9 votes

Joe Biden just appointed his climate movement liaison. It’s a fossil-fuel industry ally.

Topic removed by site admin
This topic is locked. New comments can not be posted.

35 comments

  1. [31]
    Comment deleted by author
    Link
    1. [6]
      RNG
      Link Parent
      Unless The Hill is some socialist/leftist publication in your estimation, Jacobin isn't reporting this information to get "more money for Jacobin" [1]. You state this like his record is a mere...

      Unless The Hill is some socialist/leftist publication in your estimation, Jacobin isn't reporting this information to get "more money for Jacobin" [1]. You state this like his record is a mere footnote being blown out of proportion.

      For those who didn't read the article:

      • He was one of the very few democrats who voted to authorize the Keystone XL pipeline [2]
      • He has an extensive voting history of being an ally of the fossil fuel industry, and voting against legislation meant to combat climate change, bottoming at a 46% in 2018 [3]
      • He joined Republicans to stop a bill that'd place pollution limits on fracking [4]
      • He has received more funding from the fossil fuel industry than just about any other democrat in congress [5] [6]
      • Is blatantly not in line with Biden's transition team ethics code which states in part that the team “aims to ensure that those who serve are aligned with his values and policy priorities, and have not, for example, been leaders at fossil fuel or private prison companies.”

      [1] https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/526405-progressive-group-slams-biden-white-house-pick-over-fossil-fuels
      [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/01/here-are-the-28-house-democrats-who-voted-to-approve-the-keystone-xl-pipeline/445086/
      [3] https://scorecard.lcv.org/scorecard?year=2018
      [4] https://scorecard.lcv.org/roll-call-vote/2016-279-fracking-clean-air-loophole
      [5] https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/cedric-richmond/industries?cid=N00030184&cycle=CAREER&type=I
      [6] https://readsludge.com/2020/11/16/biden-to-tap-fossil-fuel-friendly-rep-for-white-house-job/

      20 votes
      1. [5]
        NaraVara
        Link Parent
        The Hill is a political gossip rag that definitely farms outrage for clicks. It's worrying that media literacy is bad enough to where it's taken as a "serious" investigative journalistic source. A...

        Unless The Hill is some socialist/leftist publication in your estimation

        The Hill is a political gossip rag that definitely farms outrage for clicks. It's worrying that media literacy is bad enough to where it's taken as a "serious" investigative journalistic source. A tabloid isn't nothing, but tabloids do need to be read with hefty grains of salt handy.

        10 votes
        1. [4]
          cfabbro
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          Mediabiasfactcheck is itself a bit biased, and their methodology is far from ideal... however it does have some interesting information about The Hill, particularly: It does still rate them LEAST...

          Mediabiasfactcheck is itself a bit biased, and their methodology is far from ideal... however it does have some interesting information about The Hill, particularly:

          The Hill is published by Capitol Hill Publishing, which is owned by News Communications, Inc. Jimmy Finkelstein is the current CEO of New Communications who is described as a “Republican and longtime friend who served as a fundraiser for Giuliani’s failed 2008 presidential run.”

          The Hill also features other outside opinion contributors such as Newt Gingrich among other prominent figures. The general overall tone of all op-ed’s taken together is currently balanced after dominant right-leaning voice John Solomon left the paper in October 2019.

          The Hill has faced criticism for the hiring of John Solomon, who is described as a strong supporter of President Trump and a conspiracy theorist, with his previous opinion columns under review for false content. Further, it has been reported that owner Jimmy Finkelstein “kept a watchful eye on the newspaper’s coverage to ensure it is not too critical of the President.”

          It does still rate them LEAST BIASED (centrist), and MOSTLY FACTUAL though, despite that potential conflict of interest:

          Overall, we rate The Hill Least Biased based on editorial positions that are currently balanced and news reporting that is low biased. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting, rather than High, due to previous opinion columns promoting unproven claims.

          So take all that for what you will. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

          5 votes
          1. [3]
            NaraVara
            Link Parent
            Specifically, the part of the Hill people are talking about when they say they "reported on this" is "The Rising" with Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti, which is one of the tabloidier and less...

