Skip to main content

This may very well be the most moronic move by any organization this election cycle.

U.S. Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island is seen as one of the most vulnerable Republican senators in the country. But Wednesday, the national Sierra Club came out in support of him.

The Sierra Club is endorsing Chafee even though the group gave the senator only a 20 percent rating in its environmental scorecard in 2004.

The club said a vote for Chafee is better than a vote for a Democrat because of his position as a dissident within the majority party.

Um, guys over at the Sierra Club? Yeah, you, Carl Pope? How has Bill Frist and the Republican Congress been for your agenda? You know, the guys that Chafee enabled? And how was his 20 percent rating? That's all it takes to get an endorsement these days? Are you really that easy?

Of course, the idea would be to make Republicans the minority party. But good luck seeing your agenda continue to be demolished by the GOP leadership Chafee will continue to enable.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:01 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Devil's advocate: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mz Kleen

    they might be trying to have it both ways.  

    I doubt the Sierra Club's endorsement is going to make or break an election, so they're trying for a win-win: if Chafee squeaks by, he'll support their agenda, if he loses, we could have a Democratic majority that'll support their agenda.

    Devil's advocate, as I said.  I agree that it's a moronic move.

    Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

    by pico on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:02:33 PM PDT

    •  but he doesn't suppor their agenda (10+ / 0-)

      and he never will.  Why should he change? what he's been doing is apparently good enough for the support of the Sierra Club - why should he change at all?

      i know you're playing devils advocate, that's my argument against.

      •  Exactly (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Armando, vtdem, ctsteve, walkshills, Elise, Mz Kleen

        There is no chance he will ever support their agenda.  A measly Sierra Club endorsement is not going to change the loyalties of a Republican that is already indebted to big business.  The Sierra Club should know much better than this and it is an extremely foolish move on their part.  Great find Markos.

      •  Hey, I'm just trying to see (7+ / 0-)

        what might have led them to support a candidate whom they rate an F-minus-minus.  I agree with you completely.

        Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

        by pico on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:07:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Actually he has supported their agenda (11+ / 0-)

        He's voted their position 86% over the last 2 years (19 of 22 votes).  Which is why the article went back to 2004 (1 of 5 votes).  Overall that's still a 74% rating for the 3 years.  He's also been there on the most important legislation.  The bad votes were mostly on judicial nominees.  But this year he did oppose Alito - and is probably getting rewarded for that.

        http://whistler.sierraclub.org/...

        Moreover, I don't think they're picking him over a Democrat.  Their endorsing him in the Republican party, and encouraging Independents to vote in that primary.  The general might be a different story (I hope).

        I'll add that his Alito vote this year was likely only because he's facing re-election, so I'm not too impressed.  He was for Rogers-Brown.

        Now I might just as soon see him lose that primary; since it would only likely make it an easy pickup for us in the general.  But I can see where the Sierra Club, trying to keep a bi-partisan reputaion would want to help defend him against a real wingnut in the primary.  If they can't help win that one, they're useless to moderate Republicans (who ought to qualify as an endangered species).

        •  Dang. They did endorse him for the general. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          vtdem, curtadams

          http://www.sierraclub.org/...

          the Sierra Club endorsed the Senator for both the Primary and General Elections.

          Can't defend that.

          •  Idiots. (0+ / 0-)

            Are they doing this just so they can fend off criticism that they're not "bipartisan"?  Or are they just that stupid?

            •  McCloskey (0+ / 0-)

              If they really wanted to ward off that charge, they could just support McCloskey in the CA-11 primary. He won't win, but he'd give them cover - and he's legitimately pro-environment.

              •  McCloskey doesn't want the SC endorsement (0+ / 0-)

                From what I hear, McCloskey has actually asked the Sierra Club to NOT endorse him.  The Sierra Club has an intermediate stage between endorsing and not helping at all, something called "Actions Short of Endorsement" or something like that.  And from what I heard, that's where they're leaning.  But McCloskey is probably better off without the baggage that the Sierra Club brings into a GOP primary in CA-11.  That said, I think the Sierra Club is interested in helping him in other ways.  And if McCloskey had asked for their endorsement, I'm sure they'd have given it to him.  

                There is another case of something similar in the McCloskey/Pombo race. David, you can e-mail me if you want more info on that.  My user name at hotmail.    

        •  his record may/may not be relevant (6+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          vtdem, firenze, cos, curtadams, Jawis, KenBee

          ...given the Republican leadership in Congress and the White House.

          He might vote with the Sierra Club 100% of the time --  it doesn't matter. The GOP is monumentally hostile to environmental issues, and having Chaffee as a token moderate gives them just enough cover to go on raping the environment with their corporate-friendly "voluntary compliance" and newspeak policies.

          And I say this not to cast undue aspersions to the Senator. He very well might be a standup guy on many environmental issues. But as long as the Republican leadership is hostile to environmental issues, the Sierra Club should not be endorsing him for the general election.

          Admittedly, it's a tough spot if indeed Chaffee has a decent environmental voting record. The SC needs to appear nonpartisan, and provide incentives to "moderate" Republicans so that they will support an environmentally-friendly agenda.

          I would think the savvy endorsement would be to give a glowing endorsement of Chaffee for the primary. List the many things he's done, both as a legislator and as a committee chair. And then say that the Sierra Club, regretfully, cannot give him their endorsement for the general election because while Chaffee has been a standup guy, his party's leadership has been the antithesis. As long as the GOP's policy on the environment is this bad, no Republican -- good environmental voting record or no -- can qualify for a Sierra Club endorsement. For those races, the SC should choose to regretfully abstain from endorsing either candidate.

          I love my country. Can I have it back, please?

          by swilldog on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 09:27:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Actually he has supported their agenda (0+ / 0-)

        He's voted their position 86% over the last 2 years (19 of 22 votes).  Which is why the article went back to 2004 (1 of 5 votes).  Overall that's still a 74% rating for the 3 years.  He's also been there on the most important legislation.  The bad votes were mostly on judicial nominees.  But this year he did oppose Alito - and is probably getting rewarded for that.

        http://whistler.sierraclub.org/...

        Moreover, I don't think they're picking him over a Democrat.  Their endorsing him in the Republican party, and encouraging Independents to vote in that primary.  The general might be a different story (I hope).

        I'll add that his Alito vote this year was likely only because he's facing re-election, so I'm not too impressed.  He was for Rogers-Brown.

        Now I might just as soon see him lose that primary; since it would only likely make it an easy pickup for us in the general.  But I can see where the Sierra Club, trying to keep a bi-partisan reputaion would want to help defend him against a real wingnut in the primary.  If they can't help win that one, they're useless to moderate Republicans (who ought to qualify as an endangered species).

    •  'Support their agenda'? (12+ / 0-)

      Since WHEN?

      He's a Republican.  "Moderate" means he'll wait until after taking their money before kicking them in the teeth.  A hardliner would punch their treasurer and say, "Lunch money NOW!" And evidently, the Sierra Club would give it.

      Who's next on their endorsement list? Don Young? Hey, with bipartisan endorsements, he'll support their agenda, right?

      "Hit a man with a fish, and he'll have a headache for a day. Teach him to hit himself with a fish, and he'll have headaches all his life!"--Karl Rove

      by AdmiralNaismith on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:07:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Take it up with them; (4+ / 0-)

        I certainly didn't endorse Chafee.  Although I'm sure my political influence is even smaller than theirs.

        Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

        by pico on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:08:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, you didn't endorse Chafee (0+ / 0-)

          But you did suggest, while volunteering to play Devil's Advocate, that

          if Chafee squeaks by, he'll support their agenda

          It was that comment that got you in this hot water. No one said you endorsed Chafee. But you suggested that the above might be a reason why they did what they did, and it just doesn't make sense.

          What DOES make sense is that THEY believe that the Republicans might remain the Majority Party.

          As such, they don't want to piss off the Majority Party, so that the Majority Party has even less respect and exhibits less cooperation with them than before.

          They probably don't have to give money to the Democratic Party for the Democrats to be better supporters of the Sierra Club's political stances.

          They aren't 'buying' a supporter by donating to Chafee. They are avoiding the creation of a worse enemy by donating to Chafee.

          ...but not your own facts.

          by slouise217 on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:20:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't see any hot water; (6+ / 0-)

            I see vitrol at the Sierra Club, which is fine.  All I'm trying to figure out is why they might have done it, from their point of view.  It doesn't have to be a sane reason - hell, I agree with everyone that there doesn't seem to be a sane reason.  

            But yes, I agree that your scenario is more likely, no doubt.  

            Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

            by pico on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:26:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  'Bipartisanship' (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Ed in Montana

              Just is much of the media is willing to lie for the benefit of the Bush administration in order to fulfill a sick version of "objectivity" (Where you positition yourself between "both sides" without questioning their legitimacy), so too do far too many single-issue groups (not just enviros, but pro-choice groups, labor unions, pretty much everyone apart from the redoubtible African-American groups) go for an appearence of "bipartisanship" which in their minds means some sort of twisted affirmative action where supporting DeLay, Frist, and co. gets you major bonus points in assessing your record.

              By the way, I'm on the political committee for the Massachusetts chapter of the Sierra Club.  Knowing my fellow committee members, we would never do this.  The Rhode Island folks deserve a collective wedgie--that or maybe National overrode them.

              On a side note, the League of Conservation Voters has also turned into a de facto wing of the Republian Party in New England.  I wrote them a nasty letter saying (true) that I gave them $5000 in 2004 but this year they weren't getting a dime.

          •  Agreed (0+ / 0-)

            ya there is no way because of one endorsement Chaffee is going to stand up to the GOP leadership on behalf of the Sierra club he will cave like he usually does unless it is a safe bet..

            We Do not inherit the earth from our ancestors but borrow it from our children

            by Jeremylreed on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:26:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  i thought we all understood (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Kimberly Stone

            that the comment in question was part of playing devil's advocate...

            •  In order to 'play Devil's Advocate' (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jesses, aarrgghh

              One's position needs to be a reasonable one - that is, reasonable from the vantage point of the opponent, were the opponent here. A Devil's Advocate is taking the place of another, right, and so his argument should represent an argument that the opponent might raise. His didn't hold water, and I don't believe an opponent would actually try to use it.

              Pico says that it doesn't need to be a sane reason - that it doesn't need to hold water.

              I think it does.

              From Answers.com

              One who argues against a cause or position, not as a committed opponent but simply for the sake of argument or to determine the validity of the cause or position.

              If one is trying to represent the argument that the other side is going to make, then one needs to make the argument that the other side would make! It is not fair to argue useless or weak arguments, and then suggest that the opponents would actually use them.

              The fact that you might be able to counter the devil's advocate's arguments is different than any issue about his arguments not being an adequate representation of the opponent's positions.

              I have a whole series of lectures that cover this topic that I use.

              When one is being a Devil's Advocate, one must use sane and reasonable arguments that one's opponents would actually use. The fact that the opponents would judge them sane and reasonable does NOT make them unable to be countered, but one must try to not misrepresent what the opponents would argue or could argue.

              I agree that Pico tried to represent the opponent's argument. I just think he missed the mark, as did others.

              ...but not your own facts.

              by slouise217 on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:02:01 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Definition of Devil's Advocate (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                wader, gradinski chai

                Answer.com, dictionary.com, and Merriam Webster online all define a "Devil's advocate" as someone who argues a position "simply for the sake of argument" OR to determine the validity of the cause or position.

                There is nothing in any of these definitions that requires the Devil's advocate to represent the argument that the other side would make for itself, nor that the argument hold water or be a sane, reasonable, useful, or strong argument.  

                None of these definitions reference nor imply the existence of any rules that devil's advocates must follow in their arguments, so there is not such thing as an argument that "no fair."  

                As it is clear from these definitions, the devil's advocate may argue simply for the sake of argument, not to represent the opponent's argument, so they are not misrepresenting their position as the opponent's position unless they specifically state that it is the opponent's position.

                No matter how many lectures you may have on this topic, all of your statements here are nothing more than your personal opinion...rules you made up and would now impose on others. And if your lectures present them in any other way, they are at best misleading and at worst, inaccurate, and you are the one who is misrepresenting.

                ...but not your own definitions.

                •  Bullshit (0+ / 0-)

                  It does TOO require that.

                  That's exactly what it requires!

                  True, many people violate the covenant they establish when they say they are going to take on the role of Devil's Advocate, but it doesn't change the covenant just because some disregard it.

                  As this site clearly points out

                  It's not about pushing fallacious arguments at all - it's pushing [valid] arguments from a position which has a different set of values/goals, and hence a different point of view. Consider an argument put forward by a spokesman for the workers, railing against the tyranny of the bosses. If the boss were there, they could explain things from their point of view (they too have children to feed, etc) ... but if the boss were not there, who would? With no defense, all manner of fallacious arguments and assumptions would be left untouched (the boss is evil and only wants to put everyone out of work). The DevilsAdvocate, in this situation, simply says: hey waitaminit, consider it from the other perspective ...

                  Or from this

                  site

                  In common parlance, the term has come to mean a person who argues a position that they do not necessarily believe in, simply for the sake of arguing; or who presents a counterargument for a position they do believe in to another debater. This process can be used to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure.

                  The only FAIR way to test the quality of the original argument is with a substantive and fair test.

                  If one tests the strength of a rope in a useless way, has one actually tested the rope? Of course not. The quality and strength of the rope is only tested by a accurate assessment that has relevance to the strengths it needs.

                  Or this one, from Merriam-Webster {funny, YOU said Merriam Webster DIDN'T say this, but they did - how strange! I wonder if I should trust OTHER things you say if in fact you would lie about what M-W's definition says? What a quandary!}

                  a person who champions the less accepted cause for the sake of argument

                  Do YOU think that a person who "CHAMPIONS" a cause can promote an argument that is not an adequate representation of the opponent's positions?

                  Of course they cannot.

                  And yes, I DO have requirements about what I teach, and what effect my lessons have on those I teach. When I am teaching debate, for example, having students understand what it means to be a Devil's Advocate is extremely important - often they have to anticipate what the arguments of their opponents in their next debate will be! And the pre-law students and grad students working on their JD's need to know how to argue in court to persuade juries and appeals courts, for example.

                  ...but not your own facts.

                  by slouise217 on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 01:40:21 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Oh (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  slouise217

                  In that case, it's obvious that the Sierra Club endorsed him because they're sex buddies.

                  Sorry I'm just playing devil's advocate, answer.com says my arguement doesn't have to make any sense or even be grounded in reality.

        •  um,are we REALLY arguing about 'Devils Advocate'? (0+ / 0-)

          cuz, seriously, um, WHY are we attacking pico?  he clearly stated it was a moronic move.

          pico, i'll give you kudos for kick-starting the thread into a discovery of WHY they'd endorse him instead of an echo chamber.

          like NARAL's endorsement, it doesn't make sense to me either.

          Chafee may be a great guy, father, husband, whatever.  But at the end of the day, everyone needs to ask themselves one question:

          How does this guy HELP us?

          There's no need to make personal attacks.  It's simple.  Does he help or hurt your cause?

          imho, Chafee has been IMPOTENT & more dangerous to our causes b/c he's given the GOP political muscle to ignore him & push their extreme agenda.

          It wouldn't matter to me if he had a 100% rating.  B/c his presence makes the GOP stronger, he is a liability to progressive causes.

          Till he gets muscle or changes party, I don't see the political advantage of voting for/endorsing him.

          •  Pointing out that he's wrong (0+ / 0-)

            is NOT a personal attack.

            Attacking HIM, when HE has nothing to do with the strength of his argument, would be a personal attack.

            Attacking HIS use of the term Devil's Advocate is NOT attacking him. It is attacking his use of the term.

            Big difference.

            ...but not your own facts.

            by slouise217 on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 09:42:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  I'm beginning to wonder (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Simplify, Mz Kleen, Jawis

      whether some of these groups have just given up on the idea that the Democrats will get a majority in '06 or '08, and they're just trying to kiss up to the party that will run the show for the foreseeable future.  

    •  More like: Deal with the Devil (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jawis

      Make friends with a Demon so that you can fight the Devil instead of making friends with an Angle?

      looloo

    •  Machiavelli Perhaps? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Go Vegetarian, ptmflbcs, jorndorff, pico

      If we assume for the moment that they Sierra Club (and for that matter NARAL) actually know what they are doing in RI, then they have to have a pretty sneaking plan, because it doesn't make a lot of sense in a straightforward reading.

      1. Maybe they both really want Laffey to win the Primary so that the Dems will win the seat in a blow out this November.  Now Laffey can put both the Sierra Club and NARAL endorsements on all of his literature.
      1. They actually think endorsing him will get them more leverage in future votes assuming he wins this year.
      1. The secret deal, The Sierra Club is in of a secret deal with NARAL to become an Independent or a  Democrat after the election.  We'll know this is true after we see the GLBT alliance and the ALF/CIO endorse Chafee.
      1. They have no fucking clue, but think that the right wingnuts will stop picking on them if they endorse a RINO.

      BTW Why the hell do they feel the need to endorse anyone if they think that both the guys in the general will be good?

      ...in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent
      -G.W. Bush
      -7.00 -7.74

      by Luam on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:27:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Whatever their reasoning - (7+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Aexia, vtdem, Luam, ctsteve, Dave925, Mz Kleen, Jawis

        I used to write checks to both the Sierra Club and NARAL.  

        Those check will now stop, because of the Chafee endorsements - , and I sent them both emails telling them why.

        Doesn't ANYBODY have the courage of their convictions anymore?  

        Suggested action item:  write both organizations letters explaining why you will not be contributing.  

        Hit them in the pocketbook - they'll understand!

        • - and give the money you save to Howard Dean - he'll make much better use of it!
        •  Yes, they have the courage (4+ / 0-)

          to support people who vote right on their issues.

          That is their jobs.

          These groups are not arms of the Democratic party.

          The sense of entitlement around here is amazing.

          Elect more progressive Democrats and fewer pro-life, anti-environmental mushy DLC Democrats and you will see these groups endorse your candidates.

          They don't owe you a damn thing.

          •  Voted Nader did ya? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Aexia, michael1104, willers
            Congrats. The guy you helped into office is doing a bangup job. Just go visit Ft Sam Houston, or one of the American Concentration Camps and ask around..

            We have no Democratic Party. It's financed by the same millionaires and billionaires as the Republicans. K Vonnegut

            by cdreid on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 02:55:07 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  it's the nader voter's fault.. (0+ / 0-)

              not al gore's inability to do a recount or .. what a second, there was an election between then and now, who are you blaming 2004 on?

              You can lead an elephant to water but you can't make 'em think.

              by bill in wa on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 09:53:47 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  You might have a point (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AaronInSanDiego, Luam, deep6, Jawis, willers

            if there were a pro-life, anti-environmental mushy "DLC Democrat" in this race.

            Which there isn't.

            --- My opinions are my own and not my employer's.

            by Aexia on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 06:45:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  It is not about being altruistic (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AaronInSanDiego, Jawis, willers

            Having Chafee be the Senator from RI actually really HURTS the environmental movement.  It is not about entitlement.  It is about reality.

          •  And Whitehouse and Brown (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Aexia, Jawis

            will vote better than him.

            On ONE vote - the most important, we know this to be true -

            SENATE MAJORITY LEADER.

            "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

            by Armando on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 07:18:01 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Where in that rant... (0+ / 0-)

            did you provide evidence that Chafee was better than his Democratic challengers. I think the evidence would show the exact opposite. So, I guess it is about entitlement. Why are "moderate" Republican entitled to these endorsements over greener Dems whose party as a whole supports their agenda?

            The only people Jesus didn't tolerate were self-righteous hypocrites.

            by Jawis on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 09:45:38 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  nuh uh (0+ / 0-)

            not buying it.

            i DID vote Nader, for which i have no regrets (though i can't be bothered today to send a big F.U. to all the cdreids, having put in enough time doing that yesterday). i loathe the DLC, and i routinely rage against the lame-ass ™ dems who think they can win elections by toadying up to the monkeys in the middle (also known as "swing-voters").

            nonetheless, there is no excuse for voting Death Party, anywhere, ever. not now. not with all of civilization at risk.

            I am further of the opinion that the President must be impeached and removed from office!

            by UntimelyRippd on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 10:59:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  my point exactly - (0+ / 0-)

            Chafee has NOT VOTED with either NARAL (cloture motion on SP justice, the vote that counted) or environmental issues.  "Less bad than the usual Republican" is NOT  a reason to endorse him.

            And since I've written checks to both NARAL and the Sierra Club FOR YEARS, I am DAMN WELL ENTITLED to criticise thier endorsements - not becasue they didn't Endorse a Democrat, but because the guy they endorsed does not stand up and support Environmental and choice issues WHRN IT COUNTS.  

        •  I've done this. (4+ / 0-)

          Though, speaking in defense of the Sierra Club, it is run Democratically, with state political committees making the recommendation to endorse.  I'm in the MA political committee and we'd never do this.

      •  That actually makes sense (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        deep6

        They want Laffey to win the primary. What better ammo for the wingnut candidate than the endorsements of the Sierra Club and NARAL?

    •  No Surprise At All (0+ / 0-)

      These single issue groups are destroying progressive politics. Its mindboggling how f'n stupid some of these groups are.

      The only upside for me is I have $100 to donate to Wellstone Action or the Minnesota DFL Party since I don't have to write a check to these clowns ever again.

    •  the Sierra Club should be destroyed (0+ / 0-)

      I doubt the Sierra Club's endorsement is going to make or break an election, so they're trying for a win-win: if Chafee squeaks by, he'll support their agenda, if he loses, we could have a Democratic majority that'll support their agenda.

      In my world, you dance with the person that you came to the party with.  If they want to switch partners, then they aren't really your friend. It is one thing to hear dissent, it is another to be kicked in the balls and then turn around and demand that they be thanked for kicking you in the balls.  We can't afford to be constantly backstabbed like this.  What is the point of being a politician that is pro-environment or pro-choice if those organizations endorse the opposition that is neither of those?  

      How about this.  The Sierra Club gets ripped to shreds and replaced by a Dem friendly organization.  The people running the Sierra Club get blackballed and ostracized.  They ought to pay dearly for this.  We ought to take it out of their hide.

    •  Just got off the phone with spokesman (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Naniboujou
      He says that this is a move to try and take politics out of the environmental debate. (Ha!)

      He will be on The Peter B Collins Show Friday at 4pm Pacific. Stream online HERE

      Boy...you baby boomers sure left my generation a horrific shit storm to clean up.

      by Young and on the air on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 11:04:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Thats a very stupid thing to say (0+ / 0-)

      Very very stupid

    •  84% in 2005 (0+ / 0-)

      While Chafee scored 20% in 2004 it was 84% in 2005 and he did some fine holding actions on bad bills the GOP was trying to slip through.

