Plus, the assertion in the headline that Pai "mismanaged $9 billion fund" is bloviation -- the FCC is simply asking some grant recipients to return a small portion of the money (6%) based on revised maps. Honestly, do we need to politicize everything?
I feel like 'that's political' or similar sentiments have been used lately to just deflect criticism. It seems like it could be used endlessly.
When you're dealing with a known corrupt individual, it's worth pointing out.
A known corrupt individual, who was nominated by another known corrupt individual who was then president.
Trump then promotes Ajit Pai to be the chairman of the commission.[1]
So yes, Pai was nominated to the FCC by Obama to respect a partisan tradition at the recommendation of Republican members. Trump then promotes Pai, who by that point is a clear Net Neutrality opponent, to the chairman position.
[0] https://thehill.com/policy/technology/190857-obama-nominates...
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/trump-promotes-neutral...
Its law that they have a limit of 3 per party, the tradition is that they are always of the two major parties, and that the Senate caucus of the party who doesn’t hold the White House has the dominant role in directing the nomination of the members of their party. Since they are also Senate confirmed, and given the existence of the filibuster even when not in divided government, there some strong teeth to that tradition, though conceivably with sufficient support in the Senate a Democratic President could fill vacancies (with 3 Democratic incumbents), with, say, Socialists or Greens rather than Republicans.
Clearly I am not an expert in the American political process, but the language of the parent comment has been used to deliberately mislead and I wanted to make it clear in what way it may be misleading.
Of course he didn't do it manually but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
Nobody thinks it's his job to manually review census blocks, people think it's his job to ensure the data is in order before the auction happened.
Government management of funds is political, by definition. It can't be “politicized”; the weird thing is pretending that it was ever apolitical to start with.
The FCC is a political organization, so yes, it should be politicized. It often makes decisions due to politics, and in this case the Republican ideals of business being more powerful than the government and monied interests and capital owners being more powerful than democracy and working people.
>I promise you that Ajit Pai did not personally
That's not how leadership works. They can't fail and then say "Oh well I wasn't reviewing every little thing."
I'm not sure why you're carrying water for a crony like Pai, but its not convincing in the slightest.
You think these people end up running major US govt orgs and aren’t ruthless cunts? You can’t survive in DC without knowing how to throw people under the bus.