I saw Treasury Secretary Scott Bissent (spelling?) being interviewed on CNN about Elon a few days ago. (Elon shoved Bissent in the hallway at the White House cause he was mad about something and then he called Bissent a moron.)
Bissent told CNN that Elon completed his DOGE thing and was now needed by the shareholders of his many companies. Bissent was succinct and polite. Whomever posted the CNN video snippet said that maybe now we know who gave Elon a black eye that day.
EDIT: I just read your .is linky to article. Glad they quoted Bissent.
My understanding is that people inclined to vote Democrat really hate Musk. Ross Perot, Jesse Ventura and even Ralph Nader had more cross-party appeal than an organization that Musk is behind.
A Musk party will draw votes from Republicans and shift things in favor of the Democrats which is good for Democrats on some level but bad because they need to reform themselves, not live life on "easy mode".
Musk's complaint seems to be that he gave a lot of money to Trump's campaign but didn't get to write the budget, so I think he'll feel betrayed if he elects candidates who don't follow his orders -- and they won't. American political parties aren't like the Communist Party (which chooses you and can kick you out), they don't have any way to discipline elected officials who don't toe the line.
Instead of making a new party he should try to revive the pre-Trump Republican party.
Here are some things from the 2008 Republican Party Platform [1] that illustrate what Republicans used to be for that Trump has completely reversed the current party on:
• They wanted to address climate change.
> By increasing our American energy supply and decreasing the long term demand for oil, we will be well positioned to address the challenge of climate change and continue our longstanding responsibility for stewardship over the environment.
...
> As part of a global climate change strategy, Republicans support technology-driven, market-based solutions that will decrease emissions, reduce excess greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, increase energy efficiency, mitigate the impact of climate change where it occurs, and maximize any ancillary benefits climate change might offer for the economy.
...
> Because Republicans believe that solutions to the risk of global climate change will be found in the ingenuity of the American people, we propose a Climate Prize for scientists who solve the challenges of climate change. Honoraria of many millions of dollars would be a small price for technological developments that eliminate our need for gas-powered cars or abate atmospheric carbon.
• They wanted to encourage clean energy.
> Alternate power sources must enter the mainstream. The technology behind solar energy has improved significantly in recent years, and the commercial development of wind power promises major benefits both in costs and in environmental protection. Republicans support these and other alternative energy sources, including geothermal and hydropower, and anticipate technological developments that will increase their economic viability. We therefore advocate a long-term energy tax credit equally applicable to all renewable power sources.
• They wanted to reduce demand for fossil fuels.
> Conservation does not mean deprivation; it means efficiency and achieving more with less. Most Americans today endeavor to conserve fossil fuels, whether in their cars or in their home heating, but we can do better. We can construct better and smarter buildings, use smarter thermostats and transmission grids, increase recycling, and make energy-efficient consumer purchases. Wireless communications, for example, can increase telecommuting options and cut back on business travel. The Republican goal is to ensure that Americans have more conservation options that will enable them to make the best choices for their families.
...
> We must also produce more vehicles that operate on electricity and natural gas, both to reduce demand for oil and to cut CO2 emissions.
> Given that fully 97 percent of our current transportation vehicles rely on oil, we will aggressively support technological advances to reduce our petroleum dependence. For example, lightweight composites could halve the weight and double the gas mileage of cars and trucks, and together with flex-fuel and electric vehicles, could usher in a renaissance in the American auto industry.
Note that in 2008, the Republican party got absolutely massacred. The Democrats won the Senate by a filibuster-proof margin. The Republicans were saved only by the death of Ted Kennedy, and even Massachusetts didn't want the Democrats to have that much control.
The Republicans came roaring back in 2010, in large part because they abandoned the positions you outlined. Those simply aren't positions Republicans hold.