      The argument should be on how important is it to having a Democrat fill his seat and not what a bad environmentalist he is.

    •  84% in 2005 (0+ / 0-)

      While Chafee scored 20% in 2004 it was 84% in 2005 and he did some fine holding actions on bad bills the GOP was trying to slip through.

      The argument should be on how important is it to having a Democrat fill his seat and not what a bad environmentalist he is.

  •  Smooth move (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Armando, JTML, Elise, Jawis, madcitymelvin

    Blithering dumbsh*ts.  What has Chafee ever done that is in support of the Sierra Club, or indeed that had any impact on his party's leadership?

    De nada.

  •  Hey, he's preventing the GOP from (10+ / 0-)

    trying to harm the environment for this long -- why mess with success?

    My apologies to students who took my U.S. Government class in the 90s: evidently the Constitution doesn't limit Presidential power after all. Who knew?

    by Major Danby on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:03:23 PM PDT

  •  Oh My God!!! (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Armando, jkfp2004, ilona, sadhu, Elise

    Are they crazy, stupid, or both?

    •  Both, no doubt (10+ / 0-)

      As I say below, I'm a longtime Sierra Club member, and the only justification I can imagine for that action is the possibility that, with the great bulk of the Club's endorsements going to Democrats, those national committee folks are seeking to innoculate the organization against claims that it's nothing more than a Democratic organization.  After all, Republicans are members, and there have been attempts by the RNC in recent years to peel them off and steer them to a competing organization.  

      We're all in this together.

      by JTML on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:14:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  E-mail address for complaints (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cos, Newsie8200, ctsteve, Elise, Jawis, BB10

        Here is where you can complain:

        political.desk@sierraclub.org

        We're all in this together.

        by JTML on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:20:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Bingo (4+ / 0-)

        Remember, the Sierra Club isn't an arm of the democratic party, although sometimes we think it should be. A good third of the Club's 700,000 members are repubs, and if they didn't endorse a few repubs, they would lose a significant number of members.

        Still, the Chafee endorsement is a dumb move in my book. But I'm sure it was made by the Sierra Club members on the ground in Rhode Island and not Carl Pope back in San Franscisco. The Club tends to listen to their grassroots, and actually allows locals to have a vote in these matters.

        •  Wasn't there actually an effort . . . (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AaronInSanDiego, willers

          by conservatives to take over the Sierra Club a couple of years back. IIRC, the attempt to seize power in one fell swoop through the elections didn't succeed, but maybe the takeover forces have been moving toward their goal incrementally since . . .

          Don't ask me nothin' 'bout nothin'; I just might tell you the truth -- Bob Dylan

          by ponderer on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 05:20:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh there have been many takeover attempts (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ponderer, AaronInSanDiego, KenBee

            And some have succeeded. The one I think you are refferring to was a couple of years ago when several anti-immigration-pro-zero population growth people ran for the Sierra Club national board as a bloc and lost. Some were radical conservatives, others were radical greenies.

            Back in the late 1990s a bloc of more radical greenies led by David Brower controlled the board for several years and attempted to "purge" conservative and moderates from the Club, with limited success.

            The Club is a big, complex, grassroots organization with a huge budget. The Club's loose election laws for running for the national board enable all sorts of folks to run and makes it a tempting target for takeover attempts by blocs of candidates with differring agendas. In other words, it is a messy, democratic system without the Diebold machines or the Supreme Court.

      •  Wrong field to play that message (0+ / 0-)

        If they want to bolster their bipartisan credentials, they need to find some Republican Governor (or candidate for Governor) who is great about the environment.  Then they can tout a high profile Republican endorsement and seem bipartisan.

        I realize that the national Sierra Club only endorses in federal elections and the various states have their own Sierra Club chapters, but the general public, even much of the Sierra Cub membership, is unaware of the distinction.  All they need is to have some state chapters say "The Sierra Club of [state] endorses [Republican] for Governor" and people will hear "The Sierra Club endorsed a Republican".

        There is no excuse for trying to help a Republican get elected to the US Senate.  90% of his environment score should be on who he votes for majority leader.  They can say "Chafee is the sort of candidate we would endorse if he didn't support the Republican majority, who do a lot more damage to the environment than he can hope to balance out."

      •  I think the above comment makes the most sense. (0+ / 0-)

        The Sierra Club is in a hard position.  They do need to stay non-partisan and they do need to hang on to their Republican members.   Those members' connections to the Sierra Club gets them reading material in their homes that is something besides R propgation.  Maybe we don't agree with what the SC has done in this case.  However, I don't think there are a whole lot of people who are going to change their vote in RI just because of a Sierra Club endorsement for Chaffee.

        But it may keep them and others in the US reading Sierra Club material.  And that is to our benefit.

        I feel like I need to give the SC time to respond in some way before I throw a shoe at them.

    •  No - it's BRILLIANT! (11+ / 0-)

      Think about it - name another organization that provokes a more visceral, knee-jerk, ANTI- reaction among right-wingers (okay, the ACLU, I'll grant you that one, but still . . . ).

      Boom! Sierra Club endorses Candidate X - voila! - every wingnut votes against him.

      Brilliant, I say, BRILLIANT!

      Mwuhahaha! MAHAHAHAHA!

      <cue white coats>

      As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. - Justice William O. Douglas

      by occams hatchet on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:27:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Is there a Republican primary coming up? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Armando

        Does Chafee have the nomination already, or is there a Republican primary coming up where he has conservative opposition?

        We're all in this together.

        by JTML on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:32:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There's a primary (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          occams hatchet

          But that was snark.

          "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

          by Armando on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:35:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  In fact, there's not only a primary (0+ / 0-)

          But one of the reasons that the Sierra Club gives for making this donation is to help him win the Primary!

          Seems he is not just threatened by the the opposition party, but by other candidates in his own party!

          ...but not your own facts.

          by slouise217 on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:03:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Read their press release (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JTML, yet another liberal, melvin

          Here.

          The endorsement applies to both the primary and the general election, as they make clear.  

          •  ARE THEY FUCKING SERIOUS!!!!! (7+ / 0-)

            Along with the endorsement, the Sierra Club will lend its volunteer
            strength to Senator Chafee's campaign.

            "We pledge to do all we can to help ensure Senator Chafee is re elected," concluded Buckser. " Sierra Club volunteers will work with the campaign to contact voters about his exemplary environmental record.  We look forward to a victory party for the environment on election night and to many more years of Lincoln Chafee fighting for the environment as a U.S. Senator."

            FUCK THE SIERRA CLUB!!! Not only are they endorsing a race they don't have to, but they're ready to commit my donated money to help a scumbag Republican win. I have been betrayed!

            I think, therefore I am NOT A REPUBLICAN!!!

            by Reality Bites Back on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:29:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Fuck em! (3+ / 0-)

              the pricks.

              Unbeleivable.

              "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

              by Armando on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:30:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No shit. And no more money from me. (0+ / 0-)

                If the Sierra Club wants Frist in charge, they can kiss my membership goodbye.  Not another penney.

                •  Let them know that! (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Reality Bites Back

                  Next time you get a Sierra Club mailing, return it to them with the words, written in red marker, "Since you back 20% Chafee, I'm not backing you."

                  Better yet, why wait for a mailing?  Give 'em a call!

                  Sierra Club
                  National Headquarters
                  85 Second Street, 2nd Floor
                  San Francisco, CA 94105
                  USA
                  Phone: 415-977-5500
                  Fax: 415-977-5799

                  Sierra Club
                  Legislative Office
                  408 C St., N.E.
                  Washington, DC 20002
                  USA
                  Phone: 202-547-1141
                  Fax: 202-547-6009

                  Important Email Addresses:

                  General information: information@sierraclub.org

                  Membership questions: membership.services@sierraclub.org

                  Changes of address: address.changes@sierraclub.org

                  Outdoor Activities: national.outings@sierraclub.org

                  Online merchandise orders: store@sierraclub.org

                  Sierra Club Books: books.publishing@sierraclub.org

                  Sierra Magazine: sierra.magazine@sierraclub.org

                  Licensing inquiries: licensing@sierraclub.org

                  Human Resources: hrd@sierraclub.org or visit our Jobs page.

                  Website technical problems: webmaster@sierraclub.org

                  •  Might help to talk to the right people (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    henna218

                    The national Sierra Club did not endorse Chaffe - it was the Rhode Island Chapter of the Sierra Club that did. And as per the by-laws of the organization, the national club follows what was democratically decided by the state chapter.

                  •  Some offices ... (0+ / 0-)

                    Mid-Atlantic Office
                    1911 N Fort Myer Dr, #702
                    Arlington, VA 22209
                    Phone: 703-312-0533
                    Fax: 703-312-0508
                    app.field@sierraclub.org

                    Northeast Office
                    85 Washington St.
                    Saratoga Springs, NY 12866-4105
                    Phone:518-587-9166
                    FAX: 518-583-9062
                    ne.field@sierraclub.org
                    www.sierraclub.org/field/northeast

                    Boston Office
                    100 Boylston Street
                    Boston, MA 02116
                    (617) 423-5775
                    Fax: (617) 423-5858

                    Maine Office

                    44 Oak St. Suite 301
                    Portland, ME 04101
                    Phone: (207) 761-5616
                    Fax: (207) 773-6690
                    Email: maine.chapter@sierraclub.org
                    Web: maine.sierraclub.org

                    New Hampshire Office
                    40 North Main St., 2nd Floor
                    Concord, NH 03301
                    Phone: 603-224-8222
                    FAX: 603-224-4719
                    ne.field@sierraclub.org

                    New York City Office
                    116 John St. STE 3100
                    New York, NY 10038
                    Phone: 212-791- 3600
                    FAX: 212-791-0839

                    Rhode Island Field Office
                    298 West Exchange Street
                    Providence, RI 02903
                    Phone: 401-521-4734
                    Fax: 401-521-4001

                    9/11/05, Day 1469, A count worth keeping? Or, Osama Bin Forgotten?

                    by besieged by bush on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 01:07:08 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  my email to them: (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  besieged by bush, madcitymelvin

                  hey there.

                  i'm a former sierra club member. what can i say. i used to make a lot more money. the republicans took care of that. if i ever have a surplus income again, i'm sure the sierra club will be on my list of organizations to support.

                  well, actually, there's a big condition on that. unless the organization rethinks -- and revokes -- its endorsement of Lincoln Chafee, i guarantee that i will never send another nickel your way.

                  period.

                  quite angrily,

                  xxxxx

                  I am further of the opinion that the President must be impeached and removed from office!

                  by UntimelyRippd on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 10:53:17 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  My just sent note ... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Reality Bites Back

                    I request that you remove me from any list of myself as a Sierra Club member by the end of this week. You should also remove me from any mailing list and any call list. I will consider any future contact, unless you quickly redress a major error, as harassment and will treat it as so legally.

                    Your decision to endorse Lincoln Chafee -- IN MY NAME -- is reprehensible.  Senator Chafee has enabled, through his votes for the Republican Senate Majority, a raping of America, America's environment, and reduced funding and lower federal attention to virtually every area of concern to Sierra Club and its membership.  With all due respect, I do not understand how you can claim to speak for the membership when you decide to endorse a politician who has received all of a 20 out of 100 in terms of his voting record.

                    I am furious that you chose to speak in my name in this way ... in fact, I feel that you have defamed me.  And, I am certain that I am not alone ...

                    As the money that I sent in December is for "membership" and I am renouncing that membership, I would like a refund of my funds prorated for the year -- as this is April, I will expect a refund for the May through November period, or $20 of my $30 check.

                    9/11/05, Day 1469, A count worth keeping? Or, Osama Bin Forgotten?

                    by besieged by bush on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 11:41:34 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Sierra Club contact info (0+ / 0-)

                Sierra Club
                National Headquarters
                85 Second Street, 2nd Floor
                San Francisco, CA 94105
                USA
                Phone: 415-977-5500
                Fax: 415-977-5799

                Sierra Club
                Legislative Office
                408 C St., N.E.
                Washington, DC 20002
                USA
                Phone: 202-547-1141
                Fax: 202-547-6009

                Important Email Addresses:

                General information: information@sierraclub.org

                Membership questions: membership.services@sierraclub.org

                Changes of address: address.changes@sierraclub.org

                Outdoor Activities: national.outings@sierraclub.org

                Online merchandise orders: store@sierraclub.org

                Sierra Club Books: books.publishing@sierraclub.org

                Sierra Magazine: sierra.magazine@sierraclub.org

                Licensing inquiries: licensing@sierraclub.org

                Human Resources: hrd@sierraclub.org or visit our Jobs page.

                Website technical problems: webmaster@sierraclub.org

            •  Thanks. (0+ / 0-)

              That quote provided most of what I needed to tell the Sierra Club about why I won't be renewing my membership or donating.

              The environment needs a better class of friends.

              "I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." King George III

              by ogre on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 12:14:30 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Think, research before you speak (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Garden Liberally

              Comment by acerimusdux on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 01:35:32 AM PDT:

              He's voted their position 86% over the last 2 years (19 of 22 votes).  Which is why the article went back to 2004 (1 of 5 votes).  Overall that's still a 74% rating for the 3 years.  He's also been there on the most important legislation.  The bad votes were mostly on judicial nominees.  But this year he did oppose Alito - and is probably getting rewarded for that.

              What hurts the environmental cause is not people like the Sierra Club who are earnestly trying to look for solutions everywhere, but people who don't understand that if we can't even win a presidency with one party, let alone the progressive elements of one party, that it will be near impossible to save the environment with one party. Environmentalism is a growing bipartisan concern, something you should keep in mind before you're all too ready to blast moderate Republicans on the issue. I'm not a Republican anymore than you are, but please, for the sake of everyone, spare us your tiresome rants. You haven't been betrayed. But you are betraying the opportunity to find real solutions to very real problems.

              •  The GOP majority won't save the earth (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                deep6, Jawis, KenBee, GSamsa

                Pave it, maybe.  Save it, no.

                And Chafee will vote with the GOP caucus when it counts.  Always has.

              •  Betrayed?! - The GOP has looted over $3 trillion (0+ / 0-)

                of US wealth. They are identity thieves who have stolen the credit card of America. How can you possibly say we haven't been betrayed. EVERYTHING the Republicans have done is to loot money. Including now trying to sell off America herself - allowing oil and mining and logging companies to buy land worth tens of thousands an acre in resource rights for just pennies on the dollar and rape those resources that belong to the American people into their cronies' private accounts. All this under the guise of 'fiscal responsibility'. It's completely insane and ANY support for ANY Republican is giving support for the whole. It's not like Chafee is a shoe in - he's in trouble and he can be defeated.

                Supporting Chafee is supporting Frist and the entire Republican leadership,
                is supporting a Republican to chair the Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry committee,
                a Republican to chair the Appropriations committee, a Republican to chair the Armed Services committee, a Republican to chair the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs committee,
                a Republican to chair the Budget committee,
                a Republican to chair the Commerce, Science and Transportation committee,
                a Republican to chair the Energy and Natural Resources committee,
                a Republican to chair the Environment and Public Works committee,
                a Republican to chair the Finance committee,
                a Republican to chair the Foreign Relations committee,
                a Republican to chair the Governmental Affairs committee,
                a Republican to chair the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee,
                a Republican to chair the Indian Affairs committee,
                a Republican to chair the Judiciary committee,
                a Republican to chair the Rules and Administration committee,
                a Republican to chair the Small Business committee,
                and a Republican to chair the Veterans' Affairs committee.

                So if you support Republicans controlling all those committees and all the laws those committees control, go ahead and support Lincoln Chafee!

                I think, therefore I am NOT A REPUBLICAN!!!

                by Reality Bites Back on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 01:06:52 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Call them up (0+ / 0-)

              Sierra Club
              National Headquarters
              85 Second Street, 2nd Floor
              San Francisco, CA 94105
              USA
              Phone: 415-977-5500
              Fax: 415-977-5799

              Sierra Club
              Legislative Office
              408 C St., N.E.
              Washington, DC 20002
              USA
              Phone: 202-547-1141
              Fax: 202-547-6009

              Important Email Addresses:

              General information: information@sierraclub.org

              Membership questions: membership.services@sierraclub.org

              Changes of address: address.changes@sierraclub.org

              Outdoor Activities: national.outings@sierraclub.org

              Online merchandise orders: store@sierraclub.org

              Sierra Club Books: books.publishing@sierraclub.org

              Sierra Magazine: sierra.magazine@sierraclub.org

              Licensing inquiries: licensing@sierraclub.org

              Human Resources: hrd@sierraclub.org or visit our Jobs page.

              Website technical problems: webmaster@sierraclub.org

            •  Is this from the Onion? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Garden Liberally

              Un-fucking-believable.

              I don't like Bizarro World... I want to go home to America.

              by willers on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 08:39:09 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  That's crazy... (4+ / 0-)

        ... but is it crazy enough to work?

        I'm not sure that Markos is correct that this is the most moronic move by an organization this cycle. For one thing, the season isn't over yet. Advocacy groups have plenty of time left to out-do each other in the Self-Immolation Derby.

        And besides, the California Teachers' Association endorsed Bruce McPherson for Secretary of State.  You know, the guy who's trying to Floridate Calfornia's voting systems and voter rolls?

        C'mon, admit it... that's right up there with the Sierra Club endorsement, isn't it?

        Sign me up as a diplomat - my only office is the park.

        by Malacandra on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:38:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think it works that way (7+ / 0-)

        I think they then claim that the Republican candidate is gaining respect from organizations that normally would not support him so his policies are on target, 20% is good enough. I don't think this weakens his appeal to his conservative constituents.

        Also, as I recall, although I can't quote sources here, most people in the US, Left and Right, want the environment protected. It's their representatives who are making out like bandits by raping the environment who simply don't give a damn about the planetary degredation.

        This looks like a bad move--it sanctions bad environmental policy. Looks more like Sierra Club has become part of the problem rather than the solution. It happens, rot sets in everywhere.

        I suggest we all cancel our memberships--I've sent an email saying I will not rejoin.

  •  I have a hard time understanding their logic. (5+ / 0-)

    It doesn't seem like there is any logic at all.  Surely the Dems who are running against him are better on the environment than Chafee.  

    Russ Feingold for President!!!!

    by CO Democrat on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:04:08 PM PDT

  •  But Markos, (12+ / 0-)

    Chafee is the Senate Majority Leader, with red phone access to President Bush.  Who's Bush going to listen to when Cheney talks ANWR?  Why, Chafee, of course.  

  •  What's the Sierra Club's agenda? (11+ / 0-)

    Paving the rain forests?  

    I've donated to the Sierra Club for the last time, let me tell you.  Next time I get their call, I'll tell them, "Sorry, but I'm an environmentalist."

    Same with NARAL, whose litmus test for candidates seems to be support for Bush judges.

    "Hit a man with a fish, and he'll have a headache for a day. Teach him to hit himself with a fish, and he'll have headaches all his life!"--Karl Rove

    by AdmiralNaismith on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:04:30 PM PDT

    •  Same as any organization's.... (0+ / 0-)

      Their agenda is The Sierra Club.  So what does this endorsement get them.  Hmmm...I can't imagine.  It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that Republicans have more money to contribute to organizations that endorse Republicans than Democrats do, could it?  Nah, not a chance.

      (and yeah that was snarky)

      •  Snarky and dumb (0+ / 0-)

        Sierra Club depends on Dems for their contributions.

        I tell you who is not dumb, Markos.

        He wants every Dem to know that they should NOT give their money to moron organizations like the Sierra Club.

        "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

        by Armando on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:48:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I haven't donated to the Sierra Club in decades (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mimi9, willers

          And I didn't need Markos to tell me not to.

        •  single issue nonsense (5+ / 0-)

          sounds like your guys' version of single issue nonsense.

          who the fuck is going to show up at the hearing trying to protect the environment.

          markos?  his smarts?

          come on... because of ONE ISSUE they should be starved, with what to replace them?  Fighting Dems... they're going to fight for the environment.

          Democrats?  Without pressure?

          This is a hard to defend choice, but also, not impossible to understand.

          To pretend it's incomprehensible is just rabble rousing.  To pretend it's the whole story, a mere lie.

          Go to hearings that affect the environment and dkos is never there, sierra club always is.

          •  News flash... (0+ / 0-)

            Sierra Club IS a single issue organization.

            And your statement about who attends environment hearings is just idiotic.

            I don't like Bizarro World... I want to go home to America.

            by willers on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 08:43:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  jesus christ (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              RickWn

              yes, they are ONE ISSUE, I'm working from that point.

              Kos hates these "ONE ISSUE" groups.  Armstrong wants "multiple issue" groups.  I want those too, in ADDITION to single issue groups.  Focussing and protecting a single right is VERY IMPORTANT.

              Kos criticises that... but I'm pointing out that Kos is also thinking single isse here, he wants to throw the babies out with the bathwater, because of one issue, "partisanship".

              It's more important than anything else that these groups are partisan.

              He complains that people want to throw out imperfect Dems, or the whole party, because of a single issue, and yet that is what he want to do with the Sierra Club.

              He's ignoring the hundreds... thousands (?) of hearing a year at which the Sierra Club shows up and argues OUR PRINCIPLES, replace it with nothing, because of an endorsement choice where they demonstrate to politicians that they will support you if you support them.

              get it?

  •  Dammit (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hhex65, Mz Kleen

    And I tacked a couple of bucks' donation to the Sierra Club on my bill at Wild Oats today... I wasn't paying much attention & figured it was for a food bank or something.

    Compromise is something you do behind the scenes. Stop doing it in public. -Atrios

    by latts on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:04:30 PM PDT

  •  Single-issue groups are in love with incumbents (6+ / 0-)

    And that's very annoying to me too.

    True leadership isn't done by committee.

    by Viktor on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:06:52 PM PDT

  •  Lieberman next? n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cdreid, AaronInSanDiego
  •  Ah (10+ / 0-)

    The Progressive  Morons Parade continues.

    Head beating wall . . .

    Do they do it to spite us?

    "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

    by Armando on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:07:21 PM PDT

    •  sheese (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Armando, walkshills, Elise

      i've tried to be more kind than that.

      in general.

    •  they make deals with individuals (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AaronInSanDiego, RickWn

      rather than parties.

      and they show up every time someone is trying to drain a wetland.

      does the democratic party send people to give a damn?

      should it even?  not really.

      I'm not going to stop sending checks.  

      And I'll wait for a less demagogic approach to explaining why I should stop. Clearly they have a political deal with Chafee.

      •  Nah (6+ / 0-)
        The democratic party just does things like..

        Making it illegal to turn every inch of wetland
        in america into strip malls.

        Making it illegal to eliminate species just because some guy wants to make a quick buck building condos.

        Making it illegal to poison entire cities so badly they have to be abandoned.

        Making it illegal for the NRC hacks to dump yet more radioactive fallout into the environment.

