While most eyes are on what will happen with HolyJoe in the Senate organizational vote in the coming days, on the House side Henry Waxman's challenge against John Dingell for the Chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. There is much to be discussed about this battle.
To place it simply, Henry Waxman is a leader on reasonably decent Global Warming legislation principles while John Dingell has fought action and is lead on a disastrously bad climate plan that might have been interesting years ago but simply shouldn't be a serious part of the discussion space today.
There is, however, an interesting aspect of all this. There have been at least 22 diaries/stories mentioning John Dingell in the past two weeks, generally discussing Waxman's bid to unseat Dingell.
The Chair of this Committee has a key role in the management and movement of any serious Global Warming legislation through the House of Representatives. A friend to fossil fools, expect a harder time for serious legislation and expect more giveaways to industry. Someone focused on the scientific necessities, expect favoritism to creating the 21st century innovative industries and creating a path toward a prosperous, climate-friendly soicety.
And, to be clear, $100s of billions (more likely $trillions) will be at stake in these discussions, with the possibility of real financial winners and losers dependent on obscure sentences' implications.
Between Dingell and Waxman we have a stark contrast as to the realities of Global Warming and the necessity for determined action. Dingell has authored legislation that falls short of scientific guidance while Waxman is a leading writer/signer of principles calling for dedication to those scientific principles.
This diary is not really meant as a rehash of all this but to raise something of interest, of distress to this community ...
Trolling for Dingell?
Considering the quite significant difference between Dingell and Waxman and, more importantly, the quite real financial stakes in the game, would it be surprising that people would view this with real seriousness? And, that they are trying to influence this in whatever way that they can?
As part of this, it looks as if there is an organized effort to 'troll' Daily Kos in support of John Dingell. To be clear, these could be coming from Dingell's supporters, these could be auto-industry or from the UAW, fossil fool industry, or ... In any event, this looks like too much of a coincidence to be coincidental ...
Consider these users:
All new users. All within a 66 number range. And, all without a single diary (okay, too recent) and comments solely in diaries related to Waxman's challenge to John Dingell, and all comments supporting Dingell (and many demeaning Waxman, including with troll-meriting words).
How about, for example, "goblueman" calling Waxman a "shitbag" or ranting against this community as You people make me sick to my stomach. God bless the real Democrats, the rest of you people can go to hell. We can look to Jocko13 insulting Waxman's nostrils. Of all, perhaps my favorite was Jocko13's Raely on DailyKos, a full bore attack on someone questioning Dingell, to which I responded:
Raely on Daily Kos ..."
With a UID of 196802, can we ask just how much you have been around to understand what is strong and weak here?
Your comment isn't worth the electrons burned in sending it.
Well, perhaps we should take the compliment. Someone (more than one) believes diaries and discussions at Daily Kos have influence. Someone (a group of someones) is making a coordinated effort to try to influence those discussions. Perhaps our concern should be that they are so hamhanded in the approach. Perhaps it is the one's who are less obvious that should really concern us?
And, we live in an era of consequences. Our actions and choices have meaning. We must undertake significant change amid the turmoil of the Energy-Climate Era. And, if that change doesn't radically shift our recklessly polluting and wasteful habits we face a crash that will make us nostalgic for the financial turmoil we are experiencing.
The fight for sensible paths forward will continue.
And, there will be those fighting change.
Are these seven of them?
Too coincidental to be coincidence?
UPDATE: Much good relevant material out there. For example, Joe Romm, Climate Progress, Q: Does Dingell-Boucher have meaningful auctioning of CO2 permits before 2026? Answer: No! "Dingell-Boucher should not be what the Obama administration builds its climate legislation around."