The Glade 4.0

Running about the intertubes, im finding that they make low six figure (120-180Kish, give or take) salaries. I'm also finding that the vast majority of them took a pay cut to work in the administration. Which doesn't speak to your point about weather or not it's constitutional they get paid.

However, I think that if congress or other government officials have the ability to pay staff, aides, etc, then this would fall under that ability.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

The President doesn't get to have staff except that provided for by the Constitution or by statute.

Since these positions don't exist under the Constitution, the question is then whether they exist under statute.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

So, his chief of staff, etc, should all be fired until we can pass a constitutional amendment to pay them? Seems kind of foolish, don't you think?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

No, did you read what DFK wrote?

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Question - did you guys get all worried about this during every past president since Nixon? Or is it suddenly now that you're ire is raised about these advisers?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Dude...

I'm only 34. I wasn't even BORN when Nixon resigned and I wasn't old enough to understand these issues until the elder Bush, and probably didn't pay a great deal of attention to it until Clinton, which was when I graduated high school. A lot of people here are younger than me.

Stop being so **** dishonest. Claiming people have a double standard because they didn't have these same opinions about presidents in office when they were in GRADE SCHOOL or younger is absurd.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Perhaps, but I wasn't alive during Nixon's tenure in office. Also, since Obama is purportedly an agent for change, one of the primary being transparency and Constitutionality, shouldn't he be one to set such new precedent?

Thus, even if posters are holding him to a stricter standard, I don't see it as hypocritical given Obama's platform he campaigned under.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

So, DE, did you worry about it during the bush presidency? How about Bush Jr? Clinton? All of them had these advisers. I never once saw anyone post anything like this reaction when Bush was in power, and he appointed several of the advisers that are now being laid at Obama's feet.

Hell, Sean Hannity is calling it a shadow government. That's what republicans have as analysis? really? A Shadow government?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article. ... SHIN375895


Boren says Congress should push for removal of unconfirmed "czars"

U.S. Rep. Dan Boren (D-Okla.)
By JIM MYERS World Washington Bureau
Published: 9/8/2009 9:08 PM
Last Modified: 9/8/2009 9:09 PM

WASHINGTON — U.S. Rep. Dan Boren said Congress should use the power of the purse to push the Obama administration to remove so-called czars that do not go through a confirmation process.

Responding to questions during a telephonic town hall, the Oklahoma Democrat said he was glad Van Jones, who resigned over the weekend as controversy continued to build over past statements, has left his post.

Boren joined others in criticizing the growing trend to name czars to lead efforts in specific areas.

Such officials do not go through oversight hearings or a confirmation vote in the Senate.

Boren referred to them as unelected bureaucrats who do not answer to lawmakers. “It is something I have heard a lot about,’’ he said.

Even though such czars do not go through a confirmation process, Boren cited the “authority’’ that came along with the congressional control over the power of the purse.

He also singled out Cass Sunstein, who was picked by Obama to be the administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget.

Boren cited Sunstein’s reported views on animal rights, adding they are out of step with those of Oklahomans.

“I don’t believe he should be appointed to anything,’’ Boren said.

With his nomination sent to the Senate in April, Sunstein does not appear to fall in the same category as a czar.

Responding to other questions, Boren repeated his opposition to the current version of health care legislation, especially the so-called public option, and the House-passed bill designed to address climate change.

He also reminded callers of his measure that would promote the use of natural gas.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

With respect to the earlier debate over what constitutes a "czar" in modern politics, it ties back to the ukase:



Notice that it has "the force of law", not that it necessarily is law. In a modern rule-by-executive-order context, a czar is anyone who has been granted the authority to set executive policy. An adviser may influence policy, but a czar has been given delegated authority to actually set the policy themselves, with the president merely "rubber-stamping" whatever they decide.

Edit -- see also:

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Maybe if I'd understood the implications of it during Bush and Clinton I might have, but the fact of the matter is that the only "Czar" I remember hearing about was the "drug Czar" and about the only thing I thought was "boy that's really silly." There are lots of political issues and this one didn't really come to my attention until recently. If I had been paying more attention to these at the time, I might have taken exception to it.

However, none of them were appointing rampant "czars for everything", and no, adviser <> czar.



Because Hannity is obviously a republican analyst.