        Silly democrats. Thinking that actually fighting hard and succeeding at pushing an agenda gets you the support of the sellouts who claim to support it.

        Never really listened to the controversy over the "moderates" taking over the Sierra club. But now i understand why so many people quit the organisation. Just one more success of the Clinton  wing of the party..

        We have no Democratic Party. It's financed by the same millionaires and billionaires as the Republicans. K Vonnegut

        by cdreid on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 03:01:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  yeah but (0+ / 0-)

          I have yet to see the Sierra Club stop working on those things, or, being the source by which the Dems LEARN of those issues.

          If that stops, then I'll cheer about calling them morons.

          But this isn't that.

          This is the idea that for every issue that the Democrats are feeble protectors of, and in my view, only protectors due to pressure from such groups as the Sierra Club, kos wants to have those groups ONLY support Dems.

          He wants them to abandon their principles to a position on an issue and limit their support only to Dems.

          He thinks the Dem Party is the answer.

          God only knows why... why, with the Sierra Club gone, the Dems will advance environmental issues, but he's wrong, in my very certain opinion.

      •  Well (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        willers

        Good luck with that.

        "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

        by Armando on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 06:52:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Veteran Sierra Club member speaks (11+ / 0-)

    I have been a member of the Sierra Club for more than forty years, and that's pathetic.

    The good news is that Sierra Club members can endorse the Democratic candidate, and contribute to that person.  I've seen other organizations screw up before, but I'm sorry to see this terrible mistake by the Club elite.

    We're all in this together.

    by JTML on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:07:33 PM PDT

  •  well, i'm glad... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream

    that i didn't give any money to the guy from the sierra club when he came to my door a few weeks back.

    dumbasses.

    TK

    •  that's fucking funny (2+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      RickWn, missreporter
      Hidden by:
      willers

      think about it.

      the sierra club just lost your support for a reason retroactively.  Originally it was just because you don't care if anyone is there to argue for the environment next time they want to bulldoze 1000 acres and make a strip mine.

      •  You shit on the Dem PArty (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        brownsox

        But are all upset because the Sierra Club is getting hit?

        You love they way MSOC shits on the Dem PArty but THIS riles you up?

        You are a piece of wotk. And a hypocrite.

        "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

        by Armando on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 07:16:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I apologize (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mcjoan

          Not a hypocrite, just myopic on these things.

          And unfair.

          And wrong.

          "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

          by Armando on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 07:41:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I shit on the Dem party (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RickWn

          BECAUSE of this Armando.

          My criticism here, except for meta community issues which were in fact still a bit related to all this... of the Dems, has been all about this battle.

          Yeah.

          These posts of kos' make us choose sides, don't be shocked when a person feels they owe thanks to the Sierra Club.  Time and time again they've been there for me, and even better, times I didn't even know about, they did, they were there, they demanded an EIS etc etc.

          I'm not saying, "this tone should never be used" I'm saying, "Don't attack the Sierra Club this way".

          And if the Dem party wants softer criticism, it can have it when it's a two way street, first, and second, when they look out for me the way the Sierra Club does... I DON'T THINK THEY DO.

          I elect them as a sane party, they authorize war, pass bad legislation and then tell me the Sierra Club is the problem via a giant democratic blog?  

          I am willing to explore a resolution among allies, I'd like to see that.  Turning issue groups into partisan groups... no.

          You want that?  Start an environmental caucus in the party that tries to do what the Sierra Club does, but better, and only working with Democrats.  Please DO THAT!!!!

          I won't hold my breath.

      •  wtf?... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jawis

        who the hell are you to tell me i don't care?  i've been a member in the past, but i just got a pay cut, dickweed, so i can't afford to be giving money away for anything right now, unless i want to lose my house.

        so fuck you.

        TK

        •  well fuck you (0+ / 0-)

          for trying to make THIS your reason for not supporting them.

          the real reason is much better.

          kos lied about his 20% rating.

          •  try reading that again, champ.... (0+ / 0-)

            i never said that this was the reason i didn't support them.  the reason was lack of funds, but i didn't give the reason at first, i just said that i was now (because of the endorsement) glad that i didn't give money to the canvasser who came to my door.  

            then you decided to play the part of the presumptuous fuckwit, and jumped to the conclusion that the reason i gave him no cash was that i:

            ...don't care if anyone is there to argue for the environment next time they want to bulldoze 1000 acres and make a strip mine.

            truth be told, you don't know me from adam, and you had no reason for assuming that, unless you happen to think that everyone who doesn't give money every time a sierra club canvasser comes to their door just "doesn't care".  

            all that aside, now that the truth about the 20% rating has come out, i'm not so glad anymore, because the move makes more sense from the club's standpoint (though i still agree that putting an R in over any D is ultimately a bad move).

            but it still doesn't excuse your accusation.

            TK

            •  I don't mind your insults (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TrollKing

              because I did jump in, and I'm glad I did.

              From where I sat, YOU JUMPED IN, like a sheep.  I'm not saying you always do that, I see you've revised your opinion with further facts.

              You have to understand, I blame kos for trying to miseducate (or accidentally in his quest to destroy our advocacy groups in favor of... whatever)... a lot of people reacted with, "why my god, that's inexplicable".

              I want to jump in and say, "no it's not"... kos' credability is in question.

              You may not read 20% and believe it.  You must double research it before you spare a drop of emotion for it.

              So my reply was a smack, and it was rude, etc, and I have nothing against you, nor personal knowledge to really speak deeply about you as a person.

              I suspect you are a great person and would not imply otherwise in any general sense, but your reaction was overly trusting, and how am I supposed to work against such a tide that kos can now move with his words... his mistaken and misleading numbers, which he does not correct?

              There is no other way, and even this way is of negligible impact in general. HOWEVER negligible the impact is over all, by numbers, it's still worth it because thoughtful people, those that are open to further information... are disproportionately able to rectify the mistake, to swim where they like rather than swell with kos' now-questionable  tides on this particular topic of "single issue" groups.

              no offense intended, but for the fact that I don't take any of it back, perhaps it's still offensive.  I sincerely hope not.

            •  that is (0+ / 0-)

              yeah, I made up the "real" reason and it isn't the real reason, that was clear when you mentioned the real reason.

              it was provocative for the purposes and with the logic I just gave... cheers.

              fwiw, I acknowledge that was mere rhetoric on my part, not mind reading.  

              •  ok, truce... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                pyrrho

                i have no problem with your fighting the tide on this... i just got a bit worked up over being told i didn't care.  i felt i was being accused of self-absorption, and self-absorption is something i really just don't have time for.  ;-)

                TK

  •  This is reminiscent... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Armando, Elise

    ...of when BushCo was trying to promote Harriet Miers as a SCOTUS nominee, and they claimed that mediocrity deserved representation.

    The cognitive leaps required by such logic boggle the mind.

    Thwarting the forces of conservatism since 1978. -7.63, -5.64

    by wiscmass on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:08:24 PM PDT

  •  Go Carl Pope! (0+ / 0-)

    Don't worry, Hayduke won't kick your ass because he is a fictional character.

  •  This is absolutely inex-fucking-scusable!! (6+ / 0-)

    I am sending them a fucking letter! AND...I'm NOT renewing my membership!

    GRRRR! Fucking idiots!

  •  Um, Kos? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Go Vegetarian

    When the Democrats never miss an opportunity to disappoint, don't be surprised if the Sierra Club (and NARAL, and the HRC), among others, don't cheerlead.  

    It's a trend with the party.  You run Casey, Jr. in PA, and then get all apoplectic when PRO-CHOICE organizations don't support him.  

    Same thing here.  Democrats talk a good game with environmentalists, and then say something else when big business comes calling.  You don't think the Sierra Club sees/hears that?

    •  Dude (9+ / 0-)

      When you have to bring up Casey for the Rhode Island Senate race you know you have nothing.

      Best no to have commented at all.

      Two names, look em up - Matt Brown, Sheldon Whitehouse.

      The Democratic candidates for Senator for Rhode Island.

      "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

      by Armando on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:13:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  They're Endorsing A Guy... (12+ / 0-)

      ...With a 20% rating!!!

      In fact, Rhode Island is a case where Progressive got the candidates they wanted, since Pro-Life Jim Langevin, who was mopping the floor with Chafee in polls, decided not to run.

      •  This is the best point yet (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Armando, joejoejoe, Rimjob

        he has a 2o percent rating..from their OWN DAMN SYSTEM

        We Do not inherit the earth from our ancestors but borrow it from our children

        by Jeremylreed on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:18:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  In fact his ratings are much higher than that (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pyrrho, Ed in Montana, greendem, RickWn

          He was only at 20% one year, in 2004.

          See posts below for full numbers, but he is at about 67% positive over the last 7 years.

          ...but not your own facts.

          by slouise217 on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:34:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  yeah (2+ / 1-)
            Recommended by:
            slouise217, Prison4Bushco
            Hidden by:
            willers

            this place is fact light, and the post itself endorsed that.

            it's fucking pathetic.

            •  In fact I don't have a big problem (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              RickWn

              With the argument that Armando made, and the argument that Markos came closer to hinting at than outright asserting, but Armando fairly forcefully said that his position and Markos' are one and the same.

              That position, that as long as the Republicans control the Senate, environmental regulations that environmentalists want, rather than what big business wants, are not as likely to happen, has some legs.

              I happen to think that it's more like a bribe, without being illegal, to Chafee.

              If the Democrats are in the majority, they'll vote for the environmental regulations the Sierra Club wants, even if the Sierra Club didn't give them any campaign donations. I cannot see the Democrats hurting the environment as payback for not getting a campaign donation, can you?

              It seems to me that the Sierra Club thinks that the Republicans are gonna keep control of the Senate. And they think that one of their strongest supporters in the party that will be in the majority, Sen Chafee, needs some help to win.

              Let's look at this in a non-partisan way for a minute.

              Party AAA is in the majority. Party BBB is in the minority.

              You can count on Party AAA to vote NO on issue XYZ, as a rule.

              You can count on Party BBB to vote YES on issue XYZ, as a rule.

              You'd like the YES vote - that would best satisfy YOUR political philosophy.

              What would be the BEST solution to have the best chance of getting a YES vote on issue XYZ? Well, electing a majority of people from Party BBB, most of whom will support issue XYZ would help. If there's ever a instance when someone from Party BBB would NOT support issue XYZ, but his opponent would support issue XYZ, then you should cross over and vote for the guy from Party AAA. That would maximize the representatives that supported issue XYZ - vote in ALL the people in Party BBB that support the issue, and vote in ONLY people from Party AAA that support the issue.

              But what if you are pretty sure that you cannot get enough people from Party BBB to be elected, even with some from Party AAA that will support issue XYZ?

              Your next best choice is to elect every person from Party AAA who supports issue XYZ.

              That way, even though you could not get a majority that supported issue XYZ, at least as many as you could get that would support it are in the party in power!

              If you don't think that Party BBB can get a majority, and thereby assure you of a better chance of getting issue XYZ passed, you might want to consider voting for the people in Party AAA that are the most kindred spirits.

              And it seems like the Sierra Club is doing just that. They think that Sen Chafee, although a vote for him will NOT change the majority, will help them if NO majority for the Democratic Party CAN be garnered in the 2006 election. They think 'better half a loaf than no loaf at all.'

              ...but not your own facts.

              by slouise217 on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 03:49:07 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  if sierra Club can screw dems in self interest... (0+ / 0-)

                ..., dems can screw them right back as well. for kos and co only dems interest matters. kos said that time and again that dailykos is about dem party and not about individual progressive causes. astutely, they tie the future of the nation with the win this nov. i think they are right. get this, turns out that we need to win RI to save the nation from bush pushing it beyond the cliff. anyone who backstabbed in the process is not a dem ally and they can go fuck their frogs.

                dems are committed to environment, but not to searra club. while dems in the end support their overall agend as a party, as individuals, we must make a point of screwing the scattering eagle poop out of sierra club and support other environmental groups.

                it is more fun when both sides play politics.

                •  yes, but then (0+ / 0-)

                  we have war in our coalition.

                  if it's a war then we can compare how well money sent to them fares compared to say, dkos.

                  it shouldn't be a war.

                  this should be about a "mistake our friends at the Sierra Club  are making".

                  But it is a two way street, sometimes people wish my criticism of the Democratic party would be lighter and more in that vein.

                  But basically, if I'm forced to choose sides, the Sierra Club has done more for me than the Democratic party.

                  sorry.  it's not my decision, I don't want to have to choose.

            •  Fact light? (0+ / 0-)

              You got some fucking nerve.

              You are fact light.

              "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

              by Armando on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 07:15:22 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Trust (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        greendem, peace voter

        Yes, I'm aware that Langevin dropped out (his "mopping" quotient nothwithstanding).  

        My point is, with the Democratic Party "leadership" being all over the map on myriad issues, don't be suprised if affinity groups that have been traditionally Democratic don't exactly feel comfortable placing all their bets on the Democratic Party anymore.

        •  Is that what you mean? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Aexia, peraspera, gmhowell

          So the smart play is to go with a Republican with no power in his caucus and a 20% rating?

          Yes, the GENIUS is obvious!

          Sheesh Harvey, you gotta be kidding me.

          You KNOW this is idiotic. Don't worry, your creds as a progressive can survive you stating the obvious here.

          "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

          by Armando on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:29:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not Worried About Cred (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            greendem, RickWn

            If I'm the Sierra Club, and I'm being pragmatic about my membership's dollars, I'd recognize that with Chafee, he will (at least nominally) be in the majority, and I'd sometimes have his ear.  Since the Dems lack (and will continue to lack) power in the Senate for the next few years, it's a smart bet.  

            The "why" of Democrats lacking power in the Senate is open for debate.  And that's the real issue. I'd rather worry about that than howl at the moon when affinity groups place their bets wisely.

            •  Nominal power (0+ / 0-)

              Another way of saying NO power.

              Sorry harvey, you are smarter than this.

              This is your pique speaking, imo.

              "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

              by Armando on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:48:43 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  what's with the selective facts? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                AaronInSanDiego, RickWn, slouise217

                20% of fucking what, of when?

                so let's try to get every πrogressive watchdog defunded.

                I remember that's a part of the activist's plan.

                Conservative Activists.

                Fine, criticise them, pressure them in ways they would pressure others, fair ways, where we are brave enough to use all the facts and exculpatory ideas.

                I mean, to present facts that make it a total wtf??!~?!?  "THEY say don't even like him, but endorse him anyway?!?!"  Yeah, that is odd.  Except that's not what they did.

                BASICALLY, they have not been criticised in the post for anything they've actually done, because what happened is so mischaracterized.

                It's not criticism, it's war.

                War on the Sierra Club.

                I owe them.

                They've done work.

                They've watchguarded.  The tone of the criticism is ludicrous imo.

            •  Lincoln Chafee means ZERO (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              AaronInSanDiego

              to the Bush Corporation, to Bill Frist or Ted Stevens. They laugh behind his back.

              He is tolerated, and humored. The Sierra Club has got to be on crack  or has been infiltrated with Rove's operatives.  

              The argument this guy can accomplish anything falls totally flat on it's face. The guy means nothing, he is a freeking badge polishing POS GOP hack.

              He will NEVER represent Progressive values when it's crunch time. I have 4 GOP asshat badge polishers in NH - trust me, I know the drill.

              "Rovus Vulgaris Americanus" nasty, freshly-demoted, soon-to-be-indicted co-conspirator -7.63, -9.59

              by shpilk on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:02:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Chafee Chairs the Senate Committee (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                walden, RickWn, peace voter

                That is keeping the Endangered Species Act from being torn up by a radical House bill writte by Pombo.

                By strategically gumming up the works he is a fucking hero right now. Hundreds of species and ecosystems hang in the balance.

                •  Those Dem votes on the Committee (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  AaronInSanDiego

                  mean squat to you I suppose.

                  A Dem chairman and the damn thing gets voted down.

                  This is so baisc as to be unbelievable that you don;t see it.

                  A Sierra Club member I imagine.

                  Sell that bullshit somewhere else.

                  "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

                  by Armando on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 12:10:47 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Exactly (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  greendem, RickWn

                  He is singlehandedly the biggest obstacle to the Republican leadership's plans to undo the Endangered Species Act this year.

                  The Endangered Species Act is the strongest of the nation's environmental laws for protecting public lands, waters, forests, grasslands, wetlands, and the like.  If the Senate passes a bill anything close to the House bill (or potentially any bill at all)-- off they go to conference and it's all over in a heartbeat.

                  Chafee has put on the big stall for over a year and is still driving his Republican colleagues crazy by refusing to report out a Senate endangered species bill.  This act alone would warrant the Sierra Club rewarding him.

                  The Club also undoubtedly wants to have at least some bipartisanship. There are a few Republicans who could conceivably warrant the club's endorsement, but not very many....and some of those (like Sherwood Boehlert) are retiring rather than running for reelection.

        •  If an endorsement (0+ / 0-)

          Happens because that person votes in teh interest of the said club I understand it. Take the IL-08 race for instance ( i think that is right ) You have a Dem who said she was against CAFTA voted against it and now is SHOCKED that the union is backing a 3rd party. I have no problem with the union doing this because it is representing it's constiuents interest.

          This endorsement is really really short sided (putting it kindly here) it is going to hurt the club more within it's membership than it helps anyone..

          We Do not inherit the earth from our ancestors but borrow it from our children

          by Jeremylreed on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:30:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Why is it (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Armando, Ray Radlein, luckydog

      that people are constantly lamenting that the Democrats have abandoned their principles, yet they have no problem when interest groups like the Sierra Club do the same thing?

      Do we know for sure that the Democrats in this race have worse positions on the environment than Chafee?  If the answer is no, then the endorsement is indefensible, at least as far as principle is concerned.  If the Democrats are just as bad or have no record, then the Sierra Club shouldn't endorse anyone.  There is no principled justification for supporting a Republican candidate with a 20% rating.  

    •  Everybody Loves Chafee (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aexia, Armando, Go Vegetarian, Mz Kleen

      Whee! Look who's fundraising for the progressives' favorite rubber stamp Republican, Sen. Chafee ...

      ... the Human Rights Campaign!

      Funny thing, though, is that bipartisanship has this weird aftertaste. Like bitter almonds.

  •  Complete Morons. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Elise

    Russ Feingold for President!

    by Basil on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:10:12 PM PDT

  •  Let the morons (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Elise

    It will just make it harder for Chafee to win the GOP nomination.

  •  The Sierrra Club is getting weird. (10+ / 0-)

    One of the directors just resigned in a disagreement over the approach to hunters. He feels they have gone off the deep end in the courtship process. Clearly some problems at the top.

    “It appears to me that the Sierra Club should have better projects to spend $15,700 on than sending some nimrod to Alaska to shoot wildlife,” said Watson. “Last year they turned down my request for a $5,000 grant to assist the rangers in the Galapagos National Park deal with poachers."

    Watson last year protested the posting of pictures of Sierra Club leaders posing with their trophy kills on the Sierra Club website. Each year, he says, the environmental organization is spending over $200,000 on hunter outreach programs despite the fact that fewer than 20 percent of the Sierra Club membership are hunters.
    ~~~~~
    Watson is also the founder and president of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, which wages worldwide campaigns against the slaughter of marine mammals and misuse of marine resources.

    The Sierra Club policy on hunting as adopted by the Sierra Club Board of Directors in 1994 states, "Acceptable management approaches include both regulated periodic hunting and fishing when based on sufficient scientifically valid biological data and when consistent with all other management purposes and when necessary total protection of particular species or populations."

    •  strange indeed! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bree, willers

      I didn't know they were supporting hunting. Now I'm pissed I gave them money at all! Why in the world would they think a vegetarian would want their money to go supporting those who slaughter defenseless animals? I'd laugh my ass off if I found out that the percentage of members that were vegetarian was higher than the percentage who hunt.

      And I was just listening to Carl Pope on Talk of the Nation the other day...he didn't do too badly! The topic was energy though...

      I'm SO frustrated by this. I'm getting tired of shaking my head and saying this like "What would the founding fathers say?" In this case...a slightly different set of founding fathers...but nonetheless...I'm sure they're all disgusted with the ways people are misinterpreting their goals.

      Thanks for the link, melvin:)

      •  'Tis the new environmentalism (10+ / 0-)

        True hunters and fishermen respect the environment just as much as you do.  They are perhaps the one group shamefully underrepresented in the modern day environmental movement and if brought into the fold, could do wonders for the cause.  These type of people are the same ones who helped elect Gov. Schweitzer in Montana, who has a damn good environmental record.

        •  Yeah...well I don't want my money (0+ / 0-)

          going to support the murder of animals. That's why I'm a vegetarian in the first place. So, I'll apparently have to find an environmental group (I'm sure it won't be a problem) that is NOT promoting the death of animals.

          I don't care if hunters and fishermen continue what they do...that's their business, but to use my money to support it, well, that I won't do.

          I'm glad to see hunters and fishermen finally waking up though...

      •  Guns & Greens (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        amRadioHed

        Why in the world would they think a vegetarian would want their money to go supporting those who slaughter defenseless animals?

        Well...

        Slap it. Shoot it. Kaboot it.

        by adios on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:41:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ted Williams, the author of that piece, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Elise

          is everywhere working for this coalition. The thing about the S.C. is a matter of how to spend scarce resources. Division at the top is not a good sign.

        •  Hunters (5+ / 0-)

          I’ve been a vegetarian for 13-14 years and I don’t have a problem with hunters. As long as they eat what they hunt and maintain the habitat of their hunt. Eating meat doesn’t make anyone a bad person. Just gross. : ) My dad hunts and fishes and he's very careful not to unduly affect the environment in which he does so.

          I do, however, have a huge ass problem with anything that supports keeping the Republican party as majority.  It will take decades to undo all of the environmental damage this congress has caused. I can’t imagine any administration has ever done more damage and yet they get a nod from Sierra Club? This really pisses me off. I’ll be sending in a cancellation of my membership tomorrow, along with an explanation as to why. Why would I buy blue, yet donate monthly to an organization that specifically endorses a Republican?

          •  I don't have a problem with hunters either (0+ / 0-)

            as long as they do as you've suggested above. I do have a problem with my money going to support hunting though. That's something I don't want my money to support...for others who don't have a problem with that, that's fine, but it isn't fine for me...

        •  We can work together without my money (0+ / 0-)

          going to kill animals...and we should.

    •  So the top brass at SC are hunters? (0+ / 0-)

      That explains such policy statements
      They lost me as a contributor /supporter. But as I said on an earlier post, the rot sets in when people and organizations get too successful and complacent. It happened with Labor and it's happening with NARAL and environmental groups too.

      Just like democracies, which also eventually fall  . . . hate to be a pessimist but I do believe history repeats itself everywhere.