            Specifically, the part of the Hill people are talking about when they say they "reported on this" is "The Rising" with Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti, which is one of the tabloidier and less journalistic parts of the imprint. The format of the show is more like a "Crossfire" or "Hannity and Colmbs" style infotainment show where they put a conservative and a "progressive" behind a desk and have them argue with hosts and each other.

            Edit: Media Matters also has some not great things to say about them specifically. The bias doesn't seem to be one-way necessarily, but you can see a clear pattern of casting things in the most outrage-baity ways for a target audience.

            8 votes
            1. [2]
              Amarok
              Link Parent
              I watch some of The Hill's content and I have to agree with this. No one is unbiased. There's no such thing as a trustworthy news source - never was, never will be. If you think you watch...

              I watch some of The Hill's content and I have to agree with this.

              No one is unbiased. There's no such thing as a trustworthy news source - never was, never will be. If you think you watch 'trusted' sources I think you're fooling yourself no matter who it is. You're better off understanding the bias of the network or program you are watching and keeping that in mind. Crystal and Saagar are pure snark, I find plenty of things to disagree with and scoff at in their reporting. Of course, I find just as much to make me roll my eyes in the New York Times (with extreme liberal bias) or in anything published by the Epoch Times (with extreme conservative bias).

              My solution was just to start watching everyone then hope the truth makes an appearance somewhere in the mess. I like having a sense of what each group is thinking and what their signaling looks like. Epoch Times (aka Crossroads and NTD) is so full of subtle conservative doublespeak that I worry they'll take over from Fox news someday. They are much better at it than Fox ever was.

              Everyone is picking a 'team' to cater to with their online journalism. This is what we get with advertising being their main revenue source. It sucks. If we want real honest news someday, I feel like it's got to be divorced from the profit motive and from advertising somehow or it'll never get there.

              5 votes
              1. [2]
                Comment deleted by author
                Link Parent
                1. Amarok
                  Link Parent
                  Better than I do about most outlets. I'd also add Al Jazeera to the list, at least that one still watches like a sane old school news cast.

                  Better than I do about most outlets. I'd also add Al Jazeera to the list, at least that one still watches like a sane old school news cast.

                  2 votes
    2. [21]
      Adys
      Link Parent
      There are two american left wings. The split is well on its way. With how toxic people can be about Biden, I wonder if we'll have it far earlier than I thought we would (I initially thought it...

      I am very interested in how progressives are going out of their way to turn the knives inwards, even before Biden's presidency begins.

      There are two american left wings. The split is well on its way. With how toxic people can be about Biden, I wonder if we'll have it far earlier than I thought we would (I initially thought it would happen "some time before 2035").

      Democrats will not survive this type of infighting (especially on trashy clickbait like this), when the GOP is so up its own arse they're ready to back a pointless coup just to avoid looking like they're infighting.

      11 votes
      1. [10]
        RNG
        Link Parent
        The fight seems to be largely between centrist/center-right democrats and center-left to leftist progressives. I'm not sure that it is fair or accurate to describe this as "two left wings." Is any...

        There are two american left wings

        The fight seems to be largely between centrist/center-right democrats and center-left to leftist progressives. I'm not sure that it is fair or accurate to describe this as "two left wings."

        With how toxic people can be about Biden, I wonder if we'll have it far earlier than I thought we would

        Is any criticism "toxic?" Can progressives not criticize having a consistent enemy of climate action on the transition team? Most of the "toxicity" has been pointed leftwards from the right wing of the democratic party.

        Democrats will not survive this type of infighting (especially on trashy clickbait like this), when the GOP is so up its own arse they're ready to back a pointless coup just to avoid looking like they're infighting.

        The Hill already reported basically this exact same story, are they "trashy clickbait?" Progressives are never allowed to criticize the perpetual rightward shift of the democratic party, as these compromises are always necessary to beat "the bigger GOP threat." Biden hasn't even been inaugurated and progressives are already receiving intense toxicity from conservative democrats, when just months earlier progressives were told to vote for Biden to "have a seat at the table."

