Quit being so pedantic. The argument isn’t being made that their authority is statutorily limited, but their effectiveness is limited by nature of their temp status.
CRead the Vacancies Act.
Or take it up with Senator Lankford (R-OK).
“Lankford said having acting secretaries has a significant impact because their authority can be more limited than that of Senate-confirmed nominees. “They can’t execute all policy when they are acting,” he told CNN. “Anytime you have an acting, they can’t perform all the duties that a Senate-confirmed appointee can.”
I wonder if it has anything to do with the way legislation is worded.
There are lots of "the Secretary shall’ or “the Secretary may”. Not “the acting Secretary shall”.
Which is exactly why FOX is needed the most. If the networks have chosen sides, and they have. It is imperative that both sides be represented. Having only DNC sanctioned news is dangerous.
We don’t need “representation” in ANY news. We need just news.
I agree, But sadly, those days are gone. Everything has been totally politicized.
No, that isn’t what she said. Try reading what’s been posted.
You made the claim, it’s up to you to support it. What part of the “vacancies act” limits their power and in exactly what way?
Mulvaney isn’t a cabinet Secretary, try again.
And you want the politicization to get worse. That’s the entire premise of this OP-to double down.
I’m not sure that it could get much worse. Both sides are all in. That’s why we are fortunate to have one side with an opposing view.
You’re right, he’s only the Director of the OMB and the Chief-of-Staff and until a couple months ago, the Acting-Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Not to mention you don’t have to be a cabinet secretary to be nominated to be a cabinet secretary or any other position that hasn’t yet been filled.
You make it sound as if FOX was created to combat the spin from MSNBC and CNN. The reality is that CNN and MSNBC were much more news and information than FOX News.
FOX News was created to provide a conservative message. MSNBC changed their coverage to compete with FOX News.
There’s a whole chicken and egg theory that goes on here.
What does this gibberish even mean? The discussion was about cabinet secretaries.
I responded to a post about filling “offices”.
Read twice, check you humor chip, then respond.
Not fortunate when the problem gets worse.
Really good point.
Everyone here seems to forget that before Hannity and Colmes, and “Fair and Balanced”, CNN had Crossfire, which really was “fair and balanced” and provided useful commentary and back and forths. You had legit players from each side debating-for goodness’ sake, Tucker Carlson was on it for a period of time.
Over the years it hosted conservatives such as Pat Buchanan, Robert Novak, John Sununu, Tony Snow, Mary Matalin, and Tucker.
Now compare any of those people to Alan Colmes, who was only ever a radio host/pundit/commentator. If the above conservatives were the “opposition” to a left-wing, DNC supporting CNN, then they sure brought in a lot tougher opposition than a guy like Colmes.
People pretend like CNN wasn’t already providing “fair and balanced” points of view for years before Fox came around, and with much more legitimacy than Fox can claim.
Colmes was syndicated nationally as both a radio and TV commentator and an author.
Yes, I already went over that. Thanks for reaffirming!