    •  The Sierra Club is getting weird? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AaronInSanDiego, melvin, KenBee

      Melvin, they have been weird for 30 years. David Brower ran for the national board four or five times in the 80s and 90s to "reform" the Club. Brower would get elected, do next to nothing on the board, get ticked off about something and resign in a public huff. Then a year later, he would run for his old board seat again.

      People put up with this shit because Brower was such a legendary enviro from the 1960s, and still had a avid following of hero worshippers, even though he accomplished next to nothing in his later years.

      The Club is a big, influential, chaotic, messy, grassroots democratic organization that I have somehow put up with for 37 years. Sort of like the Democratic Party.

      As far as Paul Watson resigning from the board, good riddance. Watson is more of a charismatic enviro lone ranger in the David Brower mode, who strengths don't lie with working closely with others to run a big non-profit corporation, which is what the Club is.

    •  ARGH (0+ / 0-)

      I quit being a member several years ago over some strange position they pushed that pissed me off, I honestly don't recall what it was now. After today, and especially your post, I'm gone for good unless something radically changes this organization.

      Someone else said that the rightwingers were trying to infiltrate... perhaps they actually did succeed after all. I have no other explanation.

      I wish they'd stop making John Muir cry.

      I don't like Bizarro World... I want to go home to America.

      by willers on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 08:49:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  That's about as stupid (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    smartgo, Mz Kleen

    as coming out and supporting Bush.

    Think about this from another perspective - I'd bet that a huge majority of their members are Liberal. If they find out that the Club is supporing a Republican who's not even a good environmentalist how many people do you think will let their memberships lapse?

    If I was still a member that's what I'd do. Since I can't I will be sending them an email.

    -4.25, -6.87: Someday, after the forest fire of the Right has died we'll say "Whew, I'm happy that's over."

    by CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:12:00 PM PDT

  •  Sierra Club is Fine (0+ / 0-)

    It's the Democratic Party that is fucked up.

  •  Don't just sit there (9+ / 0-)

    For questions regarding Sierra Club's political activities, email us at political.desk@sierraclub.org

    Sierra Club
    National Headquarters
    85 Second Street, 2nd Floor
    San Francisco, CA 94105
    USA
    Phone: 415-977-5500
    Fax: 415-977-5799

    Sierra Club
    Legislative Office
    408 C St., N.E.
    Washington, DC 20002
    USA
    Phone: 202-547-1141
    Fax: 202-547-6009

    "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed." General Buck Turgidson

    by muledriver on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:13:55 PM PDT

  •  After reading 'Crashing the Gate' (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Go Vegetarian, sadhu, wader, Elise

    this news not only makes me want to puke, but I just sent a letter with my blank Sierra Club membership renewal form calling them on their political idiocy, demanding they take me off all of their lists, with a note to read chapter 2 of "Crashing the Gate."

    This shit makes me sick!

    I think, therefore I am NOT A REPUBLICAN!!!

    by Reality Bites Back on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:17:32 PM PDT

  •  Un. Fucking, Believable. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Elise
    or should I say,

    Dumbest. Endorsement. Ever.

    After the Duckworth vs. Cegelis fiasco, I have learned NEVER to accept ANYONE or ANY GROUP's endorsement of a candidate again. They are ALL tainted. (Kos showed his colors by writing in support of Duckworth, negating EVERYTHING he writes in CTG about his belief in the local grassroots vs. the DC establishment.)

    People have to investigate for themselves. Everyone out there has an agenda, and it's often NOT the one they advertise.

    "This party's strength does not come from the consultants down, it comes from the grassroots up." --Howard Dean

    by Jim in Chicago on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:17:43 PM PDT

  •  listen people... (0+ / 0-)

    insanity can transcend party lines.

  •  I could see if it were deliberately (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Armando, peraspera, Elise, Eikyu Saha

    duplicitous on the Sierra Club's part .. to perhaps mean just support for Chafee in the primary .. only to turn on him in the general election .. ???

    That would make them just untrustworthy jerks, with a good environmental agenda. Something to be real proud of, playing dirtbag politics .

    That's the potential upside of this equation ??  

    Man .. what the Sam Hill is going on with these people?? It's like Invasion of the body Snatchers with these 'so-called Progressive organizations' lately.

    "Rovus Vulgaris Americanus" nasty, freshly-demoted, soon-to-be-indicted co-conspirator -7.63, -9.59

    by shpilk on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:18:32 PM PDT

  •  Wnat dumbshits (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Armando, peraspera, Elise, Eikyu Saha
    Man, if we have a net pickup of 5 seats, and Chaffee is the deciding vote for whicheverever crazy anti-environmental guy gets to replace the cat killer as Senate mMajority leader, the Sierra Club will have no one but themselves to blame.
  •  Glad I'm a Sierra club member (12+ / 0-)

    Because otherwise I couldn't cancel my membership tomorrow.

    "We are playing chess, they are playing Go." - Seymour Hersh

    by smartgo on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:19:47 PM PDT

    •  But that's counter to the whole idea (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ed in Montana

      ...of "Crashing the Gate"  What the Kossacks must do now is to join the Sierra Club in droves and try to reform it from the ground up...with a 50 state chapter strategy!  You can't give up on the Sierra Club, just because it seems to have developed Republican tendencies.  That would be defeatist!  

      I know, I know...we may not like what the Sierra Club has been doing lately, but...face it, the Sierra Club what we've got...like it or not, so we have no choice but to work within the Sierra Club.  If it hasn't been representing our progressive environmental values...well then, as progressives, we are morally obligated to take it back and reform it.  We have to be pragmatic!!!  The Sierra Club has an existing infrastructure, and, as we all know...or have at least have heard ad nauseum...it's soooo much easier to build from an existing infrastructure than to create a brand new one.

      And the Sierra Club has got great brand recognition, too!!!

      (tons and tons and tons of snark)

      •  Nope (0+ / 0-)

        Dry em up.

        The Sierra Club is NOT the Dem Party.

        You got it ass backwards.

        "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

        by Armando on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 12:16:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  With you hadn't snarked that comment (1+ / 2-)
        Recommended by:
        Ed in Montana
        Hidden by:
        Armando, SLJ

        The point you make is exactly what I argue to those who vote Repub in my little world. Many of them are one issue voters - abortion and/or guns are two of the biggest reasons they vote Republican.

        I try to convince them of the wisdom to count the many other ways the Democratic party is really their party and that if they are unhappy with particular stands the party makes, their wisest vote is to vote for the party that consistently hits eighty percent of their values and ideals and work within the party to change the smaller percentage with which you don't agree.

        Here you all are lining up to high-five quitting the Sierra Club because you don't agree with a local chapter's endorsement of their Republican candidate.

        Hey, folks. Any wonder why people quit the Democratic party? You're showing how simple, how visceral and easy it is to do. Just let that group you thought was representing your interests take a stand in the opposite direction and you are falling all over yourselves to quit and go somewhere else.

        Well, now you know why so many former Dems vote Republican. It only takes a Limbaugh like Armando and a few half-assed facts and even the good folks at dKos will flee in fear and gleefully join in the boiling alive.

        •  Sorry about the snark (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RickWn

          But I also meant it to illustrate the same point that you made:

          If you are going to react this way to the Sierra Club's (or any other organization) not behaving the way you want, then you are in no position to expect anyone to react any differently to the Democratic Party.

          Really, if you apply all this "take over" stuff logically, the most sensible thing for progressives to do would be to try to take over the Republican Party instead of the Democratic Party, since that's where Democrats tell me the source of problem lies, anyway.

        •  Eff you (0+ / 0-)

          and your attscks on my integrity.

          Troll rating.

          "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

          by Armando on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 07:55:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  WTF! (0+ / 0-)

          "...a Limbaugh like Armando.." best endorsement yet for the ability to edit your own comments.
             You dint really mean that, right? Now's yer chance..you were drunk...the cat typed it...whatever.

          Somebody, do something, I got kids I care about, fer crying out loud!

          by KenBee on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 11:59:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Wow, tough standards (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dtj, Elise, Eikyu Saha

    A 20% rating gets their endorsement?  I can't wait for their next appeal to me.

    Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool-- how much worse lying lips to a ruler - Proverbs 17:7

    by Barbara Morrill on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:19:56 PM PDT

  •  ::::pops Sierra Club on top of its head:::: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Armando, Elise

    Stooopid!

    "Words are, of course, the most potent drug used by mankind." Rudyard Kipling.

    by Kimberly Stone on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:24:32 PM PDT

  •  See, (6+ / 0-)

    Error Club.

    Ahh. I got nuthin'.

    We are all insurgents now.

    by The Gryffin on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:24:36 PM PDT

  •  NO SHIT SHERLOCK (0+ / 0-)

    moronic indeed

  •  Great timing (0+ / 0-)

    My membership renewal form just came in the mail last week.

    The question now is whether it goes back with a pointed letter, or whether there's going to be an effort from within to run other candidates for the Board, and stop their endorsement of two more years of this disaster.

    I know they had some sort of inner turmoil a couple of years ago and are probably not going to let it happen again, so I'll probably just send back the envelope with an explanation of why they won't get money from me. But on the other hand, if there's enough of a groundswell of opposition, maybe it's worth sticking it out to push back?

  •  Well (0+ / 0-)

    In her race against Chris Van Hollen (D) in 2002, Connie Morella (R) of MD's 8th district (inner Montgomery County and sliver of inner PG County) received similiar endorsements. She still lost to Van Hollen.

    I think the Sierra Club is making a mess here. Frankly what they should have done is either endorse no one or everyone running. However, their endorsement of Chaffee alone is not smart. Or at least I don't agree with it.

  •  BLOG ANGRILY at Carl Pope's Blog! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joejoejoe, Nonpartisan, LynChi, SLJ

    sierraclub.org/carlpope/ Carl Pope's insipid blog is just dying for some griping.

  •  Serious green (small 'g') here. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hhex65

    I've been thinking for a while I ought to join the SC.

    Won't waste my time and $ on it now.

    Let's get serious about renewables and efficiency. It's time to Win the Oil Endgame.

    by by foot on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:36:13 PM PDT

  •  'Moderates' must be 'balanced' (0+ / 0-)

    Partisanship is so unpleasant.  They'd rather give the bully their lunch money... politely, of course.

    www.bushwatch.net - Kicking against the pricks since '98!

    by chuckvw on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:37:27 PM PDT

  •  So what else is new? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gmhowell, melvin

    Slap it. Shoot it. Kaboot it.

    by adios on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:37:39 PM PDT

    •  Recommended all, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ed in Montana, RickWn, adios

      but in fairness, it seems too much to expect the Sierra Club to have come out forcefully against the war when we can't even get the Dem party to.

      •  Hi melvin... (0+ / 0-)

        ...actually, I expect the 'big tent' Demos to be conflicted over issues of war & peace - but not the heirs of John Muir's legacy.

        My thesis is that compromise is often necessary but that it ought not originate with the Sierra Club. We are to hold fast to what we believe is right, fight for it, and find allies and adduce all possible arguments for our cause. If we cannot find enough vigor in us or them to win, then let someone else propose the compromise. We thereupon work hard to coax it our way. We become a nucleus around which the strongest force can build and function.

        ~ David Brower ~

        Slap it. Shoot it. Kaboot it.

        by adios on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:31:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Uh oh (0+ / 0-)

      Alexander Cockburn left-wingnut alert. Cockburn is batshit crazy and is about as useless as Ralph Nader.

  •  His overall rating is 67.5% (5+ / 0-)

    since 2000, out of 80 votes, 54 were pro-environment.  Nice of someone to cherry pick a year when the club only rated 5 votes.  He is a good environmentalist in an anti-environment party.  He really should switch parties.  

    •  not about his record (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Armando

      It's the self-defeating framing of "dissident within the majority party" that makes my head explode.  

      Carl Pope should switch parties if being such a strident voice in the "majority" one is so important to him.  Thanks for joining the emerging Democratic majority team, Carl!

      D-Day, the newest blog on the internet (at the moment of its launch)

      by dday on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:52:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  He really should switch parties (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bree

      Is that NOT the most damning indictment of all?

      WHY should he switch parties do you think?

      The same DAMN reason the Sierra Club should NEVER endorse a gawddam Republican when there are BETTER Dems in the race.

      You flunked logic I see.

      "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

      by Armando on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:53:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I can't say why (0+ / 0-)

        he is a Republican.  When I say he should switch, it is that I would like to see him become a Democrat.  The Sierra Club endorses primarily on environmental voting record, and he has a good one.  Why is that so difficult for anyone to understand, simply  because he has an "R" after his name?

        •  Simply because? (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dtj, spurdy, bree, MattR, melvin

          Omifuckinggawd!

          That R means a vote for Bill Frist who sets the agenda in the Senate.

          Who decides to sneak in ANWR drilling, who picks the ocnference members.

          Who slots committee chairman.

          You are making me bang my head against the wall.

          Honestly, do you folks know NOTHING?

          Do you actually CARE about the environment? If you do, learn a gawddam thing about how the Congress works.

          I f you knew anything, you would never ever  write "simply because he has an R next to his name."

          Next person to write that should be banned immediately!  

          "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

          by Armando on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:06:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  A few questions (0+ / 0-)

            Armando, do you ever go hunting or fishing?

            Do you ever take time from your computer and go for a hike in a national park?

            Do you ever step outside your door and remark about what a beautiful clear day it is?

            Do you ever welcome the rain because it's not acidic?

            Did you ever swim in a river and wonder about the oily looking stuff floating on top or the foaming suds lapping at a great lake shore?

            Did you ever drive through Los Angeles in the 1970's and marvel at how you couldn't see two telephone poles ahead for the thickness of the smog?

            Do you regularly attend meetings of environmental groups and lobby for pro-environmental legislation?

            Is all the electricity burned by your computer produced  by green sources? Do you know or even care?

            Do you know how absolutely full of bullshit you are for promoting that everyone abandon the Sierra Club for its lapses in management and focus, while simultaneously promoting everyone vote and endorse the Democratic party?

            Jeeesh, Armando. As a whole, the Sierra Club as done a greater service to this community than you have. Cut the Limbaugh ploy, dude. It's unbecoming of guy with your intellect.

    •  I seem to remember 67.5... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BrooklynRaider, darwinsjoke

      is a solid D. Noone used to describe D as "good". When I was in school it was described as "bad".

      I guess if the SC has it's way we can one day proudly proclaim:

      "The water you are drinking is 67.5% Mercury-Free!"

      "There is a 67.5% chance that the fish you are eating is safe!"

      "There is a 67.5% chance the present air quality conditions are safe for the elderly and children with asthma!"

      It's gonna be grand!

  •  i'm guessing (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DelRPCV, bree, joanneleon

    that there was a factor in the decisionmaking besides what's best for the environment....

  •  Absolutely disagree (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ed in Montana, RickWn

    The Sierra Club supported Chafee with his very good environment record. Personally. According to your logic - no conservative organization may support a Democtat and no liberal or progressive - Republican. There is exactly one word for such idiotic logic - bullshit!

    •  20%????? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Armando, RickWn, shpilk, peace voter

      I'd say your argument is 80% ineffective.

      Support your neighborhood bats.

      by DelRPCV on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:44:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  that's just great .. a 20% record (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Armando

      is

      GEIYAR

      Good Enough If You Are Rape-public-can ..

      Democrats ?? Who the F#$% cares?
      We got our 20% ..

      Sure, pal ..

      .. thanks for playing ..

      "Rovus Vulgaris Americanus" nasty, freshly-demoted, soon-to-be-indicted co-conspirator -7.63, -9.59

      by shpilk on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:48:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Read below Chafee environmemt ratings (0+ / 0-)

        Please

        •  Read this (0+ / 0-)

          F-R-I-S-T.

          "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

          by Armando on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:16:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Don't try (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RickWn

            to frighten me - the fact, that they both belong to one party doesn't make me anti-Chafee. BTW - i am an Indie, so i am NOT obliged to vote for every and each Democratic candidate...

          •  educating one's own side with misleading facts (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            rick, RickWn, slouise217

            incomplete facts.

            it's an act of sedition within a coalition.

            it's dumbifications.

            there is ONLY ONE reason to do that.  The creation of mindless fodder.  Is that what dkos has become?

            without real and complete facts up front, the Sierra Club has not yet, in fact, been criticized, but instead some pitiful straw man.

            •  And the thing that gets me (3+ / 1-)
              Recommended by:
              Ed in Montana, rick, RickWn
              Hidden by:
              Armando

              Is that the one person that was really trying to make hay on this thread, Armando...

              What's his new blog gonna be about? What's his hook gonna be?

              Looking at ALL the facts, right? Having an honest examination of the issues, right?

              This is the battle I wage daily here at DailyKos - arguing against jumping to conclusions, or asserting facts based upon speculation without true evidence.

              Yet the fact that the 20% figure is apparently an anomaly in the environmental voting record of Senator Chafee didn't upset Armando at all - and he even berated me for making that point repeatedly until he finally acknowledged it. Using the rating from that one, non-representative year, is not an honest examination of the facts, in my opinion.

              And that's the thing that gets me. Always does. And did again this morning.

              ...but not your own facts.

              by slouise217 on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 04:07:16 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Make hay? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Kimberly Stone, CSI Bentonville

                I troll rate you for that.

                That is an attack on my integrity.

                If you had cared to research, instead of attacking my character, you would know I was the first to critique NARAL, have been following the RI Senate race bery cosely and have strong feelings on many things.

                Your cheap reach to the attack on my character leaves me with nothing but contempt for you.

                "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

                by Armando on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 07:59:11 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I did NOT make a cheap attack (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  RickWn

                  I made a VERY valid point.

                  YOU think that honest discussion of ALL the facts are supposedly very important.

                  Yet YOU chided me FOR correcting the misinformation about Chafee's record.

                  You made fun of me for LOOKING up the facts, and reporting them back here.

                  I DID attack your integrity, and for a good reason.

                  YOUR position on the NARAL, and on ANY focus group that ignores the legislative leadership votes is separate and distinct from the issues I was raising.

                  I THOUGHT you had figured that out last night/this morning. I did NOT attack YOUR character as it related to your stance on NARAL or the Rhode Island Senate race. So WHY would you think that I did?

                  Once again, show me ONE place where I did that, and I will go back and FIX it, because if I did that, I was wrong.

                  But that's NOT what I did.

                  What I clearly objected to, and explained it quite thoroughly several times, was YOUR rejection of a correction to Chafee's stated environmental record.

                  -------------

                  Do you somehow think that "make hay" is a derogatory term? It's not. You were trying to make hay about your issue that the legislative leadership votes are underrated. I even AGREED with you on that point, and stated so SEVERAL times! But during that initiative, you derided me for correcting the record about Chafee's environmental votes. You derided others who did the same. It was the lack of respect for the true figures THERE that was the issue.

                  Too bad you seem to have a blind spot over that. But you were wrong to fight against a discussion of Chafee using the data that better reflects Chafee's stance on environmental issues.

                  Feel FREE to argue that despite the 67% pro-environmental voting record, you still think it's a better choice to donate to a different candidate for the Sierra Club. Go for it. You should NOT argue that it's better and claim that he has a 20% positive rating though.

                  That's was MY issue last night. And still IS my issue, I guess, that YOU seem to be rejecting the truth.

                  I see making arguments based on the truth as incredibly, urgently important. If you say he's got a 20% positive rating, those you are arguing against will be much more likely to disregard what you say because they know that he really has a 67% positive rating!

                  ...but not your own facts.

                  by slouise217 on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 01:18:33 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Armando (1+ / 1-)
                  Recommended by:
                  CSI Bentonville
                  Hidden by:
                  Lawyer to Capitalists

                  Stroll through SLouise217's comments.

                  You will find a new definition of troll.

                  The person is fucking nuts. You will never find more instances of accusations, slander, and hate. She has, however, lots of praise for her own integrity and intelligence.

                  So don't feel insulted. She screams hate at a lot of people.

                  Really. Seriously. Totally fucking nuts.

                  "Words are, of course, the most potent drug used by mankind." Rudyard Kipling.

                  by Kimberly Stone on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 07:51:23 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  fair enough (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Armando, KenBee

          he's a clever badge polisher .. I'll grant you that. Like I said above, even the NH contingent looks 'OK' on paper for some issues.

          But it's fantasy. They are busy shining up the 'environmentallly friendly' badge one day, the 'human rights' one the next.

          It's not fooling anyone.
          Well, almost anyone.  

          The point still remains, either of the Democratic challengers will assuredly have a willing, even more environmentally friendy stance than Chafees.

          Democrats real independents like Jeffords or Sanders do it, knowing full well the can count other members of their own party or the caucus to work through legislation  that means something.

          Meanwhile, at best .. Chafee is an outsider, a freak of the GOP - at worst, a duplicitous badge polishing hack.  

          "Rovus Vulgaris Americanus" nasty, freshly-demoted, soon-to-be-indicted co-conspirator -7.63, -9.59

          by shpilk on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:42:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's your view (0+ / 0-)

            I, being an Indie, always liked moderate and liberal Republicans - may be exactly because of their rarity in party

            •  I'm a registered independent .. while the (0+ / 0-)

              Democratic Party is too conservative and slow for my taste, I suspect you'd label Democrats as 'liberal'.

              My political label is Progressive - the word 'Democrat' I associate with myself is out of necessity.

              Ya, that's my view.

              "Rovus Vulgaris Americanus" nasty, freshly-demoted, soon-to-be-indicted co-conspirator -7.63, -9.59

              by shpilk on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 05:16:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sure (0+ / 0-)

                I am solid centrist with some very slight "left" leanings. So, generally Democrats are somewhat liberal for my taste, while Republicans (with exception of most moderate members) are surely too conservative. In fact i frequently have no one to vote for: the typical situation being - "far too left" (for my taste) Democrat and "far too right" Republican

          •  But what if the Republicans keep the majority? (0+ / 0-)

            For the Sierra Club, wouldn't it be better to have a Republican majority with Senator Chafee in their corner than a Republican majority WITHOUT Senator Chafee in their corner?

            I suspect that someone in their organization made the determination that the Republicans are keeping the majority in the Senate.

            And if that's the case, it'll be best for them to keep Chafee in the Senate. A Democrat who is a little better on enviromental issues who is in the minority, in their way of thinking, is less helpful to their cause than a Republican who is a little worse on environmental issues in a Republican-majority controlled Senate.

            I don't know that this is a good bargain for them to have made, but I am pretty sure that this is why they did it.

            They are supporting him for both the primary and the general election.

            The ONLY reason to support him in the primary is if they think the Republicans are going to keep control in the Senate - if that's the case, then the environmentalist you know (Chafee) is better than the devil you don't know (whoever might beat Chafee in the primary)!

            They think the primary is important? They think that the Senate stays Republican-controlled.

            ...but not your own facts.

            by slouise217 on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 04:14:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  primary, fine .. (0+ / 0-)

              but to endorse for the general election, before the Democrat has even been chosen smacks of plain - not fancy - stupid reasoning.