        5 votes
        1. [8]
          TheJorro
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          I would not call what I've seen in this comment section "fair criticism" in the slightest, and I could agree to describe it as "toxic". The language and intensity of the arguments in this thread...

          Is any criticism "toxic?" Can progressives not criticize having a consistent enemy of climate action on the transition team? Most of the "toxicity" has been pointed leftwards from the right wing of the democratic party.

          I would not call what I've seen in this comment section "fair criticism" in the slightest, and I could agree to describe it as "toxic".

          The language and intensity of the arguments in this thread towards Biden and Richmond are stronger and more intensely unprompted than any I have seen from rightist Dems towards more leftist ones so far.

          There's maybe a couple of comments with good points that I can learn something from, but otherwise most of the "criticism" just seems to be finding any reason to dismiss Biden as a terrible President before he's even properly in office. Perhaps the anger is justified but it sure isn't being presented well at all.

          I'm still sitting here bewildered that this appointment is getting more furor and anger than any of the other far worse things Trump has done in the same time period, and that apparent leftists are more keen on taking down someone who is more one of their own (relatively speaking to, you know, Trump) than someone who is trying to topple the electoral system to declare himself king.

          14 votes
          1. [7]
            RNG
            (edited )
            Link Parent
            Strongly disagree. The criticism has been on an ally of the fossil fuel industry who has been appointed to be a part of Biden's transition team, after that very team promised to "ensure that those...

            I would not call what I've seen in this comment section "fair criticism" in the slightest

            Strongly disagree. The criticism has been on an ally of the fossil fuel industry who has been appointed to be a part of Biden's transition team, after that very team promised to "ensure that those who serve are aligned with his values and policy priorities, and have not, for example, been leaders at fossil fuel or private prison companies.”

            Criticizing voting track record, massive funding from the fossil fuel industry, and previous actions are absolutely examples of fair criticism.

            EDIT: This response was written before @TheJorro rewrote their comment and added on the last 4 paragraphs, so it may no longer make sense in context. I won't be keeping track of all edits made to comments I reply to.

            5 votes
            1. TheJorro
              Link Parent
              Yes, there has been one or two comments of fair criticism so far. I'm talking about all the other ones, most of which are not.

              Yes, there has been one or two comments of fair criticism so far. I'm talking about all the other ones, most of which are not.

              7 votes
            2. [5]
              skybrian
              Link Parent
              I don’t see why everyone on Biden’s team needs to agree with him on climate change? If he can find a role for them doing something that’s not about climate change then this means he can take a...

              I don’t see why everyone on Biden’s team needs to agree with him on climate change? If he can find a role for them doing something that’s not about climate change then this means he can take a “big tent” approach without them doing any real damage. That seems like smart politics.

              By contrast the “purity” approach where everyone in the group needs to agree on everything, even stuff they’re not working on, seems very likely to result in schisms.

              7 votes
              1. [4]
                RNG
                Link Parent
                How far does the democratic party have to move before you'd agree to some sort of "purity test?" Is the standard always going to be "just not as far as the GOP?" The GOP has been sliding to the...

                How far does the democratic party have to move before you'd agree to some sort of "purity test?"

                Is the standard always going to be "just not as far as the GOP?" The GOP has been sliding to the right, and the Dems have been chasing them, always compromising and building the "bigger tent." McCain and Romney, two previous GOP presidential nominees resemble the modern democratic party far, far more than the GOP, and that's not just because the GOP alone has slid to the right. If the GOP becomes openly fascist, can the Democratic Party become solidly far-rightist and expect everyone to the left of the GOP to vote for them?

                If your party is always compromising, always coalition-building with an increasingly right-wing GOP, don't be surprised when you've slid so far right that you're support among progressives waivers.

                7 votes
                1. [3]
                  Comment deleted by author
                  Link Parent
                  1. [2]
                    RNG
                    Link Parent
                    I couldn't fathom believing that, unless you think that Bernie and AOC are the voice of the party, which they absolutely are not. There is very little that separates modern DNC politicians from...

