FCC Nomination Stalled for One Year, Preventing Restoration of US Net Neutrality (siliconvalley.com) 85
Why hasn't America restored net neutrality protections? "President Biden's nomination to serve on the Federal Communications Commission has been stalled in the Senate for more than a year," complain the editorial boards of two Silicon Valley newspapers:
Confirming Gigi Sohn would end the 2-2 deadlock on the FCC that is keeping Biden from fulfilling his campaign promise to restore net neutrality, ensuring that all internet traffic is treated equally. Polls show that 75% of Americans support net neutrality rules. They know that an open internet is essential for innovation and economic growth, for fostering the next generation of entrepreneurs....
[T]elecommunication giants such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast don't want that to happen. They favor the status quo that allows the internet companies to pick winners and losers by charging content providers higher rates for speedier access to customers. They seek to expand the cable system model and allow kingmakers to rake in billions at the expense of smaller, new startups that struggle to gain a wider audience on their slow-speed offerings. So Republicans and a handful of Democrats are holding up Sohn's confirmation, claiming that her "radical" views disqualify her....
They also object to Sohn's current service as an Electronic Frontier Foundation board member, saying it proves she wouldn't be an unbiased and impartial FCC Commissioner. The San Francisco-based EFF is a leading nonprofit with a mission of defending digital privacy, free speech and innovation....
Enough is enough. Confirm Sohn and allow the FCC to fulfill its mission of promoting connectivity and ensuring a robust and competitive internet market.
[T]elecommunication giants such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast don't want that to happen. They favor the status quo that allows the internet companies to pick winners and losers by charging content providers higher rates for speedier access to customers. They seek to expand the cable system model and allow kingmakers to rake in billions at the expense of smaller, new startups that struggle to gain a wider audience on their slow-speed offerings. So Republicans and a handful of Democrats are holding up Sohn's confirmation, claiming that her "radical" views disqualify her....
They also object to Sohn's current service as an Electronic Frontier Foundation board member, saying it proves she wouldn't be an unbiased and impartial FCC Commissioner. The San Francisco-based EFF is a leading nonprofit with a mission of defending digital privacy, free speech and innovation....
Enough is enough. Confirm Sohn and allow the FCC to fulfill its mission of promoting connectivity and ensuring a robust and competitive internet market.
restore net neutrality... (Score:1, Troll)
Build your own network, if you want to control it.
Re: (Score:2)
Build your own network, if you want to control it.
Or nationalize the one we've got (Trump's proposal).
Re: (Score:2)
That wasn't Trump's proposal. He stole the idea from his advisors.
To be fair, most people in his position depend on staff to formulate their policies. Some even depend on them to work out the details [newsweek.com].
Re: (Score:3)
That wasn't Trump's proposal. He stole the idea from his advisors.
How do you steal something from someone whose job it is to advise you on things?
Re:restore net neutrality... (Score:5, Insightful)
Natural monopoly, market failure.
It's wildly inefficent to just have so many people digging their own trenches, getting utility pole access, running data centers etc etc. It's wasteful and leaves plenty of ways for established players to use anticompetitive behavior against the new entrants.
We don't do this for electricity, water or sewage because of the same reasons, it's better for the majority of people to just have one provider who is regulated in how they do business.
We tell lots and ltos of copmpanies "how to do business". In the US we don't allow companies to hire child labor or pay in company scrip or jail poorly performing workers.
Re: (Score:2)
The current SCOTUS is larded up with pork payoffs to the Federalist Society whose official position is "Labor laws are unconstitutional because the founders didn't know about business regulation".
Re: (Score:2)
Natural monopoly, market failure.
It's wildly inefficent to just have so many people digging their own trenches, getting utility pole access, running data centers etc etc. It's wasteful and leaves plenty of ways for established players to use anticompetitive behavior against the new entrants.
Why do we even let companies do this? The bulk of the cost comes from the last mile. The government should just run dark fiber to every household and business in the country, with lots of excess capacity between cities of sufficient size, and then let network service providers lease the lines to provide service.
We don't do this for electricity, water or sewage because of the same reasons, it's better for the majority of people to just have one provider who is regulated in how they do business.
Not necessarily. Get stuck with a single for-profit corporation as the one provider, and you'll be unhappy forever. Get two competing, and there's at least a chance of one forcing the other to im
Re: (Score:3)
Natural monopoly, market failure.
