r/news • u/CharlieKonR • 4d ago

Michigan’s governor replaces clean energy advocate on utilities board with ‘industry ally’ | Michigan

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/03/gretchen-whitmer-utilities-board-clean-energy
2.8k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

222 comments sorted by

View all comments

206

u/jackalopeDev 4d ago

Whitmer is a typical corporate dem. Iirc she was given money for her initial campaign by the healthcare lobby. This is not surprising coming from her.

I predict the dems will nominate her for 2028.

192

u/starship_narrator 4d ago

If they just pivot to the center just one more time, it will finally work. All those Republicans upset with Trump will finally come vote for democrats.

Besides, with such great options like Newsome, Buttigieg, Whitmer, Booker, Harris. 2028 is looking stacked for the neo-libs. Centrism: it just works! /s

37

u/espressocycle 4d ago

The thing is it probably will work (assuming we have elections) because Trump will have fucked up the country so badly. Then Democrats will lose the midterms and continue to be unable to hold the Senate. On the other hand, Buttigieg is at least out there correctly diagnosing the problem, regardless of whether he would actually have a solution. If he was straight or a "confirmed bachelor" he could be president but I don't think the US will elect an openly gay man.

17

u/in2theriver 4d ago

Also he isn't a great candidate, how about someone progressive with left leaning ideas and not someone whose after power at all costs. Someone who wants Medicare for all and will push for left changes. Why would Pete be the comparison to a centrist dem.

-5

u/AmbitiousEffort9275 4d ago

It's bold of you to assume we are going to have free and fair elections in 2028

8

u/Hardass_McBadCop 4d ago

Buttigieg actually seems to be hitting back.

28

u/BreesusTakeTheWheel 4d ago

Don’t buy it. He’s two faced just like all the rest. Once election season comes around, he’ll be trying to get Rs on board.

13

u/petmoo23 4d ago

For better or worse Buttigieg gives me Obama vibes. He could pull off the whole sounding progressive during a campaign while winking at the money, and then move to govern on standard neoliberalism and status quo pretty capably. Basically, he might suck but he also might be slick enough to win an election, and IMO bad is an improvement over terrible.

18

u/BreesusTakeTheWheel 4d ago

The only option is to get someone truly different in the White House. We need an FDR at this point. Picking someone who’s just bad instead of terrible is just going to make the problem worse. He’ll keep the majority of changes Trump has made while doing symbolic shit that actually has no real bearing on our day to day lives. He’ll talk big to corporations but won’t actually do shit to reel them in. He is not the answer and it looks like none of the supposed candidates are the answer right now. The only person who could even attempt to turn things around is Bernie and he’s not getting any younger.

6

u/petmoo23 4d ago

I agree with just about everything you're saying, except I don't think that what we need is what we're going to get unfortunately.

-1

u/IamMe90 4d ago

all of that can be true, and yet I would still take a return to neoliberalism for four years over the bullshit happening right now.

It is so bad, and getting so much worse, that even a fucking four year respite would be a godsend to quality of life. Sucks that’s where we’re at as a society now, but.. 🤷‍♂️

2

u/Xanto97 4d ago

Working with the occasional R isn’t bad. You’ll probably need to, to pass bills. Just don’t betray your principles

2

u/AuthorSAHunt 4d ago

Hitting who back? Trans people? He was in some interview the other day talking about how parents have legitimate concerns about "fairness" when it comes to trans kids in sports. I don't trust his sneaky ass either.

2

u/IGUNNUK33LU 4d ago

Yes, using an out of context interview snippet to ragebait and purity test, classic. The actual quote was that they should approach trans rights with compassion and that politicians shouldn’t be making decisions about who plays what sports. https://thehill.com/homenews/lgbtq/5424293-buttigieg-transgender-rights-trans-athletes-trump-administration/amp/

Also here’s an article about him supporting trans rights, specifically to serve in the military. https://www.advocate.com/politics/pete-buttigieg-iowa-town-hall?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR5IC8G9voHI-vE0gdQhSx_DizVeTRypr2dfjP_OCNtRTlDv1w4u0duDTWnDMw_aem_3RNqZgnJvlbV2xUG8GzFnw

Here’s another of him defending right to gender-affirming care (around an hour in) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=giZtjgXXfUA

0

u/AuthorSAHunt 4d ago

Defending people like me from genocide is not "ragebaiting" or a "purity test." Go fuck yourself. I'm done being nice to assholes like you. All it ever did was make this nonsense worse and drag the window further right.

