Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

merrily

(45,251 posts)
31. Presidents don't have a lot of need to give orders to "independent" agency heads. They choose
Mon Apr 28, 2014, 01:44 AM
Apr 2014

Last edited Sun Mar 4, 2018, 12:16 PM - Edit history (2)

people who are already sympathetic to their wishes and can ask for their resignation, or remove them, at any time. "I serve at the pleasure of the President" has a lot of meaning; and people who serve at the pleasure of the President know that very well.

And there's always those discussions with Cabinet Secretaries, both formal and informal and schoozing with agency heads at receptions. No formal orders, perhaps, but Presidents have many ways of making their wishes known to those whose undated resignations may be in the desk as I type.

For industry darlings, like Wheeler and a lot of FCC lawyers, the next time they emerge from the revolving door will make them very desirable to the broadband behemoths like Comcast and Verizon. Likely, the bucks they pull down for the rest of their careers will dwarf what they made before getting into the FCC and making all those wonderful government contacts from the inside. And the inside of a Democratic administration, no less. They have no desire to be fired, um, tender their resignaations.

So, yes, "Of course, I am in favor of net neutrality, but I don't give orders to the FCC" is a lot like many of Obama's other statements that his supporters can latch onto and repeat, as though it there is nothing else behind it.

If I were a President in favor of net neutrality, though, I would not have nominated Wheeler to head the FCC and the FCC would not be full of former broadband industry lobbyists.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Thank you, thank you, thank you Armstead Apr 2014 #1
Thank you! On the activism issue, I again refer you to Koko's great thread, unless you have already merrily Apr 2014 #2
K&R Armstead Apr 2014 #38
Thanks for this. elleng Apr 2014 #3
Thank you! A federal regulator of common carriers thinks my post was okay? merrily Apr 2014 #5
Oh, I'm glad, merrily! elleng Apr 2014 #8
Key phrase... "members are named by Presidents" HooptieWagon Apr 2014 #15
Yes, and Earl Warren was nominated by republican Dwight Eisenhower. elleng Apr 2014 #23
Are you really trying to compare Tom Wheeler to Earl Warren? HooptieWagon Apr 2014 #29
Excellent point, but the Ike Warren thing was very different. merrily Apr 2014 #30
And perhaps because while they ARE nominated by Presidents, they 'do not take orders' from sabrina 1 Apr 2014 #16
Presidents don't have a lot of need to give orders to "independent" agency heads. They choose merrily Apr 2014 #31
Either presidents no longer have much choice on who to nominate, considering the huge donations sabrina 1 Apr 2014 #39
Oh, they have a choice. merrily Apr 2014 #42
'Keep voting out sell out politicians'. Exactly. They have the idea that they can take the votes of sabrina 1 Apr 2014 #43
I don't know about Axelrod or Rahm, but I have heard MANY Dem pundits say it on TV whenever merrily Apr 2014 #46
On this thread, anyway, I used Wu not so much because of his claim of merrily Apr 2014 #25
"The FCC has no statutory power to impose common carrier-type regulations on a company... ChisolmTrailDem Apr 2014 #4
Full disclosure: I never thought about it before, one way or the other. merrily Apr 2014 #7
For the FCC to impose common carrier regulations it must classify that way prior to TheKentuckian Apr 2014 #37
Exactly. The FCC may proceed with NN, but obviously has no intention of doing that. merrily Apr 2014 #47
There we go. joshcryer Apr 2014 #6
"The FCC has no statutory power to impose common carrier-type regulations GoneFishin Apr 2014 #9
Yes. merrily Apr 2014 #11
Ok. Thanks. GoneFishin Apr 2014 #12
Or to the more cynical among us, a Republican Cable Lobbyist might have wanted to leave some sabrina 1 Apr 2014 #17
Thanks much, sabrina 1. merrily Apr 2014 #19
It is obvious how much work you put into this. DU used to produce some great research like this sabrina 1 Apr 2014 #21
The worst bit was getting through the opinion. I freeze up merrily Apr 2014 #32
Bookmarking this great post for reference. pa28 Apr 2014 #10
Not bad for a first OP. Lasher Apr 2014 #13
No worries. You can always bookmark for whenever you want to read it merrily Apr 2014 #34
I Merrily recommend this post! Dragonfli Apr 2014 #14
HA! Copps is already being discredited on other threads. merrily Apr 2014 #18
Net neutrality is essential for the future of an internet. JDPriestly Apr 2014 #20
Good points. I also think we need net neutrality because msm is merrily Apr 2014 #26
K&R. nt OnyxCollie Apr 2014 #22
Thanks so much! Agony Apr 2014 #24
You are very welcome. merrily Apr 2014 #33
Merrily...Thank You...Key Points from your Post that are Important: KoKo Apr 2014 #27
Thanks, Koko. Clearly, you paid close attention. merrily Apr 2014 #35
Considering who is 'thrashing' Wu and Copps, lol, I'll go with them also. sabrina 1 Apr 2014 #44
Their credentials are in my OP. Pretty damned impressive. merrily Apr 2014 #48
Yes, their credentials are impressive. But when the facts and truth don't match the 'message' sabrina 1 Apr 2014 #52
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." nt merrily Apr 2014 #54
Exactly! Which I do, lol! sabrina 1 Apr 2014 #55
thx for gathering this info & posting Duppers Apr 2014 #28
You're welcome. merrily Apr 2014 #36
Five Epic Fails in the FCC's New Net Neutrality Plan Ichingcarpenter Apr 2014 #40
Great post, to you, too, Iching. merrily Apr 2014 #41
Thank you.. nt ProudProgressiveNow Apr 2014 #45
You are welcome. merrily Apr 2014 #49
Well written OP. blackspade Apr 2014 #50
Thank you and yes, re-classification, if done properly, would be the solution. merrily Apr 2014 #51
K&R nt Guy Whitey Corngood Apr 2014 #53
kick and rec nt steve2470 May 2014 #56
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»"The Buck Stops at t...»Reply #31