It's wildly inefficent to just have so many people digging their own trenches, getting utility pole access, running data centers etc etc. It's wasteful and leaves plenty of ways for established players to use anticompetitive behavior against the new entrants.
Why do we even let companies do this? The bulk of the cost comes from the last mile. The government should just run dark fiber to every household and business in the country, with lots of excess capacity between cities of sufficient size, and then let network service providers lease the lines to provide service.
Us survivors of the dot-com implosion and the CO-based DSL market leasing lines from ILECs would like to have a word.
Re: (Score:2)
Us survivors of the dot-com implosion and the CO-based DSL market leasing lines from ILECs would like to have a word.
That is because ILECs deliberately dragged their feet on servicing those lines because the lessees were competitors. If the government owned the infrastructure outright there wouldn't be any such issue as the owner wouldn't be in competition with the renter. State governments don't bulldoze free highways to drive traffic towards toll roads, for example, because they don't have a profit motive.
Re: (Score:2)
The federal government told CLECs they had to lease their infrastructure to their competitors at a federal government-set price... Just like in the, what was it, industry? Oh, that's right - unlike any other industry in America.
Imagine the government told your employer to make access to their manufacturing facilities for a government-set rate, would you give your competitor your fullest attention to minimze their down-time?
State governments don't bulldoze free highways to drive traffic towards toll roads, for example, because they don't have a profit motive.
State governments allow the sale of known cancer-causing products (tobacco) because o
Re: (Score:3)
Natural monopoly, market failure.
It's wildly inefficent to just have so many people digging their own trenches, getting utility pole access, running data centers etc etc. It's wasteful and leaves plenty of ways for established players to use anticompetitive behavior against the new entrants.
Why do we even let companies do this? The bulk of the cost comes from the last mile. The government should just run dark fiber to every household and business in the country, with lots of excess capacity between cities of sufficient size, and then let network service providers lease the lines to provide service.
Us survivors of the dot-com implosion and the CO-based DSL market leasing lines from ILECs would like to have a word.
In spite of rhetoric, the DSL leasing scheme did actually work rather well. I had DSL service with static IPs that was *way* cheaper than what the ILEC would have charged for comparable service at the time.
What failed was the follow-through. The rules applied only to DSL, not to cable or fiber. As a result, the ILECs and cable companies took advantage of the situation. Because they did not have to lease their fiber to competitors, they could charge as much as they wanted. And because they did not have
Re:restore net neutrality... (Score:4, Interesting)
We kind of did. A lot of the telephone and fiber infrastructure was build up by lots of incentives, grants, right of way waivers, and monopoly positions.
If we didn't you wouldn't see much last mile buildout past the major cities. Even today, dense areas subsidize parse areas. The telecoms got so used to these handouts after decades that they invested heavily in building out backbone infrastructure (still with right of way grants and monopoly positions). They (WorldCom, Broadcom, Enron, ATT,etc) assumed that last mile will eventually come when the localities payed them to build it. Unfortunately, that didn't work out because the government doesn't move that fast.
If the telecoms want the infrastructure to be purely private (which they don't), then I say, don't even pay the grants already given. Just lose the monopoly positions, the labor union rules, and pay fair market for the lands they lease. They don't want to go that route. But its also not fair that Google Fiber is forced to wait 3-9 months on AT&T to string up a line on 2-3 miles of poles so they can do their 1-3 month part of wiring a neighborhood. This happened in our area. The monopoly position also impacted the 3 year road expansion project where it was delayed by almost 2 years waiting on AT&T to move lines to the new poles. We literally had what was once a winding forest road, left winding through muddy & weedy sides with a new 4 lane bridge for 2 years.
Telecoms are a monopoly, as they should be. But that means they get a lot regulations and should deal with it.
Re: (Score:3)
The carriers have successfully engendered legislation in a number of states that prevent municipalities/towns/etc. from deploying their own.
They deserve to be screwed with given what they've been doing to ensure there is no competition.
Re: restore net neutrality... (Score:1)
That and the indefinite hold-up of confirming Gigi Sohn tho the FCC are two more glaring signs that the US is a *capitalist dictatorship.* No one in the US is permitted to do *anything* that even *threatens* corporate profits.
Re: restore net neutrality... (Score:3, Informative)
Tax dollars helped build that network as well as many of the low level protocols it depends on.
Being pro-capitalism doesn't mean you have to be pro-rent-seeking.
Re: (Score:2)
Net neutrality is nothing more or less than the government telling a network operator how to operate their network.