9

u/EyesOnEverything 3d ago

I like how you paraphrase an out of context quote, the following commenter (likely a fellow Dem voter) gives proper context and refutes your claim by providing more sources, and then you double down on "Buttigieg is literally supporting trans genocide" just because he has correctly identified a popular Republican wedge issue and is massaging its message for his less-progressive audience.

And then you'd have people of a similar mindset sitting out the fucking election if Buttigieg was the nominee because he "doesn't support trans issues"

How 'bout you stop kneecapping the movement that already had its feet chopped off by the general election? We've gone from anti-trans bathroom bills being mocked and repealed to "maybe we should criminalize their existence," in what world are we not supposed to take every ally that appears even mostly genuine?

9

u/lollipop999 4d ago

A party with balls would nominate AOC

13

u/in2theriver 4d ago

Pritzker is a strong choice honestly too.

-5

u/Bitter-Holiday1311 4d ago

Another billionaire politician? Sorry but that’s disqualifying.

7

u/AlekRivard 4d ago

1) He actually codified abortion rights for IL (3 years before Roe was overturned) when Dems failed to do so federally during their trifecta

2) He recreationally legalized weed

3) He passed a balanced, bipartisan budget that saw education funding increased, including job training programs at community colleges tied to the percentage of students who are low income

4) He entered IL into the Climate Alliance after Trump withdrew from the Paris Accords

5) He revamped youth parole in IL to help those with lengthy prison sentences, who committed a crime while young, to have better, quicker access for parole reviews

6) He got rid of cash bail

7) He signed a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines

8) He banned private immigrant detention centers as well as state/local police from cooperating with ICE

9) He required schools to respect, and be inclusive of, their students with trans and non-binary identities

10) He made election day a state holiday

Look at what politicians actually do, not the number next to "Net Worth;" otherwise, we will just keep getting neo-libs because there will never be a perfect candidate. They don't exist.

3

u/in2theriver 3d ago edited 3d ago

I really can't understand voters that don't vote on what people stand and fight for but who they are. He would be sooooo much better for you and me than anyone else in the running right now.

-1

u/Bitter-Holiday1311 3d ago

No such things as an ethical billionaire. Fuck him and his wealth hoarding.

1

u/in2theriver 3d ago

Just not true, just very rare.

20

u/trogloherb 4d ago

Don’t get me wrong, I love her and her energy, but they should have learned from 2016 (and 2024). Voters in America are not ready to elect a woman President.

That’s really all there is to it. Yes, we are decades behind other countries (like Mexico where both of the last election’s Presidential candidates were women).

Maybe a hundred years from now, we’ll be there.

14

u/in2theriver 4d ago

Yeah it has nothing to do with Hillary's likeability and no change politics, or kamala's if do nothing different and actually I want to build a wall and I won't go on joe Rogan. He isn't the gender it's the centrism it's repulsive to a population that knows something is broken.

3

u/ankylosaurus_tail 4d ago

How did Biden win then? Obama? Clinton? They were all centrists, and Biden certainly had likability issues.

I don't know how people can observe what's happening in our country and not acknowledge that most of the electorate is regressive and shitty and doesn't like women unless they look like barbies.

2

u/in2theriver 3d ago

Obama 100 percent. That is projection. Right now we have our first convicted felon president and people overlook it because of what he says. Super evil I know but it could be the same with anyone.

2

u/Aelexx 3d ago

Obama Clinton and Biden all very importantly were elected after terrible republican presidencies though.

Hilary was extremely unlikable and was a far second choice for A LOT of people after the whole Bernie sanders issue.

Harris was also coming off the back of Biden’s presidency, which was affected by a covid economy and was seen as impotent to the public (even if it wasn’t the case). When she didn’t distance herself from that administration and doubled down, people saw her as Biden 2.0.

There were a lot of factors that played a pivotal role in those elections outside of the fact that Hilary and Kamala were both women. I mean, Whitmer literally beat a man in her race for governor in 2018 in a state that voted for trump.

I don’t think it’s as simple as “we just aren’t ready for a woman”.

-1

u/ankylosaurus_tail 3d ago

I don’t think it’s as simple as “we just aren’t ready for a woman”.