              If a Democrat replaces Chafee, {a Democrat who will willingly support environmentally friendly agenda, not just when it's badge polishing time} how is this a 'downside' in the calculus?

              The only thing Chafee does right now is give a Faux  patina to the GOP as fair/balanced/environmentally friendly.

              "Rovus Vulgaris Americanus" nasty, freshly-demoted, soon-to-be-indicted co-conspirator -7.63, -9.59

              by shpilk on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 05:13:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Very good record? (0+ / 0-)

      You know, it is wise to have some ac tual DAMN facts in your posts.

      What a stupid comment.

      "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

      by Armando on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:52:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ed in Montana, nightsweat

        90 - from LCV, 100 - from American Wilderness Coalition (in 2005)and so on. Not enough? Don't make an idiotic statements himself first, Armando, as you very frequently do - then blame others..

        •  Frist (0+ / 0-)

          Heard of him?

          A vote for Chafee is a vote for Frist.

          Do you seriously believe Dems will not be significantly better?

          What are you smoking?

          "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

          by Armando on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:16:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nothing (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RickWn

            I don't smoke at all. Yes, i believe that Democrat will NOT be significantly better then Chafee, and i am generally satisfied with Chafee record (not on all points, but generally - yes)

            •  I'd vote for a baby seal clubbing dem (0+ / 0-)

              at this point...vote for reepers if you like, "all things being even"...but they aren't. They're pretty f'up.
                 If we don't vote the dems in somehow, the baby seals will have three heads and glow in the dark fur,
                 These times are not normal. Dem vs Rep just isn't the same frat boy pissing contest, we are all conservatives now.

                 How many 'almost went nuclear' confrontations have I lived through in my 60 years? Far too many, because there must be a god, other wise the fucking monkeyboys in charge would have killed us all by now.
                 Since I'm not quite sure about the god thing and the good will thereof thing, I'd prefer to not push the statistics any more...ever. Therefore no more stupid, politics as usual triangulating bullshit will I accept...

              (Sorry smms, I got a bit grumpy there, not at you actually..)

              Somebody, do something, I got kids I care about, fer crying out loud!

              by KenBee on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 01:58:06 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  And i will not (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                RickWn

                Repeat - i am Indie. I vote for Democrats i like. I vote for Republicans i like. For Greens or Libertarians.. I am free. That's the most important difference from you...

                •  Me too, but for now (0+ / 0-)

                  I think it's bigger than that, and unless a coalition of all those almost dems, like you and me and even Sen Chafee (heh) get focused on removing this boil we are all really ...sunk.
                     It's not a good year or the next three years to think about third parties...this is an emergency as far as I can see, and the old habitual political thinking all around us, even here, isn't good enough.
                      I think this coalition must include a huge amount of ex and current military, old time fiscal conservatives, as well as greens, Naderitas, etc, because it's just got to. Armando's new blog may be just such a venue to help such a conflation evolve, e.g.
                     Now when the dems are back in power, any of them do anything like the shit that's been going on, and I'll be very happy to punch them on the beak for it, but that's then, and this is now.

                  Somebody, do something, I got kids I care about, fer crying out loud!

                  by KenBee on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 02:19:12 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Good for you (1+ / 1-)
                  Recommended by:
                  slouise217
                  Hidden by:
                  Armando

                  And welcome to what many Dems here hope is a forum that will convince you this is the true party of the big tent.

                  Don't mind, Armando this morning. He's being a bigger prick than usual trying to drum up interest for some other project he's about to launch. Today, he's apparently no more self serving and self interested than say... oh, I don't know, maybe the Sierra Club?

    •  Can you read? (0+ / 0-)

      20% ratings? Give me a break! These Sierra guys are stupid.

  •  Here's the real idiocy (6+ / 0-)

    It's not like the Democratic candidates weren't at least equally pro-environment on an individual basis, without even factoring in the problems that a Republican majority creates.

    From this survey of the Democratic candidates for Senator in Rhode Island.

    If the United States needs to become less dependant on foreign oil, what would you do as a US Senator to stimulate the renewable energy industries and to encourage American innovation in the field of renewable energy technologies?

    Brown: It is imperative that we reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We should start by raising corporate average fuel efficiency (CAFE) standards and encouraging the development of offshore wind power parks.

    Wind is a virtually unlimited source of clean power that can be used to replace gas, oil, and other fossil fuels. I believe the Federal Government should provide tax breaks to encourage the development of offshore wind parks, such as the Cape Wind project, which is a proposed offshore wind park that will be approximately five miles off the coast of Cape Cod.

    Sheeler: Three-year challenge of our universities and businesses to develop new technologies through a SBIR, three-step grant process, providing increasing federal funding based upon achieving milestones. The larger the amount of federal funds, the larger the ownership interest given to the government to incentivize external investment. Shared intellectual property rights.

    Whitehouse: As a nation, we must cut our dependence on foreign oil and preserve our environment with a commitment to energy independence by 2020. I will push for tougher CAFE standards, increased federal investment in developing renewable energy sources, and greater incentives for Americans to use clean energy technologies.

    snip

    Tell me about your position on global warming and how it is different from President Bush's position.  Please include your track record on environmental issues.

    Brown: Global warming is a real and serious problem. The first step in tackling this problem must be to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. This can be done by raising corporate average fuel efficiency (CAFE) standards and encouraging the development of sources of renewable energy including offshore wind power parks.

    At City Year we cleaned-up, improved, and landscaped parks, playgrounds, and fields in disrepair. We took back parks back from gangs, turned abandoned properties into gardens and recreational areas, cleaned-up river banks, and planted trees in parks, neighborhoods, and sensitive areas.

    Sheeler: Common sense tells us if we're putting pollutants into our air and water that there is an adverse impact.  As the changes are becoming more evident, we have to reestablish regulatory bodies with adequate funding to authority to reduce the U.S.'s impact on warming and participate in the Kyoto Protocol.

    Whitehouse: Global warming is a serious problem that affects our environment, economy and health. President Bush was wrong to withdraw from Kyoto. I believe America should lead this fight, not ignore it.  I've fought for the environment throughout my career and was awarded Save the Bay's 2003 Environmental Advocacy Award.

    The Sierra Club was almost taken over by questionable types fairly recently.  Makes you go hmmm.

    Support your neighborhood bats.

    by DelRPCV on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:42:36 PM PDT

    •  But it was not (0+ / 0-)

      And a good read of this blog's founder Markos' book Crashing the Gate will tell you that the Democratic party is in need of some damn good repair itself. So the answer is... quit? Stop contributing? Withdraw your membership? Don't contribute? I don't think so.

  •  Well, um... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ed in Montana, peace voter

    He did vote against the Iraq resolution. And against Alito (and I guess he gets a pass on voting for cloture since he was the lone Senate Republican to vote against either).

    With all his dissidence in his voting record, maybe he'll consider joining the Dems the next election cycle.

    •  He'd better be out of office next cycle (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      boofdah

      If your name was George Walker instead of George Walker Bush, your candidacy would be a joke.

      by dole4pineapple on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:44:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  He had that chance (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joanneleon, KenBee

      even to do a Jeffords.

      He chose not to.

      Sorry, no pass.

      "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

      by Armando on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:50:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Chafee would be an unreliable Democrat (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ed in Montana, DelRPCV, KenBee

        might end up like Lieberman. Rhode Island needs to send a solid Democrat to the Senate. Just like Connecticut.

        If your name was George Walker instead of George Walker Bush, your candidacy would be a joke.

        by dole4pineapple on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:52:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Mr A, thanks for taking the hard line here (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RickWn

        I'm so old haha, I might have gone with these good 'politics as usual' arguments, and well put ones at that, but your uncomfortable pig headed consistency made me think about it, now I'm more edumacated , so thanks.
           What, are you praticing? your spelling's better too..
        Frickin kos went to bed, pussy, he missed a good spat.

        Somebody, do something, I got kids I care about, fer crying out loud!

        by KenBee on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 02:20:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You might practice (0+ / 0-)

          your prose style. I am assuming you took some time in crafting this comment, seeing as how you are free with your critiques of me.

          "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

          by Armando on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 06:54:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Easy there big fella (0+ / 0-)

            You may be right about my clumsy attempt to thank you, but thank you I am.
                 If you had posted once on this topic and moved on as is commonly done by many, I might have had my 'old' thinking reinforced by the other people who tried to rationalize this unfortunate choice by the Sierra Club.
                More to the point, you, by being consistent and energetic for your position actually helped me rethink the issue beyond the surface and fundamentally helped me change my thinking.
               So thanks, and as to the spelling, so what, I was trying to to be funny. Critiques? Pfffff, hardly, more attempts at humor.
            And of course I also appreciate kos for writing it in the first place.
            OK?

            Somebody, do something, I got kids I care about, fer crying out loud!

            by KenBee on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 11:17:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  WTF are they thinking (0+ / 0-)

    Republicans=Destroy Environment, Democrats=Protect Environment. Chafee allows Frist to be majority leader and pass anti-environmental legislation. These idiotic interest groups seem unable/unwilling to see that Republicans, no matter what they say, are against them. That goes for NARAL too. Wonder how they like his vote for Roberts. This is just one step away from environmentalists supporting Nader because Gore wasn't pure enough for them. They got Bush. Hope they're still happy.

    If your name was George Walker instead of George Walker Bush, your candidacy would be a joke.

    by dole4pineapple on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:43:17 PM PDT

  •  Dumbest endorsement ever (0+ / 0-)

    I mean wow, that is the most bizzare twisting of logic I have ever seen.

    All your vote are belong to us. Warner/Feingold 2008

    by Harkov311 on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:43:26 PM PDT

  •  All things being equal... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ed in Montana, RickWn

    does the Sierra Club's rating of a GOP Senator from Rhode Island have the slightest impact on the election?

    -------------------------------------------------------
    Take your protein pills and put your helmet on

    by SFOrange on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:44:12 PM PDT

  •  one more thing to consider .. (0+ / 0-)

    is there an independent source other than the Providence Journal for this?

    I don't have a Lexis account, so I cannot check.

    "Rovus Vulgaris Americanus" nasty, freshly-demoted, soon-to-be-indicted co-conspirator -7.63, -9.59

    by shpilk on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:45:41 PM PDT

  •  dammit (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Armando, DelRPCV, BobzCat, KenBee

    I was just getting happy after reading Michael's Tomasky's article, and now you had to come along and ruin it!

    That the Sierra Club uses the phrase "dissident within the majority party" as if that's set in stone for the next 100 years is the most troubling thing I've read since I've been to this site.

    D-Day, the newest blog on the internet (at the moment of its launch)

    by dday on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:46:54 PM PDT

  •  Makes you wonder (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DelRPCV, KenBee

    if there is some sort of internal politics going on with factions of Sierra or regional groups - perhaps having some kind of grudge against a dem candidate, or a connection with Chafee.  Can Chafee loyalists bring in more $ to the organization or something like that?  It just doesn't make good sense, so I start to suspect cronyism or corruption.  Can't figure out why I think like that all the time now.  I didn't think like that so much before, say, 5 years or so ago.

  •  I looked up Chafee's record (10+ / 0-)

    In 2006 (yeah, only 2 votes so far)

    100% pro-environmentalist

    In 2005, on 19 votes

    84% pro-environmentalist

    In 2004, on 5 votes

    20% pro-environmentalist

    In 2003, on 20 votes

    50% pro-environmnetalist

    In 2002, on 14 votes

    79% pro-environmentalist

    In 2001, on 7 votes

    57% pro-environmentalist

    In 2000, on 7 votes

    100% pro-environmentalist

    In 1999, on 6 votes

    50% pro-environmentalist

    That's as far back as it goes.

    So the reporter of this story seems to have deceptively quoted only one year of Chafee's record, and that year is his worst year.

    Now, I don't know how other politicians typically do on these votes - the Sierra Club website's VoteWatch didn't seem to have an easy way to compare Senators side by side. But overall, Chafee's record is that on 80 votes in the past 7 years, he voted pro-environmentalist on 67% of the votes.

    I am NOT saying that the Sierra Club shoulda given him ANY donations.

    I'm just saying that the 20% rating, from one year, is not an accurate picture - it's not even from the last full year that he voted in the Senate. In 2005, he had an 84% pro-environmentalist record, and counting back from today through 2004, his record is a 73% positive rating.

    Like I said, I don't know what rating most Senators get. I don't know what a good rating is for a Republican, since I didn't quickly find a site that ranked them like that, but it sure seems to me like this was a questionable presentation since it only mentions that one really bad year for him.

    ...but not your own facts.

    by slouise217 on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:49:52 PM PDT

    •  A fewf votes you don't mention (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dtj

      Senate Majority Leader - 2000, 2002, 2004.

      "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

      by Armando on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:58:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What are you talking about, Armando? (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ed in Montana, tylerh, dtj, RickWn, jorndorff

        I copied from the Sierra Club website, and compared the numbers that a reporter put in his story with the numbers from the last seven years.

        Like I said, very clearly, I am not saying that the Sierra Club shoulda given him money.

        I am not saying that ANY Republican should get money.

        ALL I was saying was that the 20% rating that has been quoted repeatedly in the diary comments and in the diary itself is a misleading figure.

        I am not saying that there are NO other figures that are important.

        Not sure why you thought I did say that. I gave about 4 different caveats and qualifiers in the post I made that I thought clearly stated that I was not saying that.

        ...but not your own facts.

        by slouise217 on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:10:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ah (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MattR, KenBee

          The Sierra Club does not consider the Majority Leader vote.

          Morons.

          The most important vote on the environment in every Congress is the leadership vote.

          Morons that they are they dont consider it.

          "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

          by Armando on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:19:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  As I asked below (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RickWn

            Do you know of many groups like this that count votes on leadership positions in the House and Senate?

            I thought that most groups simply counted the votes that those individual groups think are important, and they ignore all other votes.

            Tax reform advocacy groups count votes about taxes and budgets.

            Environmental groups count votes as pro-environmentalist or anti-environmentalist.

            I sure have not done a lot of research on this topic, but I have seen these kinds of scorecards before, and I cannot remember them ranking people using leadership votes. Have I missed those that do count votes like choices for Senate Majority Leader?

            Could that be a shortsighted oversight on their part? Certainly.

            Have I missed a lot of groups that actually do count leadership votes, Armando?

            ...but not your own facts.

            by slouise217 on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:30:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

              There are many many moronic groups.

              Is that your point?

              "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

              by Armando on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:32:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  MY point? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                RickWn

                I thought it was YOUR point that they should count the votes about Legislative leadership.

                As such, I thought that you were saying that there were other groups that DID count Legislative leadership votes.

                I don't recall any of these kinds of advocacy groups ever counting votes for Senate Majority Leader - they sure could count them, and yet me not know about it, because as I said, I have not researched it a lot - all I have is my anecdotal evidence that I cannot recall a single group like this that did hold legislators responsible for those kinds of votes.

                Now, political groups DO hold Legislators responsible for those kinds of votes for Senate Majority Leader, etc.

                And DailyKos IS a political advocacy group, without a doubt. So it's entirely fair and appropriate for those here to note those kinds of votes whenever we evaluate those running for office - we can and should use those votes to evaluated their competency, reliability and trustworthiness.

                And I can understand your point that the votes for Senate Majority Leader are quite pivotal, in that the Majority Leader has such great influence over the direction of the Senate that it is a tremendously important and relevant vote. There's no doubt about that.

                But it was the point I thought that you were trying to make here that I was addressing.

                Because the point that I was making was that the 20% rating that was being bandied about was wholly inaccurate.

                You are the one that brought up the votes for Senate Majority Leader.

                Do you know of any single-issue advocacy groups that are not strictly political (like DailyKos, or the Green Party, for example) that do count those kinds of votes about leadership?

                ...but not your own facts.

                by slouise217 on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:49:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I t ake your point (0+ / 0-)

                  AND? What do you say after  that? What is your next sentence? What is you larger point?

                  Markos and I have railed against these groups for a year and their idiocies.

                  You want the site to stop because of your point?

                  We KNOW how stupid their rating syte,s are. We have SAID SO many many times!!!

                  I am sorry to sanp at you, but this is not a new issue for us, Markos and I.

                  Search NARAL and Chafee please, where Chafee's record is actually much much better.
                   

                  "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

                  by Armando on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:53:06 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  WTF is your problem here? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    RickWn

                    Really...

                    My point is, and was, that his environmental record is not as bad as was stated in the article this diary cites.

                    Why would you ask if I want this site to stop?

                    What part of ANYTHING I said would lead you to that conclusion? Really - what have I EVER said that would lead you to that conclusion, because whatever it was, I will go back, right now, and post an addendum onto my previous post to correct that impression!

                    So we should NOT simply use the ratings systems of these groups that advocate hot-button issues we are enamored of - fine.

                    But as part of the picture of the candidates we support, and the issues we support, we should look at ALL that info, right?

                    I am certain that you would not say that the vote for Senate Majority Leader is not the only vote that matters, right? It's very relevant, and because it leads to so many other waterfall events, it's more important than many people realize, but certainly you are NOT saying that evaluating candidates on issues that voters think are important are never relevant, right?

                    And if other issues might have some relevancy, then we should get a fair picture of those other issues, right?

                    And the 20% rating did not provide a fair picture.

                    That's my point.

                    But like I said, if there truly was someplace above where I said anything that led you to believe that I wanted THIS site to stop, in any way, their advocacy of Progressive political candidates, and in doing so, promote the better understanding of Legislative Leadership votes, then please let me know exactly where I did that, and I will correct it. I don't think I did that though.

                    I simply was saying that in the overall picture we have of candidates, and this candidate specifically, the 20% rating was not accurate - it was not the most recent year, it was no a recent average, nor was it his overall average - it was significantly skewed, and appears to be cherrypicked. I think that makes any argument look weaker when an accusation of cherrypicking data can be asserted.

                    ...but not your own facts.

                    by slouise217 on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 12:13:22 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Hold on here (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              vcmvo2, KenBee

              If Grover Nordquists Tax reform group or the NRA have a choice between a Dem and a Republican, the Republican always, ALWAYS, gets the endorsement.  This is true even when the Republican is a weakling, this was true when the NRA was fighting a Dem majority in the late eighties and early ninties.

              bottom line

              Messafe to Sierra Club: Don't piss on the left if you expect to then turn around and ask for their help.  The Sierra Club can be replaced as a vehicle for the left to express environmental concerns.  If they want to hang out with the righties and the Bushies, they are free to do so, just as I am free to advocate for an immediate end to all support from the left for their organization.  They deserve to get burned for this.

    •  67% is not good enough (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Canadian Reader

      If that number is correct (from at least that perspective), then a full third of his votes can be construed as having had a negative impact on environmental protections. That's not good. I don't care if it's better than some Democrats, it's still not good.

      Add to that the unapologetically pro-development, environmentally disastrous party he belongs to, to which he adds his name and number. I suspect one could identify a number of votes on a variety of legislation that have had an indirect, negative impact on the environment, even if the Sierra Club doesn't count those votes in their tallies.

      The only way to insure environmentally progressive policies in this country is to replace Republicans. And that includes Chaffee, as long as he remains a Republican.

      And can I just add that, like others, I'm really really really disturbed by a construction like "dissident within the majority party." That kind of thinking is ominous. I don't like it one bit.

      "Words are little bombs, and they have a lot of energy inside them." -- Christopher Walken

      by BobzCat on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 12:02:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Sierra Club ratings (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ed in Montana

    Chafee had a terrible record in 2004.  But his record was significantly better in 2005, and he's been good so far in 2006.  

    But 2005 seems to have been an anomaly.  Check out his mediocre record in 2003.  If you check each year all the way back to 1999 (which is as far back as the database goes), you'll see that there are some fairly dramatic swings back and forth.  He's great in 2000, pretty good in 2002, and pretty lousy in 1999 and 2001.  

    Browsing their website, I found that most of the Democrats who are much-loathed on this site--e.g. Joe Lieberman, Maria Cantwell, Dianne Feinstein, Joe Biden--have better Sierra Club ratings than Chafee.  A handful of Dems have genuinely bad records (such as Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu).  But those upthread who are whining that the Dems have abandoned the Sierra Club are full of it.  

    •  Hint (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dtj, peace voter, KenBee

      He puts on his "moderate" cloak in election years.  The rest of the time he's more likely to toe the party line.  It's just hold and release stuff.

      More ratings here.  Hardly the sterling record needed to justify this move.

      Support your neighborhood bats.

      by DelRPCV on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 10:57:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Very interesting (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ed in Montana, Armando, Luam, KenBee

        The top 39 Senators on environmental issues are all Democrats (plus Jeffords), according to that list.  Snowe comes in 40th, with Collins at 42 and Chafee at 43.  Every Senator from 48th to last place is a Republican.

        Is anybody still going to argue seriously that Democrats and Republicans are equally bad on the environment?  I mean, come on.  Chafee is merely among the best of a very bad party.  

      •  Looks like he is one of the best Republicans (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        MattR

        And even that site shows him at 3 times higher than a 20% rating.

        Once again, I am NOT saying that the Sierra Club donation was a good move on their part. I am not saying that even AS one of the best Republicans, he should be supported.

        I am ONLY saying that the 20% rating being promoted in the article cited above is not a very accurate portrayal of the Sierra Club's overall rating of Chafee, nor is it the most recent.

        It, in fact, is the worst rating, by far, that he has ever gotten, and as such, it appears to be cherry-picked. And that rubs me the wrong way.

        You don't think Chafee should get any Sierra Club donations?

        Great. But argue it using fair arguments, not cherry-picked data. Argue that he might not be the worst Republican in the Senate, but ANY Republican could be bettered by a Democrat - go ahead, 'cuz I'm with ya. You want to suggest that because Chafee has voted with the majority party, HIS party, very often, even is he is a "dissident", he does not earn any brownie points in your book, I can buy into that argument too!

        ...but not your own facts.

        by slouise217 on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:19:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Indeed (0+ / 0-)

          his real record is MUCH  WORSE.

          F-R-I-S-T.

          Honestly.

          "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

          by Armando on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:22:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But his record on the votes (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RickWn

            That the Sierra Club measures is much better than the 20% quoted here.

            Honestly.

            And it is the cherry-picking of that data that I object to here.

            Do YOU think it's fair to have misrepresented his record?

            Don't YOU think that we should argue against his record in fair ways, like saying that he voted for Frist, so nothing else matters, or similar arguments?

            I sorta thought that your mission at your new site was going to be to debate the issues in a fair way. To stick to the facts, all the facts, and to review all the info, and then see where the opinions fell after reviewing all the info.

            And in that same spirit, I objected to cherrypicking Chafee's worst year relative to the Sierra Club's own ratings system when discussing how weird their donation to Chafee's campaign was.