Yes, those are called "laws" and are the basis of a function society. Don't like laws? Then move to the Libertarian paradise of the Congo.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, those are called "laws" and are the basis of a function society.
The 5th Amendment: [congress.gov]
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
If you tell me how to operate my network, you infringe on my property rights.
Ever wondered why rent control never makes it to the Supreme Court? Because it would be shot down.
Yeah, laws and shit.
Re: restore net neutrality... (Score:2)
Arent you guys the same ones who said companies like Facebook and Twitter that select what content a person should and shouldnâ(TM)t access be considered âoepublishersâ for editorializing?
Re: (Score:2)
Define "Net Neutrality" please...
Polls show that 75% of Americans support net neutrality rules.
These oft-quoted polls NEVER define "Net Neutrality" in any meaningful way.
When Ajit Pai dropped so-called "Net Neutrality" rules, he made it clear that the things the FCC stopped doing were better overseen/enforced by the FTC, not the FCC.
Moreover, we empower the Federal Trade Commission to ensure that consumers and competition are protected. Two years ago, the Title II Order stripped the FTC of its jurisdiction over broadband providers. But today, we are putting our nation’s premier consumer protection cop back on the beat. The FTC will once again have the authority to take action against Internet service providers that engage in anticompetitive, unfair, or deceptive acts. As FTC Chairman Maureen Ohlhausen recently said, “The FTC’s ability to protect consumers and promote competition in the broadband industry isn’t something new and far-fetched. We have a long-established role in preserving the values that consumers care about online.” Or as President Obama’s first FTC Chairman put it just yesterday, “the plan to restore FTC jurisdiction is good for consumers. . . . [T]he sky isn’t falling. Consumers will remain protected, and the [I]nternet will continue to thrive.”
Source: https://www.theverge.com/2017/... [theverge.com]
Re:Weapon of Mass Distraction (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Weapon of Mass Distraction (Score:4, Interesting)
That is why your grandchildren will hurt, PROFIT!!
Re: (Score:1)
If you thought "Raygun" was impressive with a piss-ant National debt back then, you should have seen Obama double that fucker in his term.
Knock it off you pathetic cheerleader. I never said either side was worth saving. The debt price our Grandchildren will pay will be in blood, not paper or sweat. We've gone to war for a hell of a lot less.
Re: (Score:1)
ANNNDDDD that total lower than tRump's FOUR years was in the middle of the biggest recession since 1933 thanks to BUSH and his hedge fund buddies, so yes, you lie.
Meanwhile, Bush jr DOUBLED the debt on his 8 years, and tRump excee
Re:Weapon of Mass Distraction (Score:5, Informative)
Stalling isn't merely something we're seeing more and more of these days from this Administration.
You do realize the Senate is the one stalling, right? Or don't you understand how government works when it comes to nominations?
Promise everything. Deliver nothing, or make things somehow worse when you actually do something.
When you have one party who absolutely refuses to cooperate in any fashion to help the people, it's no wonder. Let's hope the folks in the House have to now suffer the same fate. To paraphrase Mitch McConnell, "If Republicans want to get something done they'll have to do it by themselves."
Re: (Score:2)
Sure we do, we give them section 230 liability protection, without which these places would be forced to censor far more heavily than they even currently do.
Is there a better solution? By forcing them to carry "everything" without regard for their business model means the government has to define for those sites and everyone using them what is "Acceptable speech", here is what you can sue them for and here is what you cannot. Seems like a bad move?
Re:which is funny.... (Score:5, Informative)
Every time you see an attack on section 230 it's just a thinly disguised attempt to seize control of the internet by super Rich assholes who are upset they lost some of the control of the discourse they had back when they owned all the cable TV channels
Re:which is funny.... (Score:4, Informative)
Right wing chuds hide behind common carrier.
It's not just common carrier. The right-wing wants to [imgur.com] control everything [imgur.com], just like in Orwell's novel.
Re: (Score:3)
I'll step-over a discussion on what type of person becomes a billionaire and say a few remember Henry Ford, who realized new money comes from people buying stuff. That realization means there is a need for society to protect consumers. Besides corporations are also consumers at some stage; of natural resources (primary industries), of people's knowledge (tertiary industries), of people's time (employees), or basic goods. Richard Nixon decided to evict those fundamentalists from the Republican party, open
I think what you're trying to say (Score:2)
I also don't think Ford is a great example. The reason why he raised wages wasn't for the sake of creating a middle class but because he was having a hard time finding workers who would do the difficult and monotonous factory work. His ties to the Nazis don't help matters either. I'm not just calling that out as a character problem but rather saying that it's a sign of his own right-wing tendenci
Re: (Score:2)
...seem to NOT have any problem with leaving entities like Reddit, Youtube, and Google to 'pick winners and losers' in terms of free speech.