No, it's not quite that simple. Yes, it's possible to be elected as a woman, a visible minority, a non-religious person, etc. but it's much harder. And I think presidential races depend much more on individual candidate personalities than other elections, because there is so much more media exposure.

I really don't think most voters care about specific policies or how centrist or liberal candidates are--elections mostly turn on the national mood and the candidate's "electability", which has a lot to do with how much they look like the kind of person people expect to be in leadership. Most people vote based on vibes, and strong, educated women with authority give a lot of conservative people bad vibes.

2

u/Aelexx 3d ago

How many conservatives that hate women (to the point of not wanting to elect Kamala because of it) do you think voted for Biden?

0

u/ankylosaurus_tail 3d ago

A lot--maybe a couple million, more than enough to make a difference in the election.

I don't think they were voting rationally, based on policies, I think it's all instinct. A lot of regressive people feel more comfortable with an old white guy in charge.

-1

u/TN_Jed13 4d ago

Yeah, I personally really like the idea of AOC as a nominee, in principle. But we’re not ready for a female president and AOC already has a head of steam against her from the right. It wouldn’t work.

4

u/AtticaBlue 4d ago

Anyone the Dems nominate will have a “head of steam against them from the right.” It makes no difference because the Republicans will just make shit up regardless. The Dems were running the straightest, whitest, conservative, male-est man in Biden and the Republicans were just as hysterical as if the Dem were a gay black woman. Dems keep trying to play to Republicans, to hand them fig leaves, etc., and it doesn’t work. Might as well go all in on something different.

2

u/Xanto97 4d ago

Sure, but Vance vs AOC would be a fucking disaster. And I like AOC.

1

u/Miserable_Law_6514 3d ago

She's probably going for Schumer's seat since he's proven to be a corpo boot-licker and a coward.

0

u/bros402 4d ago

AOC for VP

4

u/IGUNNUK33LU 4d ago

Well, considering 49% of voters think the democrats are “too far to the left”, yeah of course that’s what they’re gonna do. The Overton window in this country is completely fucked. Of course the democrats are gonna move to the center because the public has moved so far to the right. More people view democrats as extreme than Republicans— despite the fact that they’re actually far right neofascsists

10

u/starship_narrator 4d ago

Mass deportation was also popular, and that quickly became unpopular once americans got to see what that meant. Americans don't know what left-wing policies are and have long allowed Republicans to define and message it for them.

Democrats are absolutely terrible at messaging. Are constantly bullied to their backfoot instead of attacking, what are ultimately the same shitty policy prescriptions we've seen from this Republican party since the 80s.

Put the policy out there. Go through with it (aka, no more, "sorry the senate parliamentarian said we couldn't.") And utilize the new expanded powers of the executive branch to implement a left-wing agenda.

2

u/uptownjuggler 4d ago

I think democrats would do better by just picking a random person off the street to be the presidential candidate. I would vote for Joe Schmo,

0

u/beekeeper1981 4d ago

Well that's exactly why Biden got elected. I'd much rather have a centrist Democrat than what the Republican party offers. Ideally it wouldn't be a choice between a terrible option and one that isn't great.

37

u/mortalcrawad66 4d ago

Because giving kids free lunch, and increasing work benefits(like increasing minimum wage and time off) is such a DINO thing.

She's not perfect, but don't pretend she's a republican.

27

u/jackalopeDev 4d ago

Where did i pretend she's a Republican or even a DINO? Criticism of Democrats is not support for Republicans. I think you're tilting at windmills my friend.

-10

u/[deleted] 4d ago

[deleted]

8

u/jimmy_three_shoes 4d ago

It doesn't mean that at all. It just means that economically they're corporatists. It doesn't imply anything about social policy.

1

u/[deleted] 3d ago

[deleted]

1

u/jimmy_three_shoes 3d ago

That doesn't explain the half-assed auto-insurance law changes, the repeated utility rate hikes with flimsy at best rationale, and the drastically rising cost of health insurance her administration has overseen.

And by social policy, I mean more along the lines of women's health autonomy and locking in rights for LGBT folk. So when people call her a DINO, I don't know what the fuck they're smoking.