            I think it's weird of them to donate to Chafee for several reasons. I have NEVER said that I supported their donation to Chafee's campaign. But I don't think it's right to mislead people. And this diary misled a lot of people.

            You think that other votes that Chafee made are so much more important than these votes that it doesn't matter that he has an overall 67% positive rating versus a 20% positive rating? Go for it. Argue from that perspective. Be my guest. I'm all for it.

            But why mislead people in the meantime about his Sierra Club rating?

            ...but not your own facts.

            by slouise217 on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 12:00:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  So waht? (0+ / 0-)

              Does that excuse them from being morons?

              "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

              by Armando on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 12:07:32 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Any chance you can reply to what I said? (0+ / 0-)

                Why mislead people about his Sierra Club ratings?

                I have NEVER said that we CANNOT argue that their ratings have fatal flaws.

                Never once have I said that. Not sure why you feel the need to imply that I did, because not only have I not ever implied that we had to only discuss the Sierra Club ratings, and give that rating a huge amount of weight, but I specifically said that I appreciate YOUR point, about how Legislative Leadership votes are very important.

                Any chance?

                What sure seems like is happening here is you thought I was saying something I was not.

                Do you think that it's okay to cherrypick data and misrepresent what Chafee's record is according the the Sierra Club?

                That is separate and distinct from arguing that the Sierra Club rating is deficient, and has a fatal flaw.

                Let's say that we are looking at what students grades look like. Some teachers are more prompt than others in reporting grades, so we only have some of the disciplines' reports.

                We know that every student flunked PE and Art. Every student got either an A or a B in Music.

                So we don't yet know what their grades are in their core classes, but can we not make any evaluations of the teachers and the students based upon those individual subjects that we do have grades on?

                Of course we can. We can judge that the PE and Art teachers must be grading in an unfair way if everyone flunked. We might even consider firing those teachers! We still need to see the grades in the core classes, without a doubt.

                But what if we discover that in fact the grades we received for the 'electives' were wrong? Should that not be noted? Of course, the grades the students get in their core classes are the most important ones, but shouldn't we note the correction to the grades in PE and Art?

                ...but not your own facts.

                by slouise217 on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 12:28:20 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Nor (0+ / 0-)

              Why mislead readers in the meantime about the Sierra Club? By Armando's logic, we should all abandon the Democratic party for its numerous across the aisle votes against whatever principles this party clearly stands for.

    •  Of course it's better now (0+ / 0-)

      He's up for re-election, and like any good Republican, he's a wingnut for 5 years and a moderate the last 1. See Specter, Arlen.

      If your name was George Walker instead of George Walker Bush, your candidacy would be a joke.

      by dole4pineapple on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:01:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, this isn't how it worked, really (0+ / 0-)

        He had one down year, 2004, where there were only 5 votes on environmental issues, and he voted anti-environmental on 4 out of the 5.

        Overall, his record is 67%. If you take out that one low year, you end up with 71% pro-environmentalist votes since 1999 I believe it was.

        There is no evidence that he's been a wingnut for 5 years and a moderate for one, at least on this issue.

        ...but not your own facts.

        by slouise217 on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 04:29:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Chaffee's LCV ratings (4+ / 0-)

    also show that he is an environmentalist.  

    Congress    Rating
    106         100%
    107         68%
    108         72%
    109         90%

    The Sierra Club makes endorsements on more than this but it is clear that Chaffee is a solid environmental vote, notwithstanding his party affiliation.  

    •  Notwithstanding his party affiliation (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      spurdy, bree, melvin

      And that is the comment for the ages.

      There is NO MORE IMPORTANT VOTE on the environment than Senate Majority Leader for a Senator.

      When will people get that through their thick skulls.

      Notwithstanding is   to be a moron.

      Kos' point.

      "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

      by Armando on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:00:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yep. NARAL and Sierra Club don't get it (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Armando

        In fact, the vote for leader is basically the only important one, unless you become like Zell or Joementum. Chafee cannot be allowed to be re-elected. If he wins in spite of Bush's 74 percent disapproval rating, he'll be there as long as he wants.

        If your name was George Walker instead of George Walker Bush, your candidacy would be a joke.

        by dole4pineapple on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:03:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, you people don't (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RickWn

          get it.  The Sierra Club is on your side in 99 other Senate races, but you attack with great venom because of one race.  That is foolish.  

          •  With us? (0+ / 0-)

            No dope, they are with their issue.

            IN THIS RACE, they decided to be ANTI-environment.

            Stop with the BS.

            They don't do us any favors.

            Markos didn't call them traitors.

            He called them MORONS.

            Which they are for endorsing Chafee.

            "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

            by Armando on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:12:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  We need to think strategically, not tactically. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Armando

            I've been a Sierra Club member for a good while, but I do want to push for a more unified and strategic viewpoint among the progressive coalition. We simply have to stop shooting ourselves in the foot.

            And yes, I'm fresh off of reading CTG.  ;)

          •  I agree (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ed in Montana, sadhu, jingoed

            Chafee's courage is the only thing protecting the Endangered Species Act right now from far-right attacks by the likes of Pombo's bill in the House. That is just a fact.

            He is great on the environment.

            The Sierra Club is not a Democratic Party tool. If more Republicans were good on the environment, they would be endorsed as well. Chafee is the last of a dying breed, an environmental Republican. And at this point, he is crucial to stopping attacks from the far-right. Rep. Boehlert is an environmental Republican and gets endorsed by green groups all the time.

            If you want to go after people who are crap on the environment, start with your beloved Democrats like Akaka, Inouye, and Landrieu.

            •  If Dems controlled the Senate (0+ / 0-)

              There would be no chance for such attacks.

              Honest to God, how can the obvious escape you people?

              Majority Leader Reid would not even let it come to a vote.

              Learn how your government works.

              "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

              by Armando on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:38:38 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Answer the question (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Ed in Montana

                Sell-out Democrats who vote like right-wing Republicans on environmental issues like Akaka, Inouye, and Landrieu are useless.

                Chafee got the environmental endorsement because he has a great record on the environment. Period.

                •  Answered (0+ / 0-)

                  They AL have better records than Chafee.

                  You ANWSER the question.

                  "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

                  by Armando on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:54:00 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  The Super-Wonderful Environment Bill (7+ / 0-)

                  I see the disconnect - it's lack of political education.

                  Greendem, you are not very educated on how the Senate works.

                  Let's imagine a bill.  A pro-environment bill.  Let's call it the Super Wonderful Environment Bill.

                  If the Super-Wonderful Environment Bill passed, the Sierra Club would be thrilled.  I'd be thrilled.  You'd be thrilled.  Children all over America and the world would jump for innocent joy.

                  Lincoln Chafee would vote for SWEB.

                  Maybe Akaka, Landrieu, etc. would vote against it.

                  But guess what? (hint... here's where your lack of education gets exposed).

                  Bill Frist is the Majority Leader.  Bill Frist is a bad man.  He hates the Super Wonderful Environment Bill.  Bill Frist does not eat or drink like normal human beings.  No, he requires the tears of children to survive.  [Note: but not the tears of children with AIDS, because then the good doctor would get it].  

                  So what does Bill Frist do?  He uses his power as Senate Majority Leader to block a vote on the Super Wonderful Environment Bill.  Well, that's only if he needs to.  It might be killed in committee prior to a Senate-wide vote.  Probably will, because the committee chairperson, a Republican, will probably kill it.

                  Either way, Lincoln Chafee's support of the bill remains totally hypothetical, because he never has a chance to vote on it in its Super-Wonderful Form.  if it ever comes to a vote, it will be perversely modified so as to be unrecognizeable.

                  And why?

                  Because Lincoln Chafee, who clearly knows the consequences for environmental legislation when he does so, votes for Bill Frist for majority leader.

                  That's right, Lincoln Chafee can't wait for Bill Frist to have the power to control the strings on fucking the environment.

                  Now, if Harry Reid were majority leader, he would NOT have pro-environmental legislation killed or hopelessly modified/watered down, etc.  A handful of Democrats might vote against this legislation, but a fair number of Republican Senators might actually vote for the legislation... the Maine Republicans, for example.  A few others who want to appeal to the majority of voters in their states.

                  It is all about power - who controls the committee chair appointments, which party controls the Senate.  Right now, this is a very close question in 2006, and Democrats need every single possible pickup to give Harry Reid the power to let the Super Wonderful Environment Bill get voted on.

                  So why on fucking Earth does the Sierra Club not understand this?  Why is the Sierra Club's agenda to put Bill Frist or his child-tears-loving replacement in charge to block pro-environmental legislation?

                  Why, at this most critical of times in world history for the environment?

                  I am going with retardation.  That's my guess.

                  But *you* get it. And you come from a long line of it-getters.

                  by RepublicanTaliban on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 12:16:08 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  But what if the Republicans keep the majority? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    greendem

                    Then aren't the environmentalists better off with Chafee?

                    I believe that they think the Republicans will keep the majority.

                    And so the best they can hope for is a friendly Republican who might have some sway with his party on some issues.

                    I am not saying I agree with that philosophy.

                    I just think that this is where they're coming from.

                    They think a guy who votes environmentally-conscious 65-70% of the time and is in the majority party is better than the alternative who might vote with them more often, but be in the minority party.

                    Once again, I am not saying I agree with that philosophy.

                    ...but not your own facts.

                    by slouise217 on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 04:34:08 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I look forward to the Super Wonderful Environment (0+ / 0-)

                    al Bill.

                    But that will require a Democratic president, and for the next three years, all the enviros can do is work their asses off to protect the super wonderful environmental bills from the early 1970s - the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, NEPA, and the ESA from constant hard-right attacks.

                    Chafee is someone in the majority party who has stood up to those attacks, thus the endorsement I assume.

                    We can dream of the SWEB when we get Gore/Clark in office, until then it's defense.

            •  BTW (0+ / 0-)

              Each of thse awful Dems is better than Chafee on the enviroment.

              Every single  fucking one of them.

              You want know why? Because Dems are pro-environment and Republicans are anti-environment.

              The brand of stupid you see at daily kos now is unmatched.

              "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

              by Armando on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:45:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Landrieu LCV score 50 (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Ed in Montana

                Chafee LCV score 90

                •  Why not 250? (0+ / 0-)

                  Sheesh, why not just make the fucking numbers up?

                  That's a damn lie.

                  90 my ass.

                  "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

                  by Armando on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:58:08 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Armando, you are officially full of crap tonight (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Ed in Montana, jingoed

                    I love you, but
                    http://www.capwiz.com/...

                    •  Ah the cherrypicking begins (0+ / 0-)

                      So it's ok to point out his 20% Sierra Club record for 2004?

                      You are officially full of shit.

                      "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

                      by Armando on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 12:12:59 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  What is up with you tonight? (0+ / 0-)

                        Geesh.

                        When you compare The League of Conservation Voters

                        108th Congress
                        Landrieu 32
                        Chafee   72

                        107th Congress
                        Landrieu 20
                        Chafee   68

                        2004 votes
                        Landrieu 67
                        Chafee   50 {as we know, 2004 is the year that the Sierra Club didn't rate Chafee well either}

                        2003 votes
                        Landrieu 21
                        Chafee   79

                        So, in 3 out of 4 categories, Chafee beats Landrieu, using the criteria that the LCV counts.

                        Now, I understand that you think that this criteria is insufficient, and needs to be supplemented with info about their legislative leadership votes Armando, and that new rating needs to be very heavily weighted towards those leadership votes. I have no issue with that. But not all Democrats beat all Republicans on environmental issues. And I think that one of the reasons you thought that Chafee did so poorly was because you thought that the 20% rating was a representative one, and in fact it appears to be a highly-skewed number.

                        ...but not your own facts.

                        by slouise217 on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 12:57:24 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  LCV vs Sierra? (0+ / 0-)

                          He picked one year. You castied everyone for that.

                          LEt me  ask you a  question - why didn;t he pick the Sierra Club's ratings?

                          You know why - because he has no point if he does.

                          Stop lecturing about all the facts of you are going to be selective about when you are going to be outraged about it.

                          He changed to LCV PRECISELY because the Sierra numbers don;t prove his  point.

                          "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

                          by Armando on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 07:22:24 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes, he picked ONE year (0+ / 0-)

                            One year that was NOT representative of his overall stance.

                            One year that was highly misleading.

                            One rating that numerous posters on this site then used as THE rating that Chafee had.

                            And it wasn't THE rating Chafee had.

                            This ain't rocket science, Armando.

                            And no, he did NOT change to the LCV numbers because the Sierra Club numbers didn't prove his point - as I pointed out above, there is an identical drop in Chafee's ratings in 2004 in BOTH ratings.

                            I castigated everyone for picking ONE unrepresentative year!

                            He did NOT do that.

                            Can you NOT see the difference between picking a representative year to discuss an issue, and NOT picking a representative year?

                            Can you NOT see a difference between picking the last year from which one has records, and going back to a previous year, which makes it look like you are cherry-picking data?

                            Can you NOT see this? Really?

                            And, in THIS case, he was comparing MOST recent records of both Landrieu and Chafee. He did NOT cherry-pick. Those records were representative.

                            Too bad you apparently refuse to see this.

                            ...but not your own facts.

                            by slouise217 on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 01:41:12 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  BTW (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          CSI Bentonville

                          After your slur on my chracter, I have no reason to respect you anymore.

                          "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

                          by Armando on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 08:00:51 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  It's not a slur if it's true (0+ / 0-)

                            You repeatedly rejected my efforts to have us look at a more representative environmental vote record of Chafee.

                            That's what I did - pointed that out.

                            It had NOTHING to do with YOUR stance that these single issue votes, and single issue groups, miss the bigger picture. I NEVER ridiculed that stance at all.

                            So I made NO unfair smear of your character.

                            Feel free to not respect me any more. I'll live. And you'll still be wrong about what I did I guess.

                            ...but not your own facts.

                            by slouise217 on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 01:43:51 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Armando, you've been slouised (3+ / 0-)

                            Have you checked her comment history?  Strings like this go on every night, often all night.  All in the name of fighting for truth she says.  My opinion is she just likes to argue. (And that is being extremely generous)

                            I'm sure she will be able to come up with a long detailed comment defending her right to troll rate me for butting in...

                            "Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play." - Joseph Goebbels

                            by gerbbils on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 04:53:28 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Really? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Kimberly Stone

                            I didn't know.

                            "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

                            by Armando on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 07:00:38 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No, not really (0+ / 0-)

                            He's not telling the truth.

                            ...but not your own facts.

                            by slouise217 on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 10:55:32 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh my God. NOT again. (1+ / 1-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Little Girl Lost
                            Hidden by:
                            Lawyer to Capitalists

                            Not another accusation of lying!

                            Jesus, you're like a whole opera where every single note, for every instrument, for every singer, for three whole acts, is B Flat.

                            Let's check your record, shall we?

                            Hmmm: first page, haranguing poor Armando.

                            Also: hate vendetta against me. Bonus: troll ratings! Bonus: troll rating someone who spoke up for me!

                            Next up: Take Back the House is called, you guessed it, a liar.

                            Next: Ripping some poor guy apart about the plane wreckage at the Pentagon. He gets called a liar and deceiver too.

                            Yeah, so pages full of posts attacking people.

                            Res ipsa loquitor.

                            The truth is out there.

                            "Words are, of course, the most potent drug used by mankind." Rudyard Kipling.

                            by Kimberly Stone on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 03:48:25 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

      •  Amen to that. My email to Sierra Club follows... (9+ / 0-)

        I'm firing this off to political.desk@sierraclub.org right now, and will call them as well tomorrow.

        Dear Sierra Club,

        I've been a Club member for two years, and a monthly contributor for over a year now.  I initially joined the Club due to its reputation for fighting on behalf of environmental protection, and have proudly carried my membership card in my wallet.

        I am extraordinarily distressed to learn that the organization has recently endorsed Lincoln Chafee from Rhode Island in his re-election bid for the US Senate.

        I think we can agree that the current Republican administration, enabled by a Republican-controlled congress, has been a disaster for our environment and environmental conservation overall.  Chafee, though he may hold individual viewpoints that sometimes fit a pro-environment stance, is a vote for a Republican senate majority leader, and in office is a seat that counts toward Republican control of that legislative chamber and the associated committee chairmanships. In recent history Republican control of congress has proven to be drastically more detrimental to the causes the Club purports to care about than Democratic control.  In backing Chaffee, the Club throws it's weight behind maintaining that Republican control, which will ultimately count much more in allowing passage of negative policy than an occasional dissenting vote the senator might cast.

        In light of this, please explain to me how supporting Mr. Chafee's re-election furthers our overall goals of protecting our environment and advancing a national policy of nature conservancy.

        I, and my decision regarding continued membership, await your reply.

        (full name & Sierra Club ID#)

        •  Good letter (0+ / 0-)

          you clearly state the case.
            I told them they couldn't see the forest for the trees,..... not original, but maybe I was thinking of Macbeth.
             Dam scary as the japanese movie version too, and as metaphor it fits with the green republicans sneaking out of the forest, hiding behind trees they have cut as camoflage...

          Somebody, do something, I got kids I care about, fer crying out loud!

          by KenBee on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 02:40:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I see, throw everything (0+ / 0-)

        else out because you disagree with one endorsement.  Great coalition building.  

        •  Yep (0+ / 0-)

          Friends like that I don't need.

          THIS race is where they are tested. Not the race in Texas or wherever.

          They are morons.

          "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

          by Armando on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:14:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Keep working on your (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ed in Montana, greendem

            idealogic purity.  I don't care either way about this endorsement, but I like the overall work the Sierra Club is doing.  Election endorsements are a very small part of what they do.  I am not going to throw all of that away because of one Senate endorsement.  

            •  Ideological purity? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              KenBee, Coffee Geek

              No. I am moron free.

              Honestly, will you address the fucking point? You can't? Then Flip off.

              Here's the funny thing. I bet you think you are a big environmentalist. I make no such claim. It's not a big issue for me.

              Read Markos again. MORONS.

              A vote for Chafee is a vote for a Republican Majority Leader.

              Can you think of anything WORSE for the environment.

              That's what you are arguing for.

              sorry, I have no patience for morons.

              Troll rate me at will people.

              Stupidity like this I can not deal with.

              Learn how your fucking government works!

              "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

              by Armando on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:27:16 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  How stupid is this? (7+ / 0-)

              It's NOT ideological purity.

              It's game theory.

              All the power to do "good stuff" the Sierra Club has pales in comparison to the power the Congress has to pass or kill environmental legislation.

              I mean, how stupid does a person have to be not to see that?

              Control of the Senate in 2006 hangs in the balance.  If Chafee wins, he'll vote for a Republican majority leader determined to fuck the environment right in the ass by killing all legislation that could help it and by promoting all legislation that can hurt it.  

              But the Sierra Club stupidly does not factor that into their ratings.  And the reason is not because they want to hurt the environment, it's because they are fucking retards.

              It's GAME THEORY, not ideological purity.

              But *you* get it. And you come from a long line of it-getters.

              by RepublicanTaliban on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:39:15 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  I see it as forcefully shifting perspective. (0+ / 0-)

          If you need to slap some faces to get people thinking on a different scale, then that's what needs to happen.

          If my child is good 99% of the time, but then on one occasion shoplifts a box of candy from a convenience store, I don't let him off without rebuke "since he's usually so good."

      •  His vote for Senate Majority Leader (0+ / 0-)

        Is INCREDIBLY important.

        As are many of his other votes.

        But that doesn't change the fact that representing him as having a 20% positive rating with the Sierra Club, the way that THEY rank Senators, is not accurate.

        They don't use the vote for the Senate Majority Leader in their rankings.

        Do you know how many groups that rate Senators and Representatives use the votes for leadership positions when they rank legislators?

        I agree that his votes on that subject are INCREDIBLY important.

        I'd also agree that many of his other votes are very important too.

        But the 20% was misleading in that it was not a representative number.

        And that's all I was saying.

        ...but not your own facts.

        by slouise217 on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:24:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Whatever (0+ / 0-)

          I grant your point.

          To me it does not amount to a hill of beans.

          What rating will his Dem opponents get?

          Seriously? It's not even worth one comment, much less  the many you have posted.

          "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

          by Armando on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:28:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Hey, all you had to do was simply acknowledge it (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KenBee

            I would have liked to have made ONE comment on it, and not had to explain it to you over and over again TOO!

            And that's the only reason I did repeat it, was 'cuz you didn't get it!

            But are you TRULY saying that distorting his record doesn't matter to you?

            That you have NOT seen plenty of evidence where errors like this have come back and been used against us, to suggest that we did not present a fair picture?

            How many people do you think will send letters to the Sierra Club as a result of this diary, and then will get replies from them saying exactly what I said - that the 20% was from one year, and not even the most recent year, and is not representative of the overall ratings that Chafee has gotten?

            And the Sierra Club people that respond like that will think that those that wrote them were simply misled by cherrypicked data.

            The Sierra Club will likely rarely hear your argument as a result of this diary, because of the incorrect 20% rating that was included above, and which so many posters concentrated on. I believe your argument would go something like this...

            Although Chafee DOES have a good environmental record for a Republican, most Democrats in office right now have better records, most Democrats that would be elected could be counted upon to have better records, and a Senate controlled by Democrats will not only have a greater chance of having more Senators that vote pro-environmental, but will have majority control of the body, and as such can actually get the legislation passed.

            Sure, those that vote pro-environmentalist deserves pats on their backs for doing so, ya tell 'em. But what an organization like the Sierra Club should REALLY want is a Democratically-controlled Senate, and because of their contribution to Chafee, they are less likely to get that. It does them virtually no good to have 49 Senators that vote with them, even if they vote with them 100% of the time. They would get better results from having a majority party that will support those votes, and that is almost certainly not going to happen with the Republican Party still in power, and is quite likely to happen with the Democratic Party in power.

            Fight the argument THAT way, and you got something.

            Fight it with a skewed number that was clearly cherrypicked, and all you're gonna get is scorn and a letter telling you that you're wrong! Now tell me that you haven't seen this exact thing happen before.

            ...but not your own facts.

            by slouise217 on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 01:12:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Notwithstanding the prudence of the endorsement (0+ / 0-)

        Breaking the ice with "Hey, moron..." is maybe not the best way to get your advice taken seriously.

    •  The ratings system is totally fucked up (0+ / 0-)

      Chafee's ratings should be heavily modified by the ratings of whomever he votes for for majority leader.

      Same for abortion ratings, etc.

      Average them in.

      But *you* get it. And you come from a long line of it-getters.

      by RepublicanTaliban on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:11:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  One less palce to put my money... (0+ / 0-)

    ...and hooboy, will my local SC folks be enraged when they hear about this.

