Politico Apparently Puzzled By Fossil-Fueled Republicans Sticking To Loser Pro-Fossil Message
Politico does a lot of great reporting. But like any brand or organization, it has also done dumb stuff that invites criticism, even before it was bought by someone who thinks climate change is good.
For example, last week, normally great Zack Colman and Washington Examiner alum Josh Siegel co-bylined a story headlined originally "Why Republicans see electoral gold in talking up energy," later changed to "GOP’s climate counter punch: pushing more fossil fuels." The second definitely makes more sense, as the former seems to suggest their fossil fuel fealty is popular. (Reminder: headlines are generally written by editors not reporters.)
It's not! And that's what Colman and Siegel report! The GOP's reheated "all of the above" climate denial 2.0 messaging "fell flat for Republicans in the 2022 midterms," (just as it did in 2020 and 2018) "and new polling shared with POLITICO shows that the GOP’s legislative achievements aren’t energizing voters in some key states on the 2024 map, threatening their ambitions once again to win the Senate and White House."
Oh! So it's been a loser message, and looks to still be one. "Republicans, however, have faith in the message," according to Politico, "even as they acknowledge the difficulty in translating energy permitting into campaign trail slogans."
Over the next 1,300 words, Coleman and Seigel quote Republicans flailing to justify their "faith" in oil and gas messaging, and then counter it with realities, like the fact that nearly 60% of Americans believe we "should place a priority on alternative energy instead of oil and gas."
Sadly they don't ever point out the obvious reason behind Republican pro-fossil fuel messaging. They get close though! "It’s not hard to see why Republicans would want to focus on energy," they write, and we can practically see where editors struck the end of the sentence that must've said something like 'because of campaign donations.' But alas, the next sentence instead claims it's because the GOP is united on the issue, "in contrast to other flashpoints like abortion." Why is the GOP united? Not explained!
Later, though, they do mention that "outside groups aligned with Republicans are pouring money into efforts to turn energy policy into a national campaign liability for Democrats."
But what they apparently could not find space to mention, in the very very lengthy piece, was how much each one of those ardently pro-fossil fuel Republicans is getting in campaign donations from the fossil fuel industry!
For example, it took us all of about three minutes to tally up how much each of the four named Republicans in the image illustrating Politico’s story got from the Energy and Natural Resources industry over the course of their careers. Between them, Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers ($2.2m), Bruce Westerman ($655k), Steve Scalise ($3.3m), and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy ($4.8m) have gotten over $10 million from the energy industry.
That's 10 million reasons for them to have "faith" in fossil fuel-friendly messaging!
So no, it's not at all hard to see why the GOP wants to talk about energy. What's hard to see is why Politico didn't want to talk about everything except that financial information.
That's why we put together this handy custom Google search for reporters everywhere. Just put in a politician's name, or a climate disinformation think tank or even one of their talking points, and be directed straight to OpenSecrets for their campaign finance donors, or DeSmog for front group funders, or Skeptical Science, Politifact, or ClimateFeedback for fact checks of their disinfo!
No more excuses for taking claims of "faith" on faith! |
|