely be made taboo and the offender should be fined!
Posted by: afed27 | July 9, 2008 2:34 PM
Yes, and we are going to ban insider trading and make the White House spokeperson take a lie detector test!
As a mildly liberal Dem I got to ask Henry: did you take your medication this month?
Posted by: Paul | July 9, 2008 4:01 PM
Where in the World is Karl Rove?
See http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2008/07/12/where-in-the-world-is-karl-rove/
Posted by: Mike Licht | July 12, 2008 2:36 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Yes a new administration would probably re-name the office, but at least some rules and guidelines to ensure openess and fairness would be in order. And at the same time new rules concerning the use of AirForce One to go to fundraising events. The President's party should pay the true cost, not a general, this -is -how- much- if we chartered a plane. Air Force One is not a normal charter plane, and the costs should reflect that. The Party should have to pay for secret service and any other extras the Pres. might have to take along.