                    I couldn't fathom believing that, unless you think that Bernie and AOC are the voice of the party, which they absolutely are not. There is very little that separates modern DNC politicians from the GOP leadership of a decade or two ago (Romney and McCain being excellent examples.)

                    7 votes
                    1. [2]
                      Comment deleted by author
                      Link Parent
                      1. RNG
                        Link Parent
                        This isn't about "progressives leading the party this very instant," this is about those who have run the party for the past decade resemble greatly the GOP leadership of a decade or more ago.

                        This isn't about "progressives leading the party this very instant," this is about those who have run the party for the past decade resemble greatly the GOP leadership of a decade or more ago.

                        4 votes
                2. skybrian
                  Link Parent
                  But the strategy I described doesn’t involve any substantive compromise. It avoids it ever coming up. Actual compromises will need to happen when Biden needs the votes to pass a law.

                  But the strategy I described doesn’t involve any substantive compromise. It avoids it ever coming up. Actual compromises will need to happen when Biden needs the votes to pass a law.

                  4 votes
        2. Adys
          Link Parent
          Yeah, airquotes not included in my description of them as "two left wings". But it is accurate in the context that they're two distinct wings on the left of the current american center. (Refer to...

          I'm not sure that it is fair or accurate to describe this as "two left wings."

          Yeah, airquotes not included in my description of them as "two left wings". But it is accurate in the context that they're two distinct wings on the left of the current american center.

          (Refer to @TheJorro's post on what I think about this being "fair criticism" wrt the rest of your post)

          3 votes
      2. Amarok
        Link Parent
        There's also a similar split in the Republicans, though it's older, rooted in the original Tea Party (before it was bought out by Koch). The libertarian-leaning republicans come in between 10-15%...

        There's also a similar split in the Republicans, though it's older, rooted in the original Tea Party (before it was bought out by Koch). The libertarian-leaning republicans come in between 10-15% of the total RNC voting base depending on poll sources/locations, and I get the sense they are just as fed up with the RNC as the progressive wing of the liberals is with the DNC. They aren't keen on the libertarian party for the most part, either.

        We always see third party voting billed as a siphon on blue votes. I think the opportunity is there for a third party to siphon from both major parties. If you can get the libertarian conservatives and liberal progressives on the same page for one cycle, you might have a shot. Yang and Tulsi were the democrats that got the attention of the libertarians this cycle. They like Tulsi for her military background, and they like Yang for his libertarian-minded implementations of standard progressive policy (and that's the glue that makes this possible). They are the only democrats I don't see regularly flame-roasted on conservative leaning forums or shows.

        Can we find someone both sides like? Will anyone ever chase that option? If they did, could they win? If they won, could that coalition actually make a difference? Frankly, it's hard to see how. What seems clear, though, is that there's a sizeable chunk of the red and blue voters that are both ready to break ranks from their respective parties. They aren't happy with their choices on either side.

        In your split scenario there (which I can honestly see as a possibility) there are plenty on both sides of the aisle to bring in.

        3 votes
      3. [10]
        Comment removed by site admin
        Link Parent
        1. [8]
          Adys
          Link Parent
          Jesus. Like, I get where you're coming from, but calling Biden a scumbag (or a "piece of shit") is just … not only misguided, but outright toxic. If you folks want to play politics with the grown...

          Jesus. Like, I get where you're coming from, but calling Biden a scumbag (or a "piece of shit") is just … not only misguided, but outright toxic.

          If you folks want to play politics with the grown ups, a good course correction would be to stop the character assassination of anyone who doesn't meet 100% of your ideals.

          I get calling Trump, McConnell, Graham and plenty more "scumbags". They're beyond deserving it. But every fucking US election since I started paying mild attention to them 16 years ago you have people reaching for words like "scumbag" in minutes, even for their own party.

          You're a country of over 320 million people. No politician will please everyone. Not agreeing with a politician happens, and the thing with people like Biden is he's an actual politician, so you can actually effect change on him and people like him if you make a good case for it. The politics of people like Biden are never going to represent an extreme, but rather a direction.