    "Nothing is as difficult as not deceiving oneself" - Ludwing Wittgenstein

    by Palamedes on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:04:25 PM PDT

  •  Risk-averse strategy? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ed in Montana

    The Sierra Club has to have congressmen in both parties, even if that party has a large base that thinks the world is only 6,000 years old and regards most science unrelated to weapons-delivery systems with disdain. But what if the Democrats fail to take back the Senate and House in the next election? Even if the Republican party platform rejects the Kyoto agreement and completely ignore loss of habitat issues, the Sierra Club still needs to identify and work with Republicans with any kind of environmental record (the Sierra Club site also mentions Mike Dewine. Gurgle.)

    The Sierra Club can also see the upper ranks of the Forest Service and other federal agencies involved in managing America's remaining wilds have been pogromed mightily by Bush. I think this is a case of intentionally not putting all eggs in one basket -- with a full awareness that the other basket is shit-encrusted.

    •  Why? (0+ / 0-)

      Seriously, you make a declarative statement.

      Care to explain it?

      "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

      by Armando on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:10:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Because (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kosta

        Nationally, a third of the Sierra Club members are republicans. And this endorsement was made on the local level by folks in the Rhode Island Chapter of the Sierra Club. I don't agree with it, but then I'm not from Rhode Island. I thought kossacks loved grassroots involvement?  

        •  What did the 2/3 of the members think? (0+ / 0-)

          I assume you are speculating.

          Do you actually have actual real info?

          "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

          by Armando on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 06:57:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yup (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RickWn

            There's been internal polls showing that a good third of the Club is republican. But what is more appropiate to this discussion would be how many Rhode Island Chapter Sierra Clubbers are repubs, because that is were the Chaffee endorsement originates from.

            So their endorsement may be moronic, but it was decided democratically by the local Rhode Island Chapter members. The national Club almost never overrides a local endorsement, since that would destroy their grass roots structure.

            •  How do you know this? (0+ / 0-)

              So if it is local, then why not let the local chapter do it?

              This makes it REALLY moronic because the national Sierra Club will take heat for a decision that is not theirs.

              To be blunt, I doubt you.

              "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

              by Armando on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 07:43:23 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Armando (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                RickWn, maxschell

                I have never doubted you. Disagreed with you yes, but not doubted. Don't you have a blog to build somewhere, something to do about sharp edges?

                Here's the deal from the Club having gone through this endorsement process many times. The National Club (ie Executive Director Carl Pope and the volunteer polical action committee members) will call up the local chapter (Rhode Island in this case) and ask if they intend to endorse any candidates for federal office.  The local chapter votes on who to endorse for what office, and figures out how much if any effort they will make for that candidate.

                The national club reviews and almost always agrees with the local chapter's decision. (We've had fun here in MT deciding how much effort to put into Max (Joe Lieberman-Lite) Baucus's campaigns in the past.)

                So what you are arguing is that the local chapter's grassroots decision to endorse Chaffe should be over-ridden by the national Club, considering the over-riding importance of the democrats taking back the Senate?

                •  I doubt your knowledge of how this one came about (0+ / 0-)

                  Do you have PERSONAL knowledge of this specific endorsement? Has the Sierra Club always been deceitful about how these endorsements come about? Why tout it as a national endorsement if it is not one?

                  I am arguing that if it is the local club's decision, it is moronic for the NATIONAL Sierra Club to take the hit for it.

                  Indeed, this makes the decision even stupider.

                  "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

                  by Armando on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 08:28:20 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I must confesss (0+ / 0-)

                    That I don't have any personal knowledge of how the Chaffee endorsement came out. But I have described the typical endorsement process (which almost never varies) for such an endorsement.

                    Indeed, the decision may be stupid, but it is democratic.  If the national Club frequently over rode local decisions, many local members would desert the organization.

        •  And the 2/3s? (0+ / 0-)

          Do they get shat on?

          Your comment makes no sense.

          "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

          by Armando on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 07:04:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  What a bunch of asshats. (nfm) (0+ / 0-)

    NFM: No fucking message.

  •  MMMBAOTEC (0+ / 0-)

    Sound it out... it's fun to say! Sounds like a good album title.

  •  Politics isn't over after election day (0+ / 0-)

    People caucus, committee leaders are appointed, whether Dems win or lose, members of Congress adjust to get reelected and continue raising money. In fact, as much as many voters claim to vote for "the person, not the party," agendas are pushed through based on the party, its strength, and little else.

    Politics isn't over after election day.

    I tell you truly, whatever you did for the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me. -- Matthew 25:40

    by mSnook on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:20:17 PM PDT

  •  D'oh! D'oh! D'oh! (0+ / 0-)

    Why is it that when people join a committee they become a felony stupid?  For the love of all things American, what the HELL WERE THEY THINKING?

    Of course. . .this can't really help Chafee in the primary. Hmmm. . .maybe this wasn't a mistake. . .

    Nope, its still dumb.

  •  All very well to say they need an investment (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ed in Montana, Armando, jingoed

    in both parties. But this is war, peoples. You can't back both sides. The difference between a Dem senate and a Rep means the future.

    This goes double for everybody shitting on Cantwell. I wish sh'ed come out against the war too, but keep your eyes on the prize.

  •  Its all about his staffers. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ed in Montana, greendem

    Chaffee has let three energetic, connected staffers loose in the enviro community in DC.  I myself have worked and mingled with a handful as an activist, and they have a sincere desire to change minds in the party.  Definately the most approachable Republican enviros in the Senate.  Lone wolves, with sharp minds.

    All that said, they don't vote.  and its a very tough call.  Definately not a very good national strategy.  But, frankly, alot of these people in Chaffee's office are rooting quietly for the Dems right now.

    •  Rooting quietly for the Dems? (0+ / 0-)

      Such bullshit.

      Chafee is a Republican and he does ot have to be.

      You buy that bullshit?

      "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

      by Armando on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:40:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hmm (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Armando

        Republicans gave us the Clear skies act of 2003. Are you saying republicans don't care about the environment? The air is so clear i want to marry it.

        /sarcasm...

        Hey look at me!!! Karl told me i'm a decider now!! I decide things and decide good! Now watch me nook I ran! Yeehaww!

        by kevn357 on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:59:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yep, thats what I said. (0+ / 0-)

        Inside his office, they know the religious nutjobs in the GOP have killed their leverage, and a slim Dem majority in the Senate would suit their purposes.  Just as long as Chaffee doesnt lose.

        If he ran as an Indie, he'd lose, and kiss his career goodbye.  The Natl GOP would pounce on his carcass.  Its almost impossible to run a Senate campaign without full party backing, no matter your bloodline.

        Why is it so difficult to believe, that his office could use more legislative balance to their advantage?

        From the WP:

        [Chaffee] shrugged off pressure from the GOP and voted against tax cuts and an energy bill packed with oil industry incentives. He was the only Senate Republican to oppose the Iraq war resolution. His greatest act of blasphemy was voting against Bush in the 2004 election. Instead, Chafee wrote in the president's father, former president George H.W. Bush.

        I worked on two Arctic Refuge campaigns last year, and Chaffee's staffers were amazing.  Thats the lowdown here, the Sierra people want to keep their spies.  What do you say, Armando?

        •  The wave that Dems will need to win (0+ / 0-)

          Sweeps Chafee out.

          They are BSing you.

          "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

          by Armando on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 07:03:24 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Agree (0+ / 0-)

            I have to agree with that. If they were so amazing and so concerned about the env. what are they doing endorsing or working for a repub?  It would be sort of pointless.

            That would be like me working for Frist or somone else and secretly supporting abortion rights or Planned Parenthood.

            I think he's mindful of the area that he's in. Throwing a few bones to the moderates or pro-environment voters is a win-win for him. It doesn't change anything, and it makes him look good.

            Maybe he's looking to be McCains running mate.

  •  He could have a 100% 'rating' and still suck (0+ / 0-)

    at getting pro-environment legislation passed, since he's part of the majority party that consistently blows corporations for spare change.

    Whomever the fuck is doing the thinking over at the Sierra Club... isn't.  Thinking, that is.

    Jesus H. Christ.  What dumbshits.

    George W. Bush is completely fucking insane.

    by EconAtheist on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:36:35 PM PDT

  •  It's not moronic (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Canadian Reader
    They would have to be a lot smarter to be moronic.

    A liberal is a man so broadminded he wouldn't take his own side in an argument........Robert Frost

    by mjshep on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:37:04 PM PDT

  •  Sierra club jumped the shark (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    corvo

    when they had the big fight over immigration.

    It had the tone of blaming the poor for environmental problems even though it's the rich and their SUVs and computers and modern conveniences who require all the mining and CO2 and petroleum and mechanized/fertilized/genetically engineered agriculture ("roundup ready!")

    I cancelled my membership then.

    Given a choice between a real Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, Americans will choose the real Republican every time - Harry Truman

    by tiggers thotful spot on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:46:44 PM PDT

    •  Don't fault the club over immigration. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RickWn

      Don't fault the leadership of Sierra Club on the immigration issue. The immigration issue's been repeatedly raised by insurgent non-Sierra right-wingers trying to take over & use the SC for their pet issue. It's disgusting, Richard Lamm is one of the leaders of the insurgent faction, and he has not even done anything for the Sierra Club on environmental issues in years. I take issue with your cancelling your membership when members were needed to beat back that insurgency.

      Fault the Club over Chafee or other issues, but not because they succeeded in staying out of the immigration issue raised by outside agitators.

    •  cancelled your membership? (0+ / 0-)

      But the anti-immigrant folks were recent joiners who tried to take over the Club board by using the petition and open election process. They were soundly defeated in election after election...and did not end up running either the board or the Sierra Club.  So cancelling your membership because some right-wingers tried and failed to take over doesn't make sense to me.  Or am I not following your rationale correctly?

    •  Stupid of you. Club voted against the issue (0+ / 0-)

      taking a position against immigrants.  Twice.

      •  Nah (0+ / 0-)

        I found better groups like UCS. Far more effective!

        Supporting an interest group, or not supporting, can hardly be called "stupid". I send them money for no services other than the one where they get something done. Which they haven't in a long time.

        Given a choice between a real Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, Americans will choose the real Republican every time - Harry Truman

        by tiggers thotful spot on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 02:57:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Great strategy!! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Eikyu Saha

    The Sierra Club is in the post 9-11 era. Unlike most libtards today who are still voting, lmao. So pre 9-11 mentality.

    We OWN the elections. We being the campassionate conservatives of course. The Sierra Club knows this. And they decided to endorse a great man. Good for them. In exchange i'm sure dear leader will dig a 2 foot hole on his Crawford ranch and declare it a wetland in Chafee's honor. Good times ahead, good times.

    You silly hippies! No voting in the bible. Just endorse us or else!

    /Silly rant
    //Ignore me
    ///No longer a member of the Sierra club

    Hey look at me!!! Karl told me i'm a decider now!! I decide things and decide good! Now watch me nook I ran! Yeehaww!

    by kevn357 on Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 11:48:17 PM PDT

  •  The Democratis Party (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greendem, BobzCat

    doesn't own the Sierra Club.  I am a member of the local executive committee here in S.D., and the way it works is this: the locals send their federal nominations up to the Washington board, who makes the call--but the Board gives a lot of weight to the view of the locals who, after all, know the candidate environmental views in an on-the-ground sort of way.

    Similarly, the Club is wieghing the endorsement of Pete McCloskey, a republican running against Pombo; after all, McCloskey authored the Endangered Species Act, which as I recall was beginning to be gutted during the Clinton Administration.

    On the ground here in San Diego, we have our share of republican nuts who tear stuff up for real-estate developers, but we also have our share (more than our share) of Democrats who vote against harbor seal protection (City Councilperson Scott Peters), for boondoggle border sewage projects (congressman Bob Filner, whom our local endoresed over my objections), for electricity deregulators (Steve Peace), and a whole passle of Dems who jammed an undemocratic, autocratic, Airport Authority who is trying to foist a new airport hub nobody but the power elites want on some precious "vacant" land.

    I'm a Democrat and I vote and work for Democratic candidates, but while the environment isn't the only issue, it is an issue, and organizations who want to promote the environment for their members will do just that.  It's the voters' jobs to weigh the candidates according to their own set of values, with the help of organizations they trust to give them good information.  A knee-jerk Democratic Sierra Club wouldn't inspire my trust, and won't inspire the trust of its other members, either.

    The Sierra Club has its problems; like many organizations it is far from perfect.  But for my money, the Democratic Party has far more problems to address, such as finding a way to object to bombing innocent people thousands of miles away from our shores.  Maybe then we can talk about moronicity, or hypocrisy.

    •  Kneee kerk? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aexia, Coffee Geek

      True or false - a Democratic Congres is better for the environment than a Republican Congress?

      True or False - the Democratic candidates for Senator in Rhode Island are better than Chafee on the environment?

      Honest to God, I am beginning to believe all environmentalists are just stupid.

      "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

      by Armando on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 12:06:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  True or False: most environmentalists (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RickWn

        are more cognitively complex than some Democrats on this blog.  Answer: yes.

        After having the Grand Pooh-Bah of this blog call the Sierra Club "morons," and after having a  Lesser Pooh-Bah call environmentalists "just stupid", I have to wonder just how much environmental ethos and ecological wisdom exists in this community.  Maybe not much, but because I agree with so much of what goes on here, I feel like I can make some real headway and try to insert "knee jerk environmentalism" into the Democratic Party ethos.

        Here's the deal: an extinct species will never come back whether a Democrat or a Republican shoots the last individual of that species, and one extinct species, even if it's a bug, is more important to me than the relative sociopolitical power of Democrats or Republicans.  I'd rather live in a world run by (peaceful! honest! wise!) Democrats because I agree with our social agenda and liberal outlook, but the ecology of the planet is much more complex than party politics.  The network of interdependent processes and organisms that constitute the habitat we are privileged to share with each other calls for nuanced, particular, solutions to problems of a global scope. So sorry, Armando and Kos, but the environment is bigger than the Democratic Party of the United States.

        But what I'm really sorry about is that my first comment to recieve such wonderful response had a mispelling in its title.  I apologize.

        •  Tell that to the Republican PArty (0+ / 0-)

          It is like you paid attention to not one whit of our argument.

          In an ideal world, the environment would be a NON partisan issue.

          That's not our world.

          "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

          by Armando on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 08:50:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I've been smelling the whiff (0+ / 0-)

            of this argument for at least thirty of my fifty years.  Before i was born, the argument was extant.  My reaction to it hasn't changed much; the environment IS a nonpartisan issue, and not in some ideal world but the world we live in now.

    •  Clinton appointees and the ESA (0+ / 0-)

      "the Endangered Species Act, which as I recall was beginning to be gutted during the Clinton Administration"

      That's right. It was Babbit who started underfunding the recovery budget of the Fish and Wildlife Service and declared protecting critical habitat useless.

      As if a species can recover to health without a place to live.

      Sometimes Republicans are better on the environment. Chafee is one of those Republicans, at least he has a solid record.

      I hope the Club endorses McCloskey, that is a great man. A fighting liberal Republican. One of the first to call for an end to the Vietnam War.

      How many Democrats have called for ending the War in Iraq? Where is Hillary on that topic?

      •  Hillary? (0+ / 0-)

        Who cares where Hillary is? Besides the right of course...

        "Sometimes Republicans are better on the environment."

        Are you trolling?

        "A fighting liberal Republican."

        Wha?

        "How many Democrats have called for ending the War in Iraq?"

        Quite a few but not enough, exactly why i'm not a democrat. Assholes voted for the patriot act AGAIN! Useless assholes.

        How many republicans are against the Iraq war? Waiting...

        Hey look at me!!! Karl told me i'm a decider now!! I decide things and decide good! Now watch me nook I ran! Yeehaww!

        by kevn357 on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 12:48:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  La Jolla seals (0+ / 0-)

      We have whackos chasing seals off the beaches of San Diego because of sharks... SHARKS!!! Think of the Children!! Last shark attack in SD on a human was when?

      BTW this isn't just a democrat blog... I hate politicians, not all... The Sierra Club should not bow down to the Democratic party. Just saying, stupid is stupid... Republicans don't care about the environment.

      /Sleepy post, probably didn't make sense.
      //Night all

      Hey look at me!!! Karl told me i'm a decider now!! I decide things and decide good! Now watch me nook I ran! Yeehaww!

      by kevn357 on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 12:41:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Idiocy (0+ / 0-)

    And these folks want to tie the Democratic Party to their issue agenda?

    Not, mind, that I'm objecting to the overall issue of the environment.  Quite the opposite.

    But these imbeciles are licking the hand that beats them.

    "I desire what is good. Therefore, everyone who does not agree with me is a traitor." King George III

    by ogre on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 12:07:16 AM PDT

  •  stupidity (0+ / 0-)

    Well it just seems that these so called democrats are even more stupid than the ignorant rethugs that we should be trying to replace.  This is just unbelievable.

    Don't attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

    by jasfm on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 12:07:32 AM PDT

  •  I can't say I agree with this strategery (0+ / 0-)

    The Sierra Club has become a caricature for many Americans thanks to right-wing talk radio and the usual assortment of wackos.

    I wonder if the Club is just trying to appease the people who want to kill them and stomp their ashes like so many liberal and democratic organizations (including the &$*%$^% Democratic party) have done in the past.

    To do so would be "decidin' on the wrong strategery", as our President might say.

    "Conservatives" will hate the Sierra Club whether they stand up for the American wilderness and environmentalist ideals or not.

    My advice to the Sierra Club is: give Bushies a reason to hate you. Stick to your guns! Be audacious. Hell, it works for the nutcase religious types.

    Endorsing Chaffee makes the Sierra Club look like another liberal cause trying to "make a statement" that the sound-bite public will never understand or have time to comprehend. However...neither should they piss people off, as with Greenpeace and EarthFrist.

    Be reasonable but firm - Chaffee's record on the environment sucks - so even though we like his maverick style, we're going to endorse (___).

  •  Has there been a change in leadership (0+ / 0-)
    at the Sierra Club recently? Because the first thing that drifted through my mind was, "Uh-oh. Coup."

    As in, you know, what the right wing did to the Southern Baptist Convention, and various now-notorious school boards. Move in, take over management. Change the policy. That sort of stuff.

    I vaguely recall hearing that some such thing was actually attempted against the Sierra Club, too, a while back, but I thought they'd fought it off.

    Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is. - TNH

    by Canadian Reader on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 12:13:51 AM PDT

  •  here's my take (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aexia, JTML, kosta, willyr, KenBee

    groups like the sierra club, NARAL, the NAACP, ACLU, or the NRA ought to make endorsements in both democratic and republican primaries, as a way to pressure the political field as a whole towards their way of thinking. the fact that they endorsed chaffee itself is not a problem for me, any more than NARAL's edorsement of chaffee was, in the primary. what is inexcuseable from a single-issue tactical perspective (issue groups need show no loyalty to any party unless that party shows loyalty to them IMO) is that both NARAL and the sierra club did so in the general as well, when the dem in the race is clearly better on the issue.  that is the colossal fuckup.

    a good issue groups will set up a general election in which both candidates will be as close to their ideal as possible. that way they win either way. if their endorsement of chaffee gets him past laffey, then that is an advantage in itself for their issue. electing chaffee over either brown or whitehouse, OTOH, is where the stunning idiocy lies, and is inexcuseable from an environmentalist perspective as well as a general left solidarity one. if chaffee was better on the issues than whitehouse or brown, then it would become a question of weighing that against the vote for senate leadership, but the fact of the matter is that chaffee isn't better, and has little clout in his own caucus anyway.

    if the senate is closely divided but remains republican after '06 OTOH, moderates like chaffee might have more ability to demand protections for the environment and choice than he has to date, but even then it's not a very good move IMO. while the 20% rating in '04 is an outlier, and while i do not think that markos' strategy of denouncing issue groups as disloyal is going to be an effective way to build solidarity between the tribes of the left over the long run, i have to say that the RI sierra club blew it with this one, even by the measure of single issue advocacy.

    crimson gates reek with meat and wine/while on the streets, bones of the frozen dead -du fu (712-770)

    by wu ming on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 12:15:01 AM PDT

    •  Unfortunately they endorsed him for both (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aexia

      primary and general. If only the primary, great, but no they went and screwed the pooch and the baby seals, bigtime.
        Well explained though, just not the case here, morons unfortunately.

             As to kos bagging on these groups as disloyal...I think here he's right,
      this is plain stupid. And the old rules aren't as meaningfull anymore.
             Reasonableness isn't going to work with people as heirarchical as this, imho.

      Somebody, do something, I got kids I care about, fer crying out loud!

      by KenBee on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 03:01:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Republicans have always been for sale (0+ / 0-)

    and the Sierra Club has some loose cash.   Ugly no brainer.  I'm outta there.

  •  The Sierra Club.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KenBee

    ...is a bunch of doofusses...

    All they care about is growing attractive facial hair, getting their knife set and otheer kick-backs from fundraising, and screwing around on the many many singles outings sponsored by the group.

    Not to say that there is anything wrong with screwing, but STOP SCREWING THE COUNTRY you knuckleheads...

  •  The most important environmental vote... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aexia

    ...is the one for Senate Majority Leader.

  •  I hear the sound of money n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aexia
  •  They Want Laffey To Win! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aexia

    Think about it for a second. I saw a couple people mention this, but they were mostly joking. I'm totally serious. The Sierra Club and NARAL have endorsed Lincoln Chafee for Senate. Wingnuts get freaked out, vote for his opponent, Laffey. Chafee loses in the primary, Democrats have an easy win in the general.

    It makes a heck of a lot more sense than actually believing Chafee will make a difference.

  •  My letter to Sierra Club (0+ / 0-)

    To: information@sierraclub.org

    How on earth could you endorse Sen. Chafee?  Do you understand that as long as the Republicans hold a majority in the Senate all chairmanships will be held by the party that is in favor of giving away protected lands, drilling in oceans and national Parks and polluting our water and air?

    What the hell are you thinking?  Your endorsement of Sen Chafee, who you admit has a poor record on such issues, is clear evidence that Sierra Club doesn't "get it."  You either are mind-numbingly stupid on legislative issues or are drinking the Kool-Aid served up by Halliburton.  

    Either way, I'm done supporting the Sierra Club.  You have marginalized yourself with idiotic logic and a chilling disregard for the environment.

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    [signed]

    "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -Albert Einstein

    by Grodge on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 02:01:17 AM PDT

  •  We have met the enemy and it is us! ---Pogo (0+ / 0-)

    I don't think, historically, it is any surprise
    that the opposition to right wing administrations fades over time.  They either are locked up, destroyed or succumb to the need for a paycheck and thus are bought out.  

    Predictably, In our society the paycheck decides the public position. It has undermined  opposition to right wing  in politics, academia, business, etc. The so called loyal opposition ( in this case democrat)  can say anything they want, and  they can pose and posture in public, but at the end of the day it is about the paycheck.  

