Home | About | Donate

Progressives Slam Oil-Soaked Steny Hoyer for Backing Joe Kennedy III Over Green New Deal Champion Ed Markey

Funny since he proclaims to have been running a ‘progressive’ campaign but his ‘criminal reform’ statements seem to fall flat when researching his work history. He is a sneaky one, seems happier voting with dims rather than stirring the pot and he has been named as recipient of oil and gas money while advocating for a ‘wind farm’ in Nantucket Sound. I cannot get a good read on him but he seems just another Sneaky Neolib. Or maybe not so sneaky.

1 Like

Agreed. That the Globe reported his “surprise” that state party actors
didn’t immediately support his primary when he announced tells you all you need to know.

Yeah, he could move a lot further to the Left. He could support an end to Imperial War, he could have voted against the covid corporate give-aways. He could have voted against Obama’s repeal of the Magna Carta’s Habeas Corpus protections he could have voted for protections from FISA abuses just last week.

Democrats haven’t been the Left for 4 decades. The Left has no representation at all in American Government, just a few charlatans lying to them about their concerns. Until people favoring the Left abandon the Democrat wing of the Republican agenda, all change will continue to be for the worse.


Hope Markey defeats Kennedy.

Would definitely back a progressive challenger to Hoyer. Steny is the quintessential Establishment/Corporate Dem. He is really holding good things back.


Doesn’t have to be first but I wouldn’t phrase it this way as it implies it is a less significant driver than it is. I don’t know your favorite source on top level US energy breakdowns but I see numbers close to 30% of all energy consumed to move goods and people. That’s a lot and most of it uses oil currently. Isn’t changing this sector a big part of well studied plans you advocate we read? (I’m slow so I’ve only just started the NREL study). There are opportunities for efficiency (EVs are more efficient) and considerable demand efficiency when it comes to goods transport (more rail, changing consumption patterns).

I know your main complaints but I think you’ll get more mileage here by dropping the relevant facts on a particular subset of the energy issue as opposed to telling us most of us and most of our representatives are dumb (true or not it doesn’t help).

Just sent McKayla a small donation. I sure wish her the best. Watched some of her videos, and she seems like a very thoughtful and compassionate woman. We need more like her, and less like Pelosi and Hoyer.


Kennedys are oligarchic ?? The brothers who sought world peace and rewarded by the MIC with bullets to the head are oligarchic . Get effin real.


And you want me to vote for Democrats in November??

1 Like

Given all we’ve learned about the Kennedys, Joe III is the first one I’ve wanted to slap around.

I suggest that, instead of looking at specifics, we would do better to look at the general system the specifics are embedded in.

Elizabeth Anderson, a well-respected academic philosopher, wrote a book called "Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and Why We Don’t Talk about it). What she’s talking about is a dumber version of Benito Mussolini - fascism = corporatism.

Trump admires Mussolini. Are you surprised? Koch and Pope elected him. “Democracy in Chains” by Nancy MacLean tells where that came from, and it’s butt-ugly but it goes in the direction the corporatists, Trump’s biggest contributors (the White House is loaded with Koch water-carriers, beginning with Mike Pence) were corporatists, who are also the people (?) Anderson talks about. The corporation as an instrument of social control, left over from Andy Jackson’s VP, John C. Calhoun, was too racist to run for President and settling for VP in the 1820s and 30s - the most racist period in American history, whose concentration was on the elimination of democracy, as it remains today. Corporatism (libertarianism, today’s corporatists call it) has Calhoun’s solution - labor on the slavery model.

We miss this when we focus on the minutia producced by Progressives. I’m a Green, and I don’t give a shit for the left or the right. One’s pretty much openly fascist (starting at the top) and the other wants to get there with clean fingernails. Watch “Cradle Will Rock” paying attention to what the rich of that time (just before WWII) felt about fascism. That class hasn’t changed.

As much as Calhoun raged against it, Madison left the vote for the people in the Constitution, thinking it held the people far enough away from power to chance it. Jim Hightower said getting Progressives to pull in the same direction is like herding cats. As long as that’s true (no progressive group is too small to split).

Bottom line: If McConnell and Pelosi (and Hoyer, the reigning champ of scum-bait worship) are re-elected, the way things go is predetermined. GND is doomed. There aren’t enough “congress critters” to make any difference, and I wouldn’t bet on either AOC or Markey to win their primary. Even if they do, they don’t matter. “Libertarians” are willing to shoot anyone willing to stand in their way. They proved it in the 60s. We’ve gone the wrong way since the Big Three (weakness for the flesh notwithstanding) were taken out by these guys, the private government.