          This reactionary shit will dig a bigger hole for all of you. (And I say this as someone who is probably more left wing than you are)

          20 votes
          1. [8]
            Comment removed by site admin
            Link Parent
            1. [6]
              skybrian
              Link Parent
              Biden is never going to read this. The question is, does name-calling of this sort improve conversation on Tildes? I would like to discourage using Tildes as a place to vent. It seems like we...

              Biden is never going to read this. The question is, does name-calling of this sort improve conversation on Tildes? I would like to discourage using Tildes as a place to vent.

              It seems like we should be less certain and more curious about what Biden is up to. One article isn’t definitive. Better to start out the conversation by asking questions than with a hot take.

              The question of what Biden’s standards for hiring should be could be interesting, but remember that none of us has the relevant political connections to influence it, as far as anyone knows. We’re just observing. So, it’s a theoretical discussion for us.

              18 votes
              1. [6]
                Comment removed by site admin
                Link Parent
                1. [3]
                  streblo
                  Link Parent
                  There are plenty of places where you can vent emotionally charged arguments into the abyss of the internet. I'd rather Tildes does not become a home for yet more toxic outrage, especially over...

                  There are plenty of places where you can vent emotionally charged arguments into the abyss of the internet. I'd rather Tildes does not become a home for yet more toxic outrage, especially over something as trivial as the hiring of a person to a position totally not relevant to their perceived lacking.

                  11 votes
                  1. [3]
                    Comment removed by site admin
                    Link Parent
                    1. Diff
                      Link Parent
                      Way I'm reading it, it's not about passion, it's about venom. You can have one without the other.

                      Way I'm reading it, it's not about passion, it's about venom. You can have one without the other.

                      13 votes
                    2. streblo
                      Link Parent
                      You can be passionate without being toxic. I have no problem with people discussing this, even if I think this is manufactured outrage. But we can do it in a way without referencing mass murder...

                      You can be passionate without being toxic. I have no problem with people discussing this, even if I think this is manufactured outrage. But we can do it in a way without referencing mass murder and other conversation stoppers.

                      This is a discussion board. If you truly believe what you're saying there is no discussion to be had, it's just you venting. And believe it or not, your language does far more to undermine your cause than support it.

                      7 votes
                2. [2]
                  skybrian
                  Link Parent
                  On the other hand, strong emotion can blind us to the ways politics doesn’t affect our lives unless we pay attention. Hardly anything about Biden’s transition has had any effect on us yet, other...

                  On the other hand, strong emotion can blind us to the ways politics doesn’t affect our lives unless we pay attention. Hardly anything about Biden’s transition has had any effect on us yet, other than via reading the news and political discussion. It’s all about hope and anticipation, events dimly seen and not well-understood, happening at a distance.

                  Sometimes you need to look up from your computer and see that the world didn’t change. Unless it has. It’s important to be able to tell the difference.

                  4 votes
                  1. [2]
                    Comment removed by site admin
                    Link Parent
                    1. skybrian
                      Link Parent
                      I think that following politics closely can result in a lot of unnecessary stress over intermediate results with no difference in the end. It would have been nice to just ignore politics for a...

                      I think that following politics closely can result in a lot of unnecessary stress over intermediate results with no difference in the end. It would have been nice to just ignore politics for a week after the election and I admire people who can manage it.

                      Just because we identify closely with what’s going on and feel strongly about it doesn’t mean we are being effective.

                      6 votes
            2. Adys
              Link Parent
              I'm sure biden can take being called every name you want. I don't know that Tildes is the place to do so. It doesn't improve discussion quality here, and it frankly doesn't sound like you're even...

              I'm sure biden can take being called every name you want. I don't know that Tildes is the place to do so. It doesn't improve discussion quality here, and it frankly doesn't sound like you're even open to have a policy discussion that goes beyond calling people names.

              9 votes
        2. RNG
          Link Parent
          I phone banked for Biden. I drove people to the polls for Biden. I campaigned for Biden. Now, me and fellow progressives receive toxicity from the right-wing of the democratic party for daring to...