Those are much closer to Democratic positions. If those are his goals, it might work better to stage a takeover of the Democratic party. Although Republicans run successfully against the most progressive elements of the Democratic party, they're actually not very influential. (That is, in large part, why they lose -- they can't keep their own progressive wing, who considers the party leadership right wing.)
Or at least, somebody other than Musk could try it. He's an extremely unreliable partner and it would be extremely difficult to convince Democrats that he's on their side.
7 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 22.0 ms ] threadBissent told CNN that Elon completed his DOGE thing and was now needed by the shareholders of his many companies. Bissent was succinct and polite. Whomever posted the CNN video snippet said that maybe now we know who gave Elon a black eye that day.
EDIT: I just read your .is linky to article. Glad they quoted Bissent.
A Musk party will draw votes from Republicans and shift things in favor of the Democrats which is good for Democrats on some level but bad because they need to reform themselves, not live life on "easy mode".
Musk's complaint seems to be that he gave a lot of money to Trump's campaign but didn't get to write the budget, so I think he'll feel betrayed if he elects candidates who don't follow his orders -- and they won't. American political parties aren't like the Communist Party (which chooses you and can kick you out), they don't have any way to discipline elected officials who don't toe the line.
Here are some things from the 2008 Republican Party Platform [1] that illustrate what Republicans used to be for that Trump has completely reversed the current party on:
• They wanted to address climate change.
> By increasing our American energy supply and decreasing the long term demand for oil, we will be well positioned to address the challenge of climate change and continue our longstanding responsibility for stewardship over the environment.
...
> As part of a global climate change strategy, Republicans support technology-driven, market-based solutions that will decrease emissions, reduce excess greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, increase energy efficiency, mitigate the impact of climate change where it occurs, and maximize any ancillary benefits climate change might offer for the economy.
...
> Because Republicans believe that solutions to the risk of global climate change will be found in the ingenuity of the American people, we propose a Climate Prize for scientists who solve the challenges of climate change. Honoraria of many millions of dollars would be a small price for technological developments that eliminate our need for gas-powered cars or abate atmospheric carbon.
• They wanted to encourage clean energy.
> Alternate power sources must enter the mainstream. The technology behind solar energy has improved significantly in recent years, and the commercial development of wind power promises major benefits both in costs and in environmental protection. Republicans support these and other alternative energy sources, including geothermal and hydropower, and anticipate technological developments that will increase their economic viability. We therefore advocate a long-term energy tax credit equally applicable to all renewable power sources.
• They wanted to reduce demand for fossil fuels.
> Conservation does not mean deprivation; it means efficiency and achieving more with less. Most Americans today endeavor to conserve fossil fuels, whether in their cars or in their home heating, but we can do better. We can construct better and smarter buildings, use smarter thermostats and transmission grids, increase recycling, and make energy-efficient consumer purchases. Wireless communications, for example, can increase telecommuting options and cut back on business travel. The Republican goal is to ensure that Americans have more conservation options that will enable them to make the best choices for their families.
...
> We must also produce more vehicles that operate on electricity and natural gas, both to reduce demand for oil and to cut CO2 emissions.
> Given that fully 97 percent of our current transportation vehicles rely on oil, we will aggressively support technological advances to reduce our petroleum dependence. For example, lightweight composites could halve the weight and double the gas mileage of cars and trucks, and together with flex-fuel and electric vehicles, could usher in a renaissance in the American auto industry.
[1] https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2008-republican-pa...
The Republicans came roaring back in 2010, in large part because they abandoned the positions you outlined. Those simply aren't positions Republicans hold.
Those are much closer to Democratic positions. If those are his goals, it might work better to stage a takeover of the Democratic party. Although Republicans run successfully against the most progressive elements of the Democratic party, they're actually not very influential. (That is, in large part, why they lose -- they can't keep their own progressive wing, who considers the party leadership right wing.)
Or at least, somebody other than Musk could try it. He's an extremely unreliable partner and it would be extremely difficult to convince Democrats that he's on their side.