Our only hope is that we can organize a sufficient force to dislodge libertarians from power and the platform to resurrect democracy that can be immediately adopted and made permanent. Democracy’s not the complete solution. We have to break our addiction to comfort and live in ways not harmful to the life system and we have to have our organization going all the time, not just in elections.

Sorry guys.


The solution to the Sixth Mass Extinction (even libertarians die) is either lessening our expectations - living carbon negative lives - or lessening the human population. Trump and his buds chose the last option, so they have nine wars going now and won’t mobilize to stop covid-19 or global warming. They want the money flow to resume. If they can get rid of enough parasites, they can stay on this planet a while longer. There’s no place else to go. They’re playing the longshot, too. Neither stops, or even addresses, the 6ME, and nothing else matters.

1 Like

when are Americans going to wake up to the sad fact that the Democratic establishment ceased to work for the American people with the election of Clinton and has succumbed to the steady co-option of the party by the same corporatists and wealth accumulators who own the Republican party–and if any of you think that they can be reformed–it has been tried every election cycle since Clinton --and I am sure you can see the results------- the progressives gave up their power to Pelosi who promptly gave away any leverage the Dems might have had by voting for EVERY SINGLE CORPORATE BAILOUT–while letting the American people twist in the wind for the second time in just a few short years— if we ever want to actually address the multiple levels of nonfunctional systems in our society, we will have to get rid of BOTH our current political establishments–and if there are ANY true progressives in the Democratic party --it is way past time for them to walk away from the dysfunction to form the party we need so desperately–not holding my breath


I agree completely. I had typed “He couldn’t move any farther to the left on energy” but shortened it because I thought that since that was all we were talking about it would be understood.

Whenever I go for concisity I regret it. We does have the Squad, who are advocating for pretty much every progressive cause that has circulated including dramamamatically reducing the military—in favor of a Climate Conservation Corps, eg., though they aren’t quite as far as you and I might like. And enshrining rights of nature in the Constitution doesn’t come up, although if the Squad had power I bet it would.

1 Like

Of course that’s ridiculous; there’s been lots of analysis of the best ideas and in the many versions of the Green New Deal. But here’s the essence of all the analysis:

We’re a fabulously wealthy society despite the long and ongoing destruction of that wealth (healthy humans living in a thriving natural world). We need to ditch fossil fuels in the next 10 years or less for civilization and most life on Earth to survive. Nooks can’t do it; only efficiency, wiser lives and clean safe renewable energy can, and honest numbers make that obvious. Since we have to do it, the cost doesn’t matter, though it will cost much less than what we have now. Because of the long and continued refusal of the rich and the right to admit fact or see reason, we’ll have to replace the current system with one that operates without either. It’s clear that radical equality, a full safety net, and nationalizing the fossil fuel, agrochemical, ICEV, banking and other industries to shut them down in a fast and orderly way in coordination with their replacement is the only reasonable path.

Joe Biden Said No Scientist Supports Bernie Sanders’ Climate Plan. Dozens Just Did.
“…the Sanders campaign released a statement (~https://www.huffpost.com/entry/scientists-letter-bernie-sanders-climate-plan_n_5e31c276c5b690f10577168f ) signed by 57 science professors and researchers across the country, declaring that his plan “is not only possible, but it must be done if we want to save the planet for ourselves, our children, grandchildren, and future generations.””

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s climate plan is the only one that matches scientific consensus on the environment
June 27, 2018 ~https://qz.com/1316082/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-green-new-deal-could-make-the-us-a-climate-change-leader/

A Green New Deal is fiscally responsible. Climate inaction is not

The Green New Deal Costs Less Than Doing Nothing
Republicans keep saying Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s plan is too expensive. But their own plan—to ignore the climate crisis—is even more so.

Sanders’ Green New Deal: A Realistic Response to the Emergency That Will Define Our Lifetimes
“Contrary to what the New York Times recently suggested, Bernie’s plan is the only one put forward by a major candidate that represents a level of ambition that matches the scale of the unprecedented crisis in which humanity now finds itself deeply entangled.”