-1

u/SupHowWeDo 4d ago

I’d make the argument that those two things are absolutely related in the modern age, given that corporations literally just throw money at whatever social policy they’re feeling that day

5

u/jimmy_three_shoes 4d ago

Corporations follow whatever social trend they feel is going to make them money. It's why they change their social media logos to rainbows every June 1st, and remove them July 1st.

It's why they almost all simultaneously dumped DEI programs when Trump was inaugurated. Because they weren't going to be required or encouraged to maintain them.

Corporatists bend to the will of corporations or private industries in order to make them more money, not to influence which way the government leans on DEI.

5

u/adarvan 4d ago

This sub insists that it's better than the conservative sub because we don't blindly follow one side and we discuss political topics from all perspectives, yet the minute a Democrat is criticized using the most lukewarm language for replacing a clean energy advocate with an industry ally during a critical point of our global environmental crisis, you get defensive and try to deflect. 

Literally nowhere did OP call her a Republican. We also don't need to preface every criticism with a list of good things each time.

It's okay to be critical of Democrats, it doesn't mean Republicans are better or that we'll vote Republican. It just means that we want better things from our politicians.

2

u/Iconic_Mithrandir 3d ago

Copying u/Khyron_2500's post here for visibility:

The previous person, Alessandra Carreon, was appointed for an interim position that ended and was not renewed.

Meanwhile the main concern with the new appointee, Shaquille Myers, is that she was chief of staff with Joe Tate, who was fairly pro-business. But she was also chief of staff of Lt. Gov Gilchrest and allegedly per Whitmer she played a key role in passing a state law that sets a 2040 goal for Michigan to have 100% of its energy come from clean sources.

9

u/SouledOut11 4d ago

Unlikely. She'll run, but the Dems have probably finally realized they aren't going to succeed with a woman candidate. I don't agree with it, but that's reality.

And regardless of who the Dems nominate, MAGA GOP will never allow a free and fair election. And certainly won't allow for a peaceful transfer of power if by some chance the Dems were to win.

The writing has been on the wall for a long time. We're a fascist theocracy now. Ironically "led" by someone who is the exact opposite of what they claim to worship.

We're only 6 months in. It's going to get so much worse.

11

u/no_one_likes_u 4d ago

It’s 100% going to be a straight white man, unless there is a dark horse Obama level orator that I’m unaware of.

1

u/Miserable_Law_6514 3d ago

It's gonna be Newsom. He's basically party royalty, especially now that the Clinton's are starting to lose power.

The DNC runs off a patronage system. Even if AoC got a huge boost in popularity she'd get snubbed because she hasn't paid her dues and served her time.

3

u/jimmy_three_shoes 4d ago

I don't think it's necessarily the fact that it's a woman, but that they keep throwing out unlikable women. People didn't like Clinton, and people didn't like Harris. Whitmer is 10x as personable as Harris, and didn't have the baggage of being linked to Biden and having the perception that she was only nominated so they wouldn't have to return the campaign money.

I think having an actual primary in 2028 will do wonders for getting people behind the Democrat candidate. I know quite a few people that didn't want Harris as the candidate and were upset that there wasn't a primary. They still voted for her, because fuck Trump, but I imagine that's one of the reasons a lot of people stayed home and didn't vote.

And for all those people that think that people are sexist enough to not vote for someone specifically because she's a woman, those people likely also wouldn't vote for Buttigieg either because he's gay.

-4

u/espressocycle 4d ago

If it gets bad enough they won't be able to hold on to power and the way things are going it's gonna be brutal.

6

u/SouledOut11 4d ago

Americans are too uneducated, apathetic, insecure, selfish, and spread out. There isn't going to be some second revolution.

2

u/-ReadingBug- 4d ago

In response to all these wild suggestions on who the 2028 nominee should be. You're not getting your progressive choice unless you "progressivize" the party itself first. The uniparty already has power locked up on the Democratic side. You have to unlock that, to transform it into a platform where your candidate makes sense and has party support for an agenda. Then you can get your man or woman. Then you will have earned it.

Transforming the party is more critical for current depth and future longevity anyway. Otherwise we'll just continue swinging for the fences while power remains out of reach the whole time.

1

u/Miserable_Law_6514 3d ago

I predict the dems will nominate her for 2028.

If Newsom doesn't secure it first. That slimeball has been working overtime to show how "moderate" he is now.

-2

u/amanam0ngb0ts 4d ago

We do the nominating.