Maybe if the 'losers' weren't getting people hurt they wouldn't be alarming Reddit, Youtube, and Google's advertisers.
Re: (Score:2)
Extremely bad comparison.
What are your options if Reddit, Youtube, Google, etc. refuse to post your content? You either find someone that will post it or you make your own site where you can post whatever you wish.
What happens if your local ISP refuses to give you access to the Internet? In an extremely large number of cases there isn't anything you can do except MAYBE start your own ISP (not nearly as financially viable as the option to create your own website). There are just too many places where there i
Re:Republicans (Score:5, Informative)
What a bunch of hypocrites.
Always have been. Supreme Court justice comes up for replacement at the end of Obama's turn, we should let the next president pick the replacement. Supreme Court justice comes up for replacement at the end of Trump's turn, we should ram it through just in case.
Clinton gets oral sex in the oval office? Impeach him. Trump networks with right-wing extremist groups to overthrow the government? He didn't do anything wrong.
Republicans are always in favor of whatever benefits their party, and against whatever benefits their opponents' party. Since pre-Nixon, the Republican Party as a whole has never shown the slightest sign of having any actual morality, ethics, or values, beyond paying lip service to those things to trick naïve voters into electing them. They're great at pretending to be Christian, until they actually vote, and then they're all "What do you mean we're supposed to clothe the naked and feed the hungry? Screw the poor. They should work harder like I did, and use their parents' millions of dollars to help them start an empire. Then they wouldn't be poor."
If you're just noticing that the Republican Party are a bunch of hypocritical liars, you must have slept through the last fifty years or so. Apart from a few rare outliers, the Republican Party hasn't been honest, on the whole, since Eisenhower.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
And you think that Democrats aren't exactly the same? All political parties are like that because they're all organized to push a specific agenda and oppose anything that might work against it. The only time you ever see both major parties work together is if both sides benefit from something or there's a major crisis (e.g., Pearl Harbor) that must be responded to and there's onl
Re:Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
Republicans are always in favor of whatever benefits their party, and against whatever benefits their opponents' party.
And you think that Democrats aren't exactly the same?
No, not remotely. Democrats usually try to work across the aisle if Republicans are willing to do so. Republicans have a long history of obstructionism, and refusing to do so. That has been true since at least the Clinton administration.
But things really came to a head when the Tea Party movement happened, where many of them made it a point of pride that they would not work with Democrats. That was literally part of the campaign pledge of people who AFAIK are still sitting in Congress today. I can't imagine any Democrat ever behaving so childishly.
No, they are not the same. Not even close.
Re: (Score:1)
nailed it!
Re: (Score:2)
I don't blame Biden... that's always been a Democrat thing.
Look at the last Speaker of the House debacle. You are telling me a few Dems couldn't get together and tell him "We will vote for you if you ignore the following people on your side?" The Dems much rather sit there smugly happy that the Reps were finally going through what is std ops for Dems. Who has more in common, a Cali & Texas Republican or Cali Republican & Democrat? Politically, there is little common between Cali and Texas no mat
Re: (Score:3)
Do you really think that McCarthy would have made any kind of deal with the Democrats to secure his election to be Speaker? I'm not sure I would trust McCarthy to even keep his end of the deal after being elected anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately it's just not a priority of the Biden admin. Possibly related to Biden's age (we really need to stop having our only choices be over retirement age), but most likely just there are issues they believe to be more important.
Now obviously the GOP was going to stall everything in Congress no matter the Democrat in office (we saw it with Obama too), but there isn't all that much that can be done in our current system. The Democrats only have had narrow margins and the system is designed to work s
Remember that time we all died? (Score:1, Flamebait)
Which version of "net neutrality"? (Score:2, Flamebait)
There have been several versions published. Most have glaring errors in the "neutrality" portion, but all fit SOMEONE's agenda.
Not to mention the fact that many of the "warriors" for neutrality have their own version that MUST be implemented.
What does each decide to throw away when limits are reached? Oh, we can't throw anything away? Then what gets delayed when there isn't enough bandwidth? Who gets to pay for the extra costs to carry the "excess data"?