We agree that “Without a massive, comprehensive, emergency GND, we’re unlikely to survive… as all species are wiped out.” See how I started with where we agree? All GND proposals stress zero-emission thus BEV. FACT: Battery and Charging resources are more effectively, equitably distributed via plug-in hybrid PHEV tech. You haven’t proven that fact to be wrong. All GND stress 200mph electric HSR as if the many more routes that standard diesel-electric passenger-rail applications readily reconstructed NOW aren’t important. Now, not after decades a few massive concrete noisy eye sores. Huge Battery BEV freight trucks - Daimler and Tesla - are a wrongful waste and probably prosecutable criminal act. We also agree on neighborhood mini-grid which I say ideally matched with PHEV. Something to think about.

The last line, “Your magnetic ink” was meant to imply sincere progressive sector voters are misleading everyone to believe “driverless car” tech is a solution. Corporate republican profit interests know that more driving and worse dependence upon driving would result with driverless tech. Democrat leaders too are misled, unlike Republican leaders we should fear for what they’re not saying as if what they are saying isn’t horrible enough. I’m a careful counter of pros n’ cons. Progress when/where achieved is a credit more on the Left column. The Right is damn near Third Reich as they’ve ever been.

I can’t really figure out if you meant to reply to something I posted or if you meant reply to someone else or the author of the article. I don’t recall saying anything about driverless cars, explicitly or implicitly.

1 Like

The name Kennedy sure doesn’t hold the same water it used to.

It’s been replaced with Oil.

Concisity not recognized as a word, = concision is probably what you meant.

Although obviously i knew what you meant!

1 Like

Yes, thanks for pointing out what we agree on and only then continuing with your nonsensical obsession. And then the sandwich. I feel so much better about you now.

Your claim about batteries is so counter-intuitive, and so completely opposite everything written about the topic it’s almost certainly wrong. You’re making an extraordinary, actually unique claim so it’s your obligation to either come up with evidence supporting it or [censored] aka stop making the claim. I reinforced the point that it’s almost certainly wrong by saying battery components are abundant, and got no argument. (Most lithium comes from seawater; other common battery chemistries are on the verge of wide availability, and batteries can be reused after vehicle applications, then a lot can be recycled.) And EV batteries have just recently equalled consumer electronics applications in lithium consumption so there’s a huge well of rationing or other reduction if needed. Which it never will be.

I’ve asked you 4 or 5 times to come up with evidence; you haven’t.

Are you sure you’ve seen “all GND” proposals? You’ve seemed unfamiliar with the genre before. And I don’t think they all specify 200 mph for the HSR. I wonder if any of them do.

You seem to just make random things up and then pretend they mitigate against HSR and BEVs; it’s very odd.

We have to stop using fossil fuels. Diesel is a fossil fuel. Ergo, we have to stop using diesel. “Electrify everything”* is an accepted part of renewablizing. Unless you disagree, then of course we’ll cancel that. No one here is saying converting non-HSR lines isn’t important. But since we have to stop using fossil fuels we either have to stop flying or convert all planes to electricity or technologies that don’t exist yet. So we have to stop flying, and the only way that will be acceptable is to replace it with high speed rail. China built its first 16,000 miles of HSR during the same 10 years they were building 400,000 EV buses and leading the world in building solar PV and wind so unless you suggest we should do it badly, we can build all the HSR and other rail and all the batteries we need in the decade or less that we have.

Because rail is so much more efficient than flying we have to use it more. And there’s no way to get stuff from rail yards to destinations without trucks. The trucks have to be electric. Your opposition to crucial technologies is getting more and more suspicious.

“…after decades a few massive concrete noisy eye sores.” huh? As I’ve probably said several times, we don’t have decades; we have one at most. I’ll be happy to link once more to numerous studies and expert opinions saying so but you seem not to have a problem with that–at least you haven’t argued about it.

BEVs do everything PHEVs do, but better. That includes providing storage for households, grids, and micro-grids. Would you rather have a big battery providing power for your car and house and the grid, or a small battery? Let’s see… um… no, I can’t figure that out either. Too complicated for my feeble mind. And no evidence!

I’ve enjoyed your amusingly bizarre logic and outrageous nonsense, (although I really wish we knew why you chose to pretend to have such a negative obsession with these 2 things in particular.) Thank you for pretending to be an obsessed nutcase (“probably prosecutable criminal act”?) just for our entertainment. (See, I can do a complement sandwich too.) But you can stop now.

*(except for things converted to clothesline paradox energies)

1 Like