    The democrats have over the 60 years since the end of WW2 developed a network of academics and NGOs, experts advisors, and on and on.

    We now, in the fullness of time, see how the democrat party's willful creation of this army of wonks, and then its reliance (has it been crafted reliance?) on them over the decades, to articulate the policies of the elected democrats has been an abysmal failure both of conception and execution.

    The democrats can rant and rave about the army of right wing and business interest lobbyists, but it may want to look around them to see the lobbyists they have created and how this army of NGOs, silent academics, and the 9-5 concerned ones, have contributed to the break in the connection between the people will and interests and the elected. ( A fundamental connection for our Constitution to work)

    This army is not a substitute for the Elected Representative's ( house or senate)  constitutients and it past time for us to speak up!

    So, it is in this context that I view the Sierra club's so called endorsement.

  •  advocacy groups are multipartisan (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RickWn, slouise217

    get used to it, stop whining.

    stupid.

    AND use whole facts, this is sick.

    •  You are sick (0+ / 0-)

      This is a no brainer.

      Stop with the contrarian bullshit.

      "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

      by Armando on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 07:02:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  as usual (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RickWn, slouise217

        I'm going to look through here for counterarguments, I think mine are clear.

        Advocacy groups have to be multipartisan.

        Criticising their choices is fine, but using numbers to paint the picture falsely is not fine.  That's just trying to motivate people to stop funding them.

        get this.

        WE NEED THE SIERRA CLUB.

        Take the SIERRA CLUB away and are you going to replace them... with what?

  •  now they get to recieve... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RickWn, slouise217

    ... a bunch of nutty letters about 20% making a bunch of liberals look like wingnuts following some easily recognized unfact just like some right wing radio program might.

    wouldn't it be better to give whole and real facts so the letters wouldn't sound like mindless, witless, uninformed sheep bleating?

    I think so.

    I believe in pressuring the Sierra Club just like they pressure the government.

    WITH FACTS.

    •  Sheesh (0+ / 0-)

      The letters will be the least of it.

      They will see this post.

      Markos knew what he was doing and wel done by him.

      IF you really think that Chafee in the Senate is good for the environment then you are not thinking straight.

      But I assume you are being a contrarian as usual.

      Because this is a no brainer.

      NARAL had a much better argument.

      "All knew that Armando was an Armory of Wisdom. But then, who are these with whom Armando crossed verbal swords?"

      by Armando on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 07:01:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nowhere did I say he was good for the senate (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RickWn, slouise217

        I think you and kos don't understand how advocacy groups work.

        And if the attempt to weaken the Sierra Club works you'll have nothing to replace what you've destroyed.

        If this was the totally wrong decision, it's NOT wrong based on misleading numbers.  It's not wrong because Chaffee is a Republican.

        More devout partisanship on ISSUE groups' part is not the solution.  That will weaken them.  Devotion to an issue, INSTEAD of a party is specifically where their credibility comes from.

        You and kos would like to turn them into the Democratic Party... and guess what, the Democratic Party lacks credibility, and that's why!  You would turn the only working things progressives have into the progressives dysfunctional party, aka the Democrats, whom have been consistently ineffectual.

        So what I said is, this backstabbing of these groups, stop funding them based on single events, is a bad idea, it's work conservatives want done.

        I have no idea why you can't see the bigger picture of this.

        Issue groups HAVE to endorse people of both parties.

  •  Enemies List (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    WeatherDem
    1. NARAL
    1. Sierra Club

    Fuck all Single Interests Groups.  You betray us, we owe nothing to you.

    •  'In Need of Serious Strategy Education List' (0+ / 0-)

      Get 'em in to the political optometrist, stat!  We've got some chronic strategic myopia here!

      I'm all for advancing the issues these groups stand for.  We just need them to adjust their perspectives and be more intelligent about actually advancing their issues.

      Sure, they might need some harsh correction in situations like this, and that might include severe PR and jerking on the grassroots donation purse strings.  Still, I'd hope we could all join in the fight once we're on the same page, and I'd happily support them again too. No need to permanently blacklist, IMHO.

  •  they are so fucking WRONG [n/t] (0+ / 0-)

    -8.38, -7.74 I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat! -WR

    by condoleaser on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 03:15:21 AM PDT

  •  sierra club and democratic party are both faulty (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aexia

    and in similar ways

    they both frequently endorse republicans or their policies thinking that this gives them leverage.

    that is what the Democrats do when they endorse bad judges, bad wars, bad corporate giveaways, either because they are bought out, or because they want to seem reasonable, or because, in some cases, they are republicans at heart.

    that is what Sierra Club does when it endorses Republicans who are slightly less godawful than the very worst ones.  i think the Sierra Club has been right to endorse the republican in certain rare instances, but almost always it is something like this case, a move that hurts the club.

    the democrats and the sierra club both need improved leadership at the national level.

    Politics is not arithmetic. It's chemistry.

    by tamandua on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 04:05:24 AM PDT

  •  If you're a member of the Sierra Club (0+ / 0-)

    Now is a good time to contact them, express your displeasure at the Chafee endorsement and quit this once-great-but-now-unfocused-environmental organization.

    If you are not a member, now is a good time to contact them and ask that they remove your name from any future mailings.

    Nonprofits, magazines (and other organizations) do a good deal of direct mail prospecting for new members--renting lists from magazines, nonprofits and the like. If you contact the Sierra Club, they will need to take your name off any list they rent. It is a good way for nonmembers to express their displeasure at this self-defeating bonehead move.

  •  Pope also supported Christie Whitman at EPA (0+ / 0-)
  •  Sierra Club Long Ago Infiltrated (0+ / 0-)

    by corporate interests.  In SC they even have corporate hacks on the board.  Follow the money...as always.  The most accountable environmental organization left today is Sea Shepherd.  

  •  'Keep Chafee' (0+ / 0-)

    is the bumper sticker I saw more than a few times in an afternoon on the east side of Providence. On cars with hepster and "save the bay" bumperstickers. The sunday Projo ran a piece about Chafee the maverick as far as Israel and how Laffey is trying to make politcal hay about Chafee praising Arafat after his death.
    And now the Sierra Club endorsement. Chafee may have to worry more about the primary than the general. What gives? IS Pope trying to prove the kos thesis?

  •  Sierra Club = IDIOTS (0+ / 0-)

    Who are the morons running the show over there.  This makes me think contributions to them are just going up in smoke.  What collassal morons.

    Why settle for the truth when you can have Truthiness???

    by wintersnowman on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 05:39:24 AM PDT

  •  ...Because htiing myself with one brick... (0+ / 0-)

    ...feels better than hitting myself with two bricks.

    I'm embarrassed to say I'm a financial supporter of that organization.

    Never again.
  •  Almost weekly (0+ / 0-)

    I get junk solicitations in the mail from the Sierra Club, each one chock-full of the same unrecyclable schwag.

    I find it really difficult to take it seriously as a pro-environmental organization.

  •  The Good News (0+ / 0-)

    The good news in this endorsement is that no one pays any damn attention to these endorsements anyway. The bad news is that contributions to the Sierra Club made by citizens concerned about the environment are being wasted on salaries for these morons.

    In my opinion, when it comes to DC politics these national groups are all pretty much worthless. The best thing to do is to work for change locally. Working for change bottom up is better than begging for crumbs top down.

  •  Couldn't that be GOOD for us? (0+ / 0-)

    Wouldn't his endorsement by the Sierra Club just make him look like even more of the wacko lefty that the Republicans think he is, and could hurt him in the primary?

    If he loses the primary, the Dems have the seat.

    DRAFT BRUCE -- the pro-Springsteen bumper stickers!

    by iCaroline on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 07:02:08 AM PDT

  •  Bad move (0+ / 0-)

    As a member of the Sierra Club who has participating in endorsement evaluations,  I think it's a bad move.  One of the criteria that's used (at the local level, at least) is "electability",  but after being repeatedly burned by candidates who bend over for industry and developers,  I don't buy it.  I'll endorse any candidate that looks likely to support our goals - or I won't endorse anyone.  Maybe the Rhode Island chapter will have the same reaction next time around.

  •  I swear I just joined the Sierra club, (0+ / 0-)

    like two months ago.  And now they do this?  

    At least I didn't respond to that fundraising letter they sent.  I was thinking I'd like to contribute to an organization that would fight the good fight for the environment in Washington... but Chafee?  Aw, hell no.

  •  I used to be a member (0+ / 0-)

    Several years ago... They are doing more and more strange things of late. I hope John Muir is not turning in his grave. 8-(

    I don't like Bizarro World... I want to go home to America.

    by willers on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 08:33:04 AM PDT

  •  kos, if people didn't see the 'special interests' (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    spurdy

    problem before, I hope they see it now.

    to think that these groups are actually concerned with "non-partisanship". they need to recognize that a republican who gives them support is STILL worse than a democrat who disagrees with them slightly.

    ronald reagan is the devil. proof: his names all have 6 letters. Ronald Wilson Reagan = 6 6 6.

    by danthrax on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 08:42:29 AM PDT

  •  Some inconvenient facts (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    walden, Garden Liberally

    I'm a member of the Sierra Club, albeit an inactive one, and if I lived in Rhode Island, I'd vote for Brown or Whitehouse to give Democrats control of the Senate.

    But, Armando, come on.

    Where were you in the fall when 36 House Dems. defected and voted for the Pombo bill?  But that's okay, because...what?  They're Democrats?  If the environment is an important issue to some of us, we should get with the program and realize that these 36 will vote for Pelosi, who's scared of her own shadow.

    I disagree with the Sierra Club's endorsement of Chafee, even with his high LCV ratings, and even given the fact that it's the local that makes this call.  But Chafee is the only GOPer on Environment and Public Works with anywhere near a respectable score (2004 notwithstanding)--Warner is considered a moderate and he rates in the teens.

    Geez, switch to decaf--and consider making the case for Brown or Whitehouse's environmental record, rather than bowing to their party affiliation.

  •  I'm going to be a contrarian (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RickWn

    If Chafee's seat was held by a Democrat, the "Clear Skies Act of 2005" would have passed.  His being a Republican who holds a seat on the Environment and Public Works Committee allowed him to be the deciding vote to kill it (9-9 tie in committee).  If his seat was held by a Democrat, this bill would have passed (since whatever other Republican senator who would have held that seat would have voted for it).  I can see the logic of the Sierra Club wanting to keep Chafee's vote on this committee.  They are assuming the Democrats will not retake the senate; just by doing the math and looking at the races up this year, they may be right, unfortuantly.

    http://www.truthout.org/...

  •  We should do to Lincoln Chafee what Republicans (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Geotpf, Garden Liberally

    did to then Long Island US Representative Mike Forbes.

    Forbes was first elected to the US House of Representatives in 1994 as a Republican. He had a Moderate to Conservative Voting Record. Out of anger towards the Republicans. Forbes switched Party Affiliations to the Democratic Party in 1999. Forbes ran for re-election but lost in the Democratic Primary to a retired librarian because Republican's ran ads praising Forbes for his conservative voting record.

    During the Republican Primary Campaign. The DSCC should run ads in the Conservative Media reminding Republican voters that Chafee is too liberal for the Republican Primary voters that radical interest groups like NARAL and Sierra Club are backing him.

    We should try to defeat Chafee in the Republican Primary.

  •  Any chance Kos is going to apologize to the SC... (0+ / 0-)

    ...for propagating the false 20% scorecard meme and in general not having any knowledge of the facts surrounding Chaffee's pro-enviro record before calling the SC morons?

    Didn't think so...

    Now I get to add anti-environmentalism to Kos' lists of sins he is willing to commit in his single-issue quest for Dem dominance at all cost to real issues.

    All the progressive politics, none of the sexist aftertaste: BooMan Tribune

    by DisputoErgoSum on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 11:02:41 AM PDT

  •  Where's the Dems on Global Warming? (0+ / 0-)

    That should be the Democratic Party's prime issue to campaign, inform, and lead on.  There is no need to run from the environmental issues.  Most of the public want action on global warming.

    I don't hear Democratic candidates campaigning on the climate issue.  I don't think most of them have bothered to study it and understand it.  

    I am also disgusted at Democratic Party candidates who take coal and electricity companies money then dummy up on the issue.  

    Oh, well, it is only your children's world.  

  •  There goes any shot of Sierra getting donations (0+ / 0-)
    from me.  

    Don't be so afraid of dying that you forget to live.

    by LionelEHutz on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 01:35:17 PM PDT

  •  Sierra Club's response (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RickWn

    Here is the Sierra Club's defense of their Chafee endorsement (which still does not convince me, but...)

     

      Thank you for contacting the Sierra Club Political Committee concerning the Club's endorsement of Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island.  Criticism of this endorsement is based on a misapprehension of the nature of the Sierra Club's political program.  For the 25 years that this program has been in place we have rewarded good environmental actions and criticized bad environmental actions in an even-handed and non-partisan fashion.  The Sierra Club political program will continue to operate in this independent fashion:  should it fail to do so it would lose credibility with the American voting public, which relies on the organization for unbiased and accurate political information.

      It was alleged on the political blog Daily Kos that Senator Chafee's voting record was 20%.  In fact, the most commonly consulted environronmenal voting record is produced by the League of Conservation Voters, which gave him a 90% voting record for the 109th Congress, 2003-2004.  The Sierra Club produces its own voting compilation for use internally by the political staff and committee.  Of four indicator votes that were on issues of particular interest to the Sierra Club in 2004, and that were used to evaluate every senator's voting record, Senator Chafee voted with the Club 100% of the time.  We are currently engaged in highlighting votes that we will use to perform a similar evaluation of the 2005-2006 Congressional cycle.  We have tenatively identified seven key environmental and trade votes, and Senator Chafee has voted correctly on all seven.

       Moreover, Senator Chafee has been an active leader on environmental issues in ways that go well beyond simply voting positively.  As a key member of the Environment and Public Works Committee and chair of the subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Water, he has consistently demonstrated independence and leadership on issues ranging from clean air, to global warming, to cleaning up toxic waste and protecting special places.  Some of the highlights include:

          --    He has been a champion for rallying colleagues to vote to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,

          --    He nearly single-handedly assured that the Clean Air Act was not weakened to produce more polluting oil refineries,

          --    He is working to assure that the Endangered Species Act is preserved despite attacks from special interests.

       The blog implies that the Chafee endorsement was engineered by a small number of Sierra Club top staff.  In fact, every Congressional endorsement requires a 2/3 vote by at least two broadly representative committees of volunteers.  In this instance the Chafee endorsement was approved unanimously by the Rhode Island Chapter Political Committee, the Rhode Island Chapter Executive Committee, and the national Sierra Club Political Committee.

       In 2005 the Sierra Club Board of Directors created a task force to examine and make recommendations on the principles and operations of the Club's political program.  One finding of the task force report, which was adopted by the Board, was:

       "The strength of our endorsements and our reputation is in our ability to declare in a nonpartisan/bipartisan manner which candidate is the best choice for the environment. Our opponents seek to diminish our power in this arena by labeling us as a special interest, so we need to constantly strive to maintain our reputation."

       One of the surest ways of sabotaging our public reputation and consequently diminishing our power would be not to recognize that the Senate needs more environmental champions like Lincoln Chafee.

    Sincerely yours, Jonathan Ela Chair, Sierra Club Political Committee

    •  Mmmmm, that is so 1970 (0+ / 0-)

      And that is the problem. The SC wants to believe that their are still moderate Republicans.

      Not really.

      When push comes to shove, they fold. Chafee does have a better environmental voting record on specific targeted votes, but where it really matters--budgets, leadership, appointments, earmarks, etc. he is AWOL. And so are most special interest groups who spend all their energy on one set of issues.

      Chafee does not serve in a vacuum. All of his actions and votes matter. He is a Republican. His party is at war with the environment.

      Chafee may sit out a fight here and there, or save an environmental regulation from the worse-case-GOP-backed scenario every now and again, but the sum total is not his LCV rating. That is only a snapshot.

      Chafee is part of a Republican political ecosystem that is very dangerous to our planet. Supporting him is like protecting cats in the Australian outback or snakehead fish in the Chesapeake Bay.

      If you look at an invasive species in isolation, it provides zero threat and may even have some benefits in its proper place. But Chafee's party is an invasive species feeding on our nation.

      He can not be supported just because some of his actions (isolated from the rest) are cute or even sensible.

      There are many, many, many environmental/social justice organizations that get it.

      These action oriented groups deserve support.

      The Sierra Club is old, established and dedicated to fighting the last war. They seem to think that the way they did things in the 1970s will still produce results. Too bad they are stuck in their rich and active fantasy worldview.

      We are fighting for planet's survival and neither Chafee or the Sierra Club is really in the game.

      Let's hope they wake up. We need everybody if we want to have a hope of saving our Country and  our planet.

      •  Yeah but.. (0+ / 0-)

        The SC wants to believe that their are still moderate Republicans.
        When push comes to shove, they fold.

        I have heard the latter statement applied to Democratic congressement a gazillion times on this blog.  Maybe another problem is some on DKos want to believe there is a much bigger difference between Democratic and Republican congressmen than the SC has seen any solid evidence of.

  •  A brilliant strategy! We should (0+ / 0-)

    all cast our votes for Republicans we think are a little better than their peers. That'll really mess up their game!

    In fact, if we take it far enough we could turn congress 100% Semi-Moderate Republican. Take that, neocons!

  •  Sierra Club Mission (0+ / 0-)

    The Sierra Club is a nonprofit organization with a particular mission, and it would be inconsistent with that mission to endorse candidates on the basis of party affiliation rather than their positions on environmental matters.
    I find the comments of certain DK notables within this diary to be abusive and intimidating - not what I would expect from progressives.

    •  That makes no sense. (0+ / 0-)

      Their point is to save the environment. By backing a party that consistantly votes against environmental issues would be sort of counterproductive, wouldn't it?

      Skim over some what the Bush Admin has done to the environment over the last 5 years and say that with a straight face.  

      Abusive and intimidating? Yea,OK.

    •  not progressive (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Free Spirit

      This blogsite isn't progressive.

      It's mostly full of group-think hooligans who just happen almost randomly to support the Democratic party, little different in style or thought processes than freepers or LGFers.

      I had enough of Kos when last year he came out of the closet as a greedy misogynist, and I am little surprised to see his smash mouth tactics now being used against environmentalists.

      All the progressive politics, none of the sexist aftertaste: BooMan Tribune

      by DisputoErgoSum on Thu Apr 20, 2006 at 05:37:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I would dispute (0+ / 0-)

        I would dispute the "mostly." There are a lot of people here for a lot of different reasons, including the fact that there are a lot of people here.  If you need information or want some help with a project, it's a reasonable resource.  Also, if you want to keep up with late-breaking news, you will find more posted here than actually breaks.  All blogs (and other forms of human communication) require a willingness to separate the wheat from the chaff.

        The more reasonable and open-minded people who are laboring to hold up their end of this democracy aren't as obvious as the hooligans, because they don't rant and flame and troll people. I don't know the actual breakout, of course, but I hesitate to apply the term "mostly" without actual figures.

        That said, "group think" is what you are going to get whenever you gather together a group of "like-minded" people to talk about the things they all agree on.

  •  When are liberal interest groups (0+ / 0-)

    going to stop fighting for moderate Republicans, and start fighting for liberal Democrats?

  •  The realists at the Sierra Club (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Free Spirit

    Obviously the people at the Sierra club are realists, they realize that no matter how much the Republicans subvert the Constitution and the will of the American people, the Democrats will never regain anything resembling real power here in America.  And even if they did it wouldn't make any difference anyway.  Two sides of the same coin.

    In fact you could say that all us Democrats really are just members of the GOP, we just haven't faced face it yet.  We can't bring ourselves to face the fact that the Democratic Party has sold out the American people just as the Republicans have.

    There really are only two choices now, the Republicans, and cold filtered Republican light. So drink up people, drank while the republic flounders.

  •  Chafee (0+ / 0-)

    His score with the League of Conservation voters is 73% for the past few years.
    http://www.lcv.org/

    In some way I can see where the Sierra club is coming from.  His voting record isn't bad, but that's really not the point.  

    He's part of a party that by majority isn't pro-environment so his pro-environment voting is sort of nullified. If he was serious about the environment, he wouldn't be a republican. Sorry, that's just the way I feel.  

    I've donated to the Sierra Club for the last 15 years, as well as the LCV and WWF. I might reconsider my donation this year and forward it to one of the other groups.

  •  OH NO (0+ / 0-)

    I just gave $20 to a very nice girl who was canvassing for the Sierra Club.  Should I try to get it back???

  •  My letter to Sierra Club (0+ / 0-)

    Below my email to membership. I choose not to view this as "emotional reactivism" but a calculated choice of where best to put resources. Sierra Club doesn't seem to be a good choice right now. And no one is really going to make a distinction between RI SC and just plain old SC, especially with Carl Pope giving statements like he did.

    To Carl Pope:

    I have been a Sierra Club member but will not be renewing. As our nation faces ever more increasing threats to our environment, your endorsement of Republican Lincoln Chafee for Rhode Island Senator means I will no longer support your organization. Apparently Senator Chafee's role as a dissident is more important than supporting Democrats to regain a majority, or at least narrow the Republican majority. Even the most cursory examination of policy differences would show that support for Democrats is more in the interests of the environment than supporting lone-voice Republicans who keep the majority in power, a majority that continues to roll back decades of progress for environmental protection. In sum, despite his "Clear Skies" vote, overall Lincoln Chafee, by remaining a Republican, enables Republicans and the Bush Administration.

    I will not be a part of that enabling. My support will go to Greenpeace or even the Natural Resources Defense Council over the Sierra Club. I just do not understand such a short-sighted and confounding decision.

    •  And their reply (0+ / 0-)

      This is the Sierra Club's mealy-mouthed, canned, pretty much unresponsive response. Apparently they are trying to build a "pro-environment majority" regardless of party. How's that working right now in super-partisan DC? And what of Sheldon Whitehouse's or the other Dem candidates' environmental stands? Did analyzing those occur to them?

      Thank you for contacting the Sierra Club regarding our recent endorsement of Senator Chafee.  The Sierra Club Political Committee (SCPC) is the political action committee through which Sierra Club endorses and supports candidates for office. The goal of the SCPC is to elect Democratic, Republican and Independent pro-environment candidates to the U.S. Senate and House. Our goal is a pro-environment majority. The Sierra Club is a nonpartisan organization that endorses candidates of any party if they meet our criteria—which does not include party affiliation. It’s true that we’ve endorsed a lot of Democrats, but it’s because in recent history, they tend to generally have better environmental records. We are extremely pleased to support Republican candidates with good environmental records. In this case Senator Chafee has one of the best environmental records of any Senator of any party.

      For more information on the Sierra Club Political Committee, please
      contact:

      Jonathan Ela, Chair
      jonathan.ela@sierraclub.org

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site