Making something nominally "free" doesn't remove the c
Re:Which version of "net neutrality"? (Score:5, Informative)
QoS is not the same as network neutrality.
QoS is about the TYPE of data, neutrality is about the DESTINATION.
Typical moderate democrat blockers (Score:2)
"Over the past year, Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) have remained hesitant to offer Sohn their support."
Source: https://prospect.org/politics/... [prospect.org]
To be fair, Gigi Sohn has said some controversial stuff. She tweeted "So do you still want me to believe that social media is more dangerous to our democracy than Fox News?" and she shared a tweet "Your raggedy white supremacist president and his cowardly enablers would rather kill everybody than stop killing black pe
Why are you blaming a couple Democrats (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Someone who has spoken out against Fox news and Trump is not going to get any republican senators to nominate them.
Cloture on executive nominations only need majority since 2013 (2017 for supreme court). Democrats don't need any republican support as long as they have all but one of the democrat and independent caucus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Cloture on executive nominations only need majority since 2013 (2017 for supreme court). Democrats don't need any republican support as long as they have all but one of the democrat and independent caucus.
I think you're missing the point, which is that 49 Republicans and three Democrats are against this nominee, and folks are only focusing on the three Democrats. If 52% of the Senate thinks this person isn't a good choice, that's probably a hint that this person isn't a good choice.
The FCC doesn't need Democrats and Republicans. It needs people who understand how the industry works and how best to regulate it for the good of the people. The moment you start putting "R"s and "D"s by their names, you've alr
Pay attention to the economists (Score:3)
1. They knew that the Ukraine war was gonna spike food prices LONG before the world realized it
2. They will tell you that the best, cheapest way to deal with AGW is a carbon tax. Absolutely nobody likes that idea
3. They will tell you that the least economically distorting tax is the inheritance tax. OMG when anyone touches that they get torn limb from limb.
4. Inflation in Turkey is spiraling out of control because their near-dictator leader decided to lower interest rates when the economists said that he should raise them.
5. the list goes on and on
Economists are generally against net neutrality, because it will result in a less efficient, less economical system that costs quite a bit more . That will NOT be a popular opinion on this forum.
Maybe net neutrality is something worth demanding and worth paying for. But don't fool yourself. When an economist says that something is gonna be expensive, you can be damn sure that it's gonna cost you an arm and a leg. Get your wallet ready.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing about "economists" is that they are not a homogeneous group. You can always find an economist to support your own opinion, or to find one who "predicted" what actually happened. Stopped clocks right twice a day ....
The Fed has economists. Why does the Fed keep pushing the USA into recession when one of its claimed goals is to avoid recessions?
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect, behind closed doors, most economists will tell you that avoiding recessions is impossible. They can only be managed. The public doesn’t like to hear that, so the public-facing economists keep their mouth shut about it. If you look at most economic variables related to recession as a function of time, the plot looks a bit like an erratic heartbeat. Almost like the system ha
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect, behind closed doors, most economists will tell you that avoiding recessions is impossible. They can only be managed.
Let's see what happens at the next Fed meeting. Since inflation is falling, they should pull back on rate increases. Frankly, I am not convinced that the Fed is acting in the best interests of most Americans, but the outcome of the next Fed meeting will make this clear.
Re: (Score:2)
1. What’s best for you
2. What makes you feel good.
I should probably have a piece of dry whole grain toast and a side of steamed broccoli for dinner. Will I? Hell no.
In order to kill the inflation spiral from the 70s, the Fed had to deliberately cause a recession. Was it the right thing to do for the country? Hell yes. How many people en
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry if I don't think that pushing the economy into a recession is good for the country as a whole.
I do think that a recession will disproportionately benefit a few already wealthy people, who will be able to increase their ownership share of the nation's assets.
Re: (Score:2)
I should add that pushing the country into a recession is contrary to the Federal Reserve Act, which set up the Fed.
Re: (Score:2)
Australia spent billions building a new fibre-optic network across a sparsely-populated continent: It is now managed by one Qua.NGO and providing cheap data. What is the expense for the USA model?
The US demand for competition is good but extending the paradigm until the product 'fragments' only results in government policies trying to glue humpty-dumpty back together again.