Hannity's job is to keep people watching Fox news. Claiming his analysis is "republican" is highly dishonest; he's a republican. He is not a party employee.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Well, Hannity has a pretty large audience, he considers himself a serious journalist, and he certainly plays the part. He is an influential voice in the republican party. Not as influential as Limbaugh, but then again, Limbaugh can be worse about this sort of thing.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

First of all, let me state that I strongly dislike Hannity. He's a salesman for NewsCorp, and that's about it.

That being said, he doesn't consider himself a serious journalist, he considers himself a commentator. As such, I've heard him regularly lament the fall of journalism, since he's often the one to break certain stories that real investigative journalists 40 years ago would have beaten him to by days or weeks.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Here is a video that shows Sean Hannity declaring that he was a journalist. He says it at approximately 2:25 in the video. He says "I'm a journalist" in his exchange with Gibbs.

Video link, youtube tags still fail

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

And as you're always saying, "Context."

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I'm sorry, was there context in that video that changes the point? Sean Hannity said very clearly that he was a journalist in defense of his bringing an anti-semite on to his show and giving him a central role here.

Did I miss something that you picked up on? If so, what?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

The fact that he was being attacked via Faulty Generalization and Appeal to Emotion, and as such you "get your hackles up." In that condition, people generally fail to choose the most appropriate word.

Find me something where he isn't being slandered and in which he says that he's a journalist.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Yes, you are missing the fact that whenever anyone posts anything that paints anyone that you like in a poor light, regardless of its veracity, you declare in valid because it's out of context by fiat immediately without any sort of explanation or reasoning.

Just as DFK just did.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

I'm sorry, but where was he being "slandered" again? I mean, he was trying to convince Gibbs that Barak Obama's service on a charitable board constituted best friend-ery. And gibbs responded to him appropriately, talking about Hannity's association with the anti-semite that he gave center stage to on his show. And he did it to make a point about the foolishness of guilt by association.

That being said, Hannity claimed to be a journalist. Do you think he misspoke?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Watch from around the 1:15 mark. Gibbs enters into a guilt-by-association technique because of a guest on Hannity's show. He attempts to indicate that Hannity is anti-semitic because a guest of Hannity's was anti-semitic.

Regardless of the veracity of that claim, Hannity is placed on the defensive. In such a position he begins to spew statements without thinking about them, including that about being a "journalist." He's attempting to indicate that he has many guests on his show with whom he does not agree and chose to use the word "journalist" in the rapid-fire context of the interview with Gibbs. Given time to compose himself, he likely would not have referred to himself as such.





Meaning, "Does Sean Hannity believe he's a journalist?" No, I don't think he does. I believe he thinks of himself as a News Commentator.

Meaning, "Do I, DFK!, believe he's a journalist?" No, I don't. I think of him as a Used Car Salesman.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I'm sorry, but you do not have the right of it. Watch it from the beginning and you will get the full context.

Hannity accuses Barak Obama of palling around with William Ayers, the common attack at the time from conservatives. In order to make a point about the foolishness of guilt by association, Gibbs turns Hannity's logic back on to Hannity, and says that by Hannity's logic, Hannity and all of Fox News is anti-semetic.

Gibbs did not enter into a guilt by association technique except to illustrate how foolish such a technique is.

Watch it again, and you will see what I mean.



You must not have watched the video from the beginning, because Hannity is the one who initiates that interaction, and illicits that response because of his own foolish thinking.



Well, he was only on the defensive because his indefensible position was laid bare pretty clearly. And frankly, I don't know if that changes my central point.

So, clearly, you think he misspoke when he said he was a journalist. That's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that he said it.

However, if Sean Hannity is not a real journalist, why did Fox News give him an exclusive interview with Vice President Dick Cheney? Wouldn't they have wanted an actual journalist, and not just an opinion guy, to do such an interview?

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

Evidently Fox thinks an interview with the President from Hannity would pander to its viewerbase. We all know that the major networks have very little to do with completely honest journalism, so the question is a bit pointless to begin with.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

True, but it does speak to the point. In Fox's eyes, despite their statements to the contrary, Hannity was journalist enough to interview the VP.

Now, what that says about Fox's journalistic integrity is up to the reader, but they still made that choice.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show

It doesn't indicate any such thing. Fox doesn't have to be ignorant of what the standards are for Journalism to break them. It can simply to break them. Whether it claims ignorance is an entirely different matter.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

Well, I guess I don't understand why Mr. Hannity gets to have it both ways. He says he's a journalist, but apparently that was in a moment of defensiveness, so it doesn't count. But then he's called upon to run an exclusive interview with Dick Cheney. It doesn't add up.

_________________


It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show