> the President has Zero control over what the FCC does.

Other than appointing the commissioners, and exerting both indirect (and, through the use of the veto, potentially direct) influence over legislation which controls the scope of the FCCs regulatory authority, and appointing members of the Federal judiciary who ultimately resolve disputes over the FCCs actions, sure, the President has zero control over what the FCC does.

Can you point to some specific policies that support the idea that the GOP will encourage competition from smaller players against entrenched interests? I mean, I don't think the Democrats are much better on that front, mind you, but they're the ones supporting Net Neutrality, while Republicans in Congress are trying to ban the FCC from doing this, and Net Neutrality is very much about encouraging competition from smaller players in the market.

And for that matter, maybe they don't 'hate America', but it's awfully hard to tell sometimes, what with Sarah Palin's 'Hit List' of abortion doctors, and the keen interest they take in who can and can't get married, and pretty regularly making the poor out to be villains somehow, etc etc. I suppose if you you're only counting white, Christian conservatives, then Republicans don't hate America. Otherwise, it's a tough sell.

> Can we please stop trying to make this a "GOP is evil and hates America" and "DEM is right and loves America" thing?

Whether or not the GOP is generally evil, it certainly seems to be true that their position on net neutrality has been consistently bad and if they're allowed set policy on it, they'll do it in a way that will let carriers interpose themselves as gatekeepers.

>The GOP standpoint is to put policy in place that naturally overtime encourages small business to bring competition to the bigger guys.

That's the rhetoric, anyway. It's less clear how that's likely to fall out of any of their proposed policies.

The point is neither the GOP nor the DEM get to decide what net neutrality policy is... that is the FCC's job now that congress has given them that power.

This isn't a party thing... let's not try to make it one.

> The point is neither the GOP nor the DEM get to decide what net neutrality policy is... that is the FCC's job

The members of the FCC are Democratic and Republican political appointees.

> This isn't a party thing...

Every FCC vote on Open Internet ("net neutrality") rules for the last several years has had a 3-2 divide on party lines (Democrats for Open Internet regs, Republicans against).

How is it not a party thing?

> The members of the FCC are Democratic and Republican political appointees.

And so are Supreme Court Justices. Once appointed, some future President can't just remove them because he/she disagrees. The President isn't a king.

It's not a party thing. Stop trying to make it one.

> And so are Supreme Court Justices.

And Supreme Court Justices decisions, throughout their careers, on issues that are politically salient at the time of their appointment very closely track the positions of the President that appointed them. While lots of people like to pretend that the judiciary is apolitical and nonpartisan, all the actual evidence is that it is anything but.

> Once appointed, some future President can't just remove them because he/she disagrees.

Right, the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary in general -- while not at all apolitical and nonpartisan -- are still more insulated from partisan politics and the mood current among elected politicians than, say, members of the FCC because they have lifetime tenure rather than 5 year terms. I'm not sure how pointing this out helps your case that the current net neutrality debate, both in the FCC and more generally, is not strongly partisan.

> It's not a party thing.

I'd surely prefer that support for net neutrality -- on the FCC, in Congress, and more generally -- wasn't a strongly partisan issue, but all the actual facts show that it is an issue that is extremely partisan. You can keep repeating "it's not a party thing" all you want, but it won't stop the fact that on the FCC, support for net neutrality regulations has consistently been split with Democrats for and Republicans against, in the Congress, support for the FCC issuing net neutrality regulations, or the Congress adopting strong net neutrality regulations itself, has consistently been strongly tilted to Democrats for and Republicans against (and, conversely, support for legislation explicitly prohibitong the FCC from regulating for neutrality has been strongly tilted to Republicans for, Democrats against.)

It is a party thing, whether you think it should be or not.

The President has the power to appoint FCC commissioners, subject to confirmation by the Senate. This is a pretty significant influence, albeit an indirect one.

The GOP standpoint is to put policy in place that naturally overtime encourages small business to bring competition to the bigger guys.

That's what I hear around election time, but I'm not convinced its supported by their legislative record.

The President has a great deal of indirect control over the FCC. All FCC commissioners are appointed by the President. But they don't turn over immediately, since they're appointed at 5-year intervals. See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commissi....

Worth reading in this context Joel Brinkley's "Defining Vision", about the history of broadcast HDTV in the US.

Also, history strongly suggests that the GOP's political rhetoric is a load of dingo's kidneys. Do you honestly believe that stuff? Do you have any corroborating examples? Because the GOP that was in power prior to 2008 pretty much exemplified the opposite strategy.