Re: (Score:2)
No, an Australian political party made an election promise to build a national fibre broadband network. When their opposition won in the next election, they gave up on fibre, claiming it was "too expensive." Instead, they decided (against all technical advice) to retain the aging copper network for the last mile, and threw even more billions at their corporate cronies who owned that copper network. The result is that a handful of locations have great fibre-to-the-home connections, while the rest of the coun
Re: (Score:3)
I'd interested to see how any economist came to that conclusion. Because literally, to be net neutral, all the ISP has to do is....nothing. Literally nothing. Treat all data from all sources the same and move it to the customer at the speed they requested/pay for. So how would it cost them more to do nothing? Because they wouldn't be able to extort other companies for additional money on top of that of their customers? Hell, most ISPs in America can't even live up to their quoted speeds as it is.
So, the onl
Only one fix (Score:2)
Title bias (Score:2)
I didn't need to read any further than the title to know that the story is biased. "Restoration" is a positive word not a neutral word. Using "reinstate" for example, would allow the reader to draw their own conclusion instead of being preached to (which begins in the first sentence).
Re: (Score:2)
US... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
...is a mess
Yes. Yes it is [businessinsider.com].
How about a different candidate? (Score:2)
Has Biden considered nominating someone nearly all Democrats would accept?
Corporations do not get a say (Score:2)
and they will stop trying to have one when executives face consequences.
Biden toying with NN supporters again (Score:4, Insightful)
You can tell when a political leader is just using somebody or something for political power and when he/she is actually trying to solve something. Yet again the establishment DC Democrats are playing with their base supporters on an issue they are not actually trying to solve. In this case, the choice is an easy one: nominate somebody who can deliver what your voters want, or nominate somebody your base thinks can deliver, but which the politics of DC make impossible. This is where Ms Sohn come in. Biden is having problems and needs to shore-up support with his base, but he does not want to SOLVE net neutrality (thus removing it from a list of issues of value to Democrats in micro-targeted campaigns) so the ongoing nomination issues of a pro-NN person who has too much baggage for Biden's opponents to swallow suits the situation perfectly.
There might well be a dozen people who could be plugged into that FCC slot who could easily get the support of the establishment Republicans in the Senate - just look at the recent passage of that massive spending bill, that the Republican VOTERS and members of the House overwhelmingly oppose, but Mitch and a bunch of his RINO lackeys happily helped Joe pass into law. Those same Senators would happily "work across the aisle" even at significant risk of evoking the hatred of their own voters if they thought they could. Sohn is probably a bridge too far for even these Senators.
Slashdotters will likely have heard that Sohn is associated with the EFF and Mozilla and Net Neutrality and be baffled, asking "what's not to like?" and presuming this must all be about corruption and bribery by the telco giants - it will doubtless be spun that way. That's actually not an unreasonable interpretation IF your only source of news is Democrat journalists and websites. For those of you not in the habit of seriously reading sites you might disagree with, I'll offer a hint of the reasons she's not getting confirmed yet (possibly not at all). First, she has a relationship with George Soros that makes her radioactive to the Republican voter base (as though being in bed with somebody who happily served Adolph Hitler is some how not enough...) Second, she has deceived congress in hearings and been caught doing it (making it harder for GOP Senators to explain voting for her in the future if she gets confirmed and then breaks her word) Third, she has openly advocated censoring conservative media (toxic, again, to base voters Republican Senators NEED in elections) and fourth, she was an over-the-top partisan anti-Trumper during the last admin. It's normal for people in DC to oppose politicians of the other party, but you cannot run around flinging the sort of insane accusations at a president of the other party and his supporters and then expect to get appointed to a seat that could be used to muzzle political speech - it's simply untenable. The very experienced permanent DC people in both parties KNOW this and thus control themselves better, the better to preserve their availability for future nominations.
Presidents are entitled to nominate anybody they want to such positions. Most choose people less partisan than they might prefer, but who they know can make it through confirmation - usually by being at least plausible as somebody who can be trusted to serve ALL Americans in the bureaucratic position. Remember: the entire federal government pretends these positions are non-partisan, and the public seems to generally be happy with this lie as long as the people stuffed into the seats are not too radical. Obama had to make such compromises, as did Bush43 and, yes, even Trump. In this particular position, Joe decided not to. The obvious reason we are left to assume is that he is playing a time-honored game people in both parties have been known to play: setup a fight that will be lost but that will energize some part of his voter base.
Re: (Score:2)
You'll no doubt be downvoted to oblivion by activists close to and with a lot of help gaming the system, but I wanted to thank you sincerely for taking the time to write and post this really excellent, fact-filled, salient post.
Re: (Score:1)
Solution in search of problem? (Score:2)
So, what's the point?