          I phone banked for Biden. I drove people to the polls for Biden. I campaigned for Biden.

          Now, me and fellow progressives receive toxicity from the right-wing of the democratic party for daring to challenge them. I now know the whole "elect us, and progressives get a seat at the table" narrative from rightist democrats is 100% bullshit.

          7 votes
    3. PopeRigby
      Link Parent
      I would not consider Joe Biden a leftist in any sense of the word.

      leftist infighting

      I would not consider Joe Biden a leftist in any sense of the word.

      2 votes
    4. [3]
      Comment removed by site admin
      Link Parent
      1. wycy
        Link Parent
        As best I can tell, the article itself is accurate in describing the job as one that focuses "in part" on climate issues, though the headline is arguably misleading. Headlines that mislead...

        As best I can tell, the article itself is accurate in describing the job as one that focuses "in part" on climate issues, though the headline is arguably misleading. Headlines that mislead relative to article content is a huge problem I have with mainstream media, so it is disappointing to see Jacobin stoop to using the same tricks.

        2 votes
  2. teaearlgraycold
    Link
    So glad to see people that voted for Biden aren't in a cult and can complain about him.

    So glad to see people that voted for Biden aren't in a cult and can complain about him.

    8 votes
  3. [5]
    Comment removed by site admin
    Link
    1. [4]
      Adys
      Link Parent
      Control of your senate is tied right now. Woe is me. I don't even know how to address such a generic complaint. At least the article about Richmond was specific. Didn't he already say he's not...

      He’s snubbed Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren

      Control of your senate is tied right now.

      appointed some disappointing members of staff

      Woe is me. I don't even know how to address such a generic complaint. At least the article about Richmond was specific.

      the president-elect could end up primaried in 2024

      Didn't he already say he's not going to run for a second term or something?

      10 votes
      1. [3]
        Comment deleted by author
        Link Parent
        1. [2]
          vord
          Link Parent
          Not really a problem. Governors get to choose the interim replacements, so if you stay away from the Republican-led states, it could be a way to usher in a new Democrat to replace an aging...

          let alone had they started plucking people out of the Senate

          Not really a problem. Governors get to choose the interim replacements, so if you stay away from the Republican-led states, it could be a way to usher in a new Democrat to replace an aging incumbent rather than having a full open election without a sitting incumbent.

          4 votes
          1. NaraVara
            Link Parent
            All the Democrats people really like are in states with Republican governors or whose seats would go up to strong Republican competition. This includes both Warren and Sanders. It even includes...

            so if you stay away from the Republican-led states, it could be a way to usher in a new Democrat to replace an aging incumbent rather than having a full open election without a sitting incumbent.

            All the Democrats people really like are in states with Republican governors or whose seats would go up to strong Republican competition. This includes both Warren and Sanders. It even includes some of the non-progressive but administratively competent people like Klobuchar.

            The safe Democratic Senators are people like Chuck Schumer or Feinstein. The very thing that makes them boring centrists is because their seats are a solid lock for being Democratic.

            Plus Senators don't necessarily make great heads of agencies anyway. The ones who do are usually poor fits for the Senate to start, like Hillary Clinton. It's a different set of skills running an agency and negotiating legislation. The only reason we talk about them is because they're high profile and we've heard their names before. But for every currently famous Elizabeth Warren there's another 30 people just as smart and capable as her that we've never heard of because they work for some think tank, university, private industry, or advocacy organization that doesn't get them on the news aside from the occasional comment on CSPAN.

            5 votes
      2. [2]
        Comment deleted by author
        Link Parent
        1. Omnicrola
          Link Parent
          I fully anticipate Biden not running a second term, however I also fully believe he won't state that for at least 2 years (unless health reasons or etc). I think he and a few others probably...

          I fully anticipate Biden not running a second term, however I also fully believe he won't state that for at least 2 years (unless health reasons or etc). I think he and a few others probably already have a few people picked out to run in his place and are already laying plans to set them up to be elevated in the public eye, get good PR, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if